Basics for Everyone

"Basics" is a matter of definition. The worst off of our poor (disregarding the self-inflicted substance users for the moment) would be envied by the street beggars of the 1700s. Do you really suppose that if there were a baseline established now regarding access to (not necessarily tasty) nutrition and (not necessarily comfy) shelter that anyone could have for asking that it would solve the poverty problem? Hardly: the definition of poverty would just be scaled up.

If in a hundred years that what the well-off of us have now is had by the poorest, there would be no satisfaction, because they would look to others that had better stuff and complain that what they have isn't good enough. And then someone living in my dream house would consider his life the definition of "suffering".

This was part of the point I was trying to make weeks ago when I suggested that we give free health care as it was available 25 years ago and charge for the better stuff. This proposal was resoundingly rejected by the liberal crowd.

To solve poverty once and for all, you will have to reprogram the competitive spirit so that people are content and happy with their lot in life, never seeking any more power or self-determination (liberty) than they already have.

I read a book about that future in high school (really bad sci-fi but fairly good literature, if you like the slow, fluffy way of absorbing information, that is). They used chemicals on the fetuses in the baby factory to get it done.

And the why of it all is again rooted in the tribe. Those well-fed, safe-from-the-elements poor can never be happy in their hearts knowing that there are others with better food, and nicer houses. The urge to advance and climb the hierarchy is simply too strong.

Sure, there are rare exceptions, where the circuits don't get wired (at least as strongly). An acquaintance has claimed repeatedly that she is happy with her fairly comfortable life of modest means, but it's also apparent she would prefer everyone live in the same state of blissful giving (and votes that way.) In my view, it's an odd psychological accommodation, but it works for her. But to expect that this can be trained into every human is unrealistic at best, more likely disastrous.

In the end, the world where people have all the "basics" as defined today may be achievable, (and in the relative short term too), but people won't be any happier. At all.

And that new world won't be brave either.

Gridlock. Those were the days.

I hesitated getting into the election debate thus far because I simply hadn't made up my mind. (You should know I'm not shy - hell, I advocate giving free drugs to addicts for the purpose of letting them OD and clean up the gene pool.)

The only driving factor in politics is self-interest. If you're not voting for the candidate that will benefit you the most in the long run, you're a liar or a fool. The trick is to recognize what is good for you in the long run.

For many people it means leaving a legacy to their children or, pardon the sentimental gushy crap, the world as a whole, peace on Earth, save the animals (presumably so I can shoot and eat them), Mother Gaia, and the interstellar community. These people are idiots.

For others, the long run means getting into Heaven (good luck with that), living with a walled fortress, or establishing themselves as a warlord to eventually rule the world. While I have to admire the ambition to rule the world, I have dibs. So my duty is to shut these people down.

But I intend Earthly immortality - after all being immortal is the best way for me to pass on my genes. And what better legacy to leave my children than me? That means money and biotech. It also probably means cloning and stem cells.

The immortality research must continue, so I have to tell all the anti-stem-cell-people-who-are- trying-to-get-into-Heaven- but-will-fail-because- they're-all-hypocrit-bastards to get screwed. (This is a bit difficult because, as George Carlin points out, that's a compliment.)

But axiom 1 is: Biotech Must March On.

Assuming that we do discover immortality (or develop it in a hundred little steps), it's pretty clear that not everyone will get it. Making everyone immortal means an insane extention of Malthus, so regardless how the gushy populist goofballs (or in come cases hateful populist goofballs) might think that life extending should benefit humanity and the Common Man, the Common Can isn't going to get it. Frankly, most people-not-me don't deserve it anyway. So in order to gain access you'll have to be in the "in". (As an afterthought, I'm considering letting the Common Man have it - a little of the Soylent Green treatment would weed out the genepool nicely.)

That means money. Thus Axiom 2: I must get obscenely wealthy to get on the list, even if that means condemning millions of others to poverty (tough shit shortlifers).

Clearly the current state of our government isn't going to make this happen. Republicans have this craziness about them when it comes to sucking up to the folk-who-aren't-getting-into-Heaven-even-though-they-think-they-are. But the alternative is just as bad. That's the crowd that not only sucks up to the gushy brain damaged tree huggers, but want to take my money away from me in the process.

I mean how the HELL am I supposed to achieve political domination with these yahoos running around thinking that other people have rights?

The only reasonable course is to shut both groups down. History has taught us that the taxpayer and the Common Man benefit greatest when the Federal Government can't do squat. So that is the goal.

In order to return to the glory days of total and complete Federal Paralysis, we must throw over either the Executive branch or one of the Houses of Congress. The current state can't continue - no damned work is getting done on my immortality!

While Bush is obviously a complete idiot, I do kind of like his ambition to establish the US as the only viable military force on Earth. He also seems to like cutting taxes on the rich (which is actually the same as cutting taxes, because poor people don't pay, the bastards.) These are huge plusses.

Leading to Axiom 3: I need to be a citizen of the most powerful country on Earth.

But the Patriot Act must be reversed. I simply can't have the Feds looking into my world domination plans too carefully. Luckily enough, there's a sunset clause.

Axiom 4: Nobody needs to see what I'm up to in the basement. Ever.

I think the best bet is to shut down Congress, keeping the President, at least for now, but it has to be one or the other. Not Both.

Hell, no, not both. If anything, Democrats are crazier than Republicans - we can't have that.

Finally, THESE PEOPLE are idiots. And bastards.

Credible Threat

Yet another news release to let us know that crazy people hate us here in the US.

I'm tired of this. Nobody listens and it only gives the Justice Department more ammunition to try to get the Patriot Act renewed.

Well I have news for the terrorists. I got my concealed carry permit today. I am now a credible threat to those bastards.

Code Green

Cheap Canadian Drugs!

You know what pisses me off? (No, not other people breathing my air, that's another rant.) It's my $900 health insurance premium. For that kind of money, I could have a hunting cabin.

This led me to think about drug commercials on TV. That made me pisseder offer (less happy).

Any doctor will tell you that most patients visit the doctor to get prescriptions of one type or another. It's become a machine – people are no longer going to the doctor to see what's wrong and get it fixed, but are going in because they already think they know what's wrong and want a specific type of drug for it.

Fat people want pills to make them lose weight while they eat like pigs. Some people go in to get antibiotics for any sniffle that enters their head. Sad unfulfilled housewives go in to get doped up on any number of different psychoactive drugs to make them happy in their crappy lives. Parents take their undisciplined brats in to get drugs that make them do what they are told. Hell, some people go in just because they want to stay zoned on percocet.

And the drug companies love it. They hawk their wares on prime-time TV selling Viagra and Cialis to old guys who can't get it up for the hags their once pretty wives turned into. Anti-herpies drugs are also a popular after-work commercial for the nymphos who are getting ready to go out on dates. They sell anti-depressants and diet aids during the afternoon when the stay-at-homes are in peak crying/pigging-out time. Then, finally in the late hours, they sell youth to the old, retired folk who don't have anything better to do than watch TV until 3 am.

Pharmaceutical Spending does not all go to R&D. More than 30% of it goes to marketing and administration. R&D gets short shrift at %11 and that's the first to go in adverse markets (what few of them that pharm has.) They create a self-perpetuating model of enhanced costs by buying TV time and magazine ads to push their products to people who then, in turn, push their doctors to prescribe them. Then they raise their prices to recover the marketing costs. When they say that their high prices are intended to pay for unreasonably strict FDA requirements, they're full of shit (that's my code phrase for "lying".)

Frankly, the practice of advertising prescription drugs to patients should be abolished. Advertise to the doctors - they're the ones who presumably have the knowledge and expertise to know when you need Vioxx or when Advil will do.

They cost me my hunting cabin. The bastards.

But the writing's on the wall for them (to be more trite than "full of shit".) Members of Congress are more than happy to suck up to contributors when it doesn't cost them anything. But now the Medicare is going to start paying for prescriptions. They're cheap. REAL cheap. When they realize what they're paying for, they'll be buying their stock from the sub-Sahara, made by genuine slave children.

...Or changing the laws. Doesn't matter to me, as long as I get my damned hunting cabin.

Your Papers, Please!

Whoosh!

Michigan has a law stating that if a cop has a car pulled over on the side of the road, you are required to move over into the left lane, or if you aren't able to, you must slow down.

Pretty thoughtful, eh? Saving the lives of those two or three cops a year that get whacked by trucks on freeways is a good thing: cops shouldn't die because of their revenue enhancement activities!

Last week I had a flat tire at about mile marker 73 of I-96. It was not pleasant jacking up my Explorer mere feet from semis whooshing by me, but I did it. I had no choice.

Interesting thing is, a car pulled over about a quarter mile behind me. Perhaps he hit the same road debris that flattened my tire, but in any case, shortly afterward, a Sheriff’s Deputy pulled in behind him with the yellow warning lights (not the blue and red you're-gonna-get-a-ticket lights). I noticed all the cars pulling over for the cop, thinking, "Saving the lives of those two or three cops a year that get whacked by trucks on freeways is a good thing!"

Anyway, those same people who moved over for the cop, moved back into the right land in that quarter mile, only to whoosh me some more.

I thought, "Why is that cop's life more important than mine?" as I cursed a pox upon all the people whooshing me, and their families, and their neighbors, and the people down the street from them that smile and wave as they pass.

At one point, I screamed, "Enhance this revenue, bud!" To no avail. Bastards.

Where's my $1000 dollar bill?

With the Patriot Act, and Son of the Patriot Act, we are on our way to new depths in freedom.

First of all, let's face it, there's no such thing as true Freedom. And by that I mean the adolescent mantra, "I'll do whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want." You can't. You can't even approach it, even as an ideal; we can only live little pieces of it as an illusory bit of the ideal. (Why, because we humans are all power hungry monkeys, but that's another Rant)

"What does this have to do with money?" If you're asking this, you probably aren't aware of the vast paper trail you're leaving through your life.

Every purchase you make, every time you use your grocery store card, buy gas at pay-at-the-pump, or even use PayPal, you make a record of money transfer. Someone with adequate resources could learn anything about you there might be to know. If you're a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to hide - only criminals use cash, right? They're the ones with briefcases full of money who go off to overseas banks to open secret bank accounts. They're the ones with so much money from drug deals they can't do anything with it. And don't forget the terrorists - terrorists use cash too! Cash must be evil, then. A clear indicator of someone who might want to do Bad Stuff.

That's why they made a law about not moving about more than $10,000 - so they could catch the gangsters laundering their money.

Money Laundering: Why is it dirty? Because criminals touch it and they are dirty! No, because it was untaxed.

They say follow the money if you want the root of a motivation. This is it. The US tax code has had the unintended consequence of taking away our freedom. The IRS has high motive to track the movement of cash through society in order to properly tax income of individuals. You can't actually give someone a big chunk of money either because there's a tax on that too.

According to the CPI calculator, in 1945, when the $1000 bill was last printed (it was taken out of circulation in 1969), that denomination was worth close to $10,222 in today's money. You could buy a car with a single bill of money. You could carry the equivalent of a million bucks in your pocket. (OK, it'd be a big pocket). But even then, the $10,000 bill was still in circulation -- a stack of ten of them would be a million in today's dollars.

But you can't any more, not because the government wanted to crack down on gangsters, but because they wanted their piece of you. If you buy and sell and pay our employees with cash, how is the IRS to know how much income you have? Are they simply to believe you're lying ass? (The gangster, er, drug dealer, er, terrorist thing sounds good, though, doesn't it?)

We are fast on the way to the cashless society. In a couple of decades, it wouldn't be too surprising to find that all anonymous forms of transacting business are illegal. When this world comes to be, then all the tools will be in place for anyone with a power trip wet dream to completely control you.

How free is that?

The interesting thing is, that by simply replacing income taxes with consumption (or value added) taxes, it all disappears. Sure the Justice Department will flop around on the deck for a few years trying to maintain it's grip on your data warehouse, but without the IRS to back them up, they're really not a political force. (See now how they are desperately trying to hold on to the power granted them with the Patriot Act?)

Good old currency should come back, albeit in modern form. We'll see the advent of anonymous credit/debit cards preloaded with as much cash as you would like to put in them. Encryption techniques can even prevent the anymous cash card from being tracked from purchase to purchase. You could give your entire fortune to a favorite grandchild in the form of that card, or you could give it to a random bum on the street. Perhaps it will be called a "Jovian Credit Disk" (if you get that reference, you're a nerd). And the government would always get it's piece when the money is spent - what more could they ask for?

I'm thinking I should be put on the new $1,000,000 bill.

It's getting drafty.

Word on the street is that the military is having a hard time recruiting kids when there's a zillion crazy al Quida wanna-bes ready to shoot them. This is apparently a big surprise, so they're looking to start up the draft.

But kids are smart. They know that going to college could possibly keep them out of the gun sights, so the proposed legislation will now eliminate the higher education deferment.

And. Oh, yeah, girls get to go get shot at too. (But hey, if girls can play amateur torturer in Iraq, they can certainly take it from the other side. So to speak.)

Ordinarily, I'm in great favor of the draft in times of war because it tends to level the playing field. Everyone gets to go get shot at regardless if they are rich or poor. Also, Senators with kids of draft age would think have to be damned sure about what they're doing to make wars and stuff.

Theoretically.

Everyone knows that the kid of a Senator gets his ass kissed in the military, and rich people can buy off people to get their kids assignments in a nice safe spot like Kansas.

So, I propose that we, the people plug the loophole. This is the age of the Internet! We can start a website that tracks such things and gets hypocrite members of Congress recalled. We can find the people who take the bribes and get them booted, by posting their names on a website (perhaps one that operates in Singapore). Unfortunately "The Smoking Gun" is already taken, so how about "The Licking Boot"?

As a final note, I find it distressing that the army only takes well-behaved smart people. We should do more to lower the standards, so that we on average send more idiots and criminals into the rain of lead. I'm writing my congressman right away on this matter and so should you.

Wanna get high dude?!?!

Prison population hit an all time high.

Most of these people are in for drug offenses (I'd post a few links but why bother? It's available on a basic google search.) Why am I paying for this? These people hurt nobody except themselvs, right?

As a firm proproponent of darwinist methods of dealing with idiots and otherwise defective people, I'm completely in favor of eliminating all laws that serve to protect people from themselves. I mean, grow the hell up! If you can't make choices to save your own existence, you deserve to die. Really.

I'd take it even a step further. Give drug addicts free drugs. Free PURE drugs. Legalize all drugs, and send the drug truck into troubled city neighborhoods and trailer parks every Friday night. Then, since we're smart enough to refuse treatment on hospitals for ODs on Fridays, we can send in the morgue trucks every Saturday morning to collect the bodies.

It's a lot cheaper than jailing them, it cleans up the gene pool, and frees up valuable real-estate from people who are better off dead anyway.

There are some lingering arguments about how a stoned person is a danger to other people, like say getting violent (on PCP or acid, for example) and driving cars (on everything from alcohol to strichnine). There are also arguments that drug ODs would cost us money in increased insurance premiums.

This is easily addressed without controlling substances. First, violence is violence -- send addicts to prison for violence. Second, if you hurt or kill someone in a car while under the influence, automatic prison time with a manslaughter or mahem charge. Third, make it so that insurance companies don't have to pay out on ODs and people admitted for an OD can be refused treatment if they don't have assets to cover it (if they have a house, take it!).

You see, there is no solution to the drug problem because you can't solve biochemestry. Accept that fact. Believe it. Live it. The only solution to the drug problem is evolution -- embrace it.

Andy Rooney

I was compared to Andy Rooney today. I think Andy Rooney is a whiney puss and really wish people wouldn't say that anymore.

Where's My Damned Iraqi Oil?

You know, I spend how many damn billions ensuring my oil keeps flowing for the fifty or so years I have left. Well, where the hell is it? I'm pretty pissed about not getting it in a timely manner.

That being said, it occurs to me that the Iraqis have a problem with upstarts wanting control of all the wealth. It's not about God or Allah, or the Filthy Americans <spit> ®, it's about the big pile of cash that every little pissant warlard thinks he can get a piece of.

Well, screw 'em. Write a dividend into the Iraqi constitution. This will accomplish several things:

1. force every citizen to register in a big database to get his check.
2. give every registered citizen a vested interest in keeping the peace (his check)
3. encourage the Iraqis to close down their borders so as not to get more citizens.
4. encourage them to have fewer babies for the day when the oil is gone and the world will have to support them.
5. ENCOURAGE THEM TO PUMP MORE OF MY OIL SO I CAN FILL UP MY EXCURSION!

Good Money after Bad

Middle East hatred of the US comes down to one thing: Israel. So why do we continue?

The bottom line is that they have long since outlived their military and political usefulness. We have all the foothold we need there to protect our interests (oil, in case you're wondering – do you think we would care otherwise). So why Israel?

And politically, they've gone from an asset to a thorn in our side.

So why do we keep sending support? It's not like they can't take care of themselves and we can give ourselves a good hand-washing of the whole mess. There's no upside to our association.

Don't misunderstand me; they have as much a right to exist as a country as any other. By way of explanation, a nation is the consolidation of power by a group of people. A country is then what it can take and hold by force. Don't make the thinking error that there is rule of law amongst nations (countries), there is only power. Israel, under that doctrine has more than proven its right to exist. (On the other hand, the stated reasons that led to its formation was an enormous pile of, um, sophistry. I guess it sounded good at the time, though.)

We have so much to gain by waving goodbye and good-luck that one wonders why we don't get on with it already.

Squeeze 'em 'til it hurts.

You are being lied to and robbed.

I want you to think about corporate taxes. Most people think that it's a due and just and that corporations deserve to pay tax just like everyone else. They envision an amorphous blob sitting in a desk-like or office-like area counting money and paying out a tax bill.

The problem is, a corporation isn't a person -- it’s a business. That means it buys stuff, does stuff, and sells stuff. Money goes in and out pretty much continuously. Thing is, it is continuously pressured by other businesses to sell its stuff cheaper than the other company, or it goes out of business. (That would be the equivalent to a person dying.)

Don’t get caught up in the zeros. A successful company can make millions. In order to do that it has to move hundreds of millions of dollars through itself. That’s not much of a take in the long run and as our productive numbers (which really means automation) get pushed higher and higher, this percentage will get smaller still.

Now put a tax on both the company and it's competitors, what happens? Do you think their profits go down? No, they're already selling stuff as low as they can afford to keep competing against the other guy. If you tax them, the prices of both their services/products go up by the tax amount. The consumer pays. The little guy who has to buy a new microwave because his brats broke the old one pays.

You pay.

You can be assured that the stockholders don't pay, nor do the CEOs. Possibly, it means that the company has to operate with fewer employees, though, so they pay too.

But what about all the government services that the government provides to business? Shouldn't they have to pay for that? Sure. It can be paid with usage fees as they go. If they need fire protection (perhaps it's required by their insurance), they can pay a monthly fee to the county. If they need police protection, the same applies. If they need roads built, they can pay the fee. But make no mistake, they still will pass their costs on to the consumer, so in essence it's no different than the consumer sending in the check.

This is important: The government knows this perfectly well. There are certain realities to raising a trillion dollars from a population of 125 million workers. The big one is that you just can't do it if you go after the top earners. Sure you can collect a lot of money, but we're talking about a million million dollars -- you just can't come close that way. You HAVE to tax everyone to get the math to work, and you have to tax them a LOT.

Politicians will preach that they're going to reduce the tax burden on the middle class and the poor. It's a lie. They know it's a lie because you can't get trillions any other way.

So we have Corporate Tax. It allows the government to squeeze the highest numbers of people for the most amount of money.

Go to a grocery store and buy a loaf of (cheap) bread for $1.00. If your state doesn't have sales tax on groceries, you pay how much in tax? (Don't say zero.) A full 50% of that dollar makes its way back to the government in terms of corporate taxes on all the suppliers by way of their taxes and by way of the tax on the labor involved. The ovens require electricity, which is taxed. The bread requires flour, transportation, inspection, insurance, and a million other sundry items that are all taxed.

So even the poorest of the poor (in the 0% tax bracket) pay 50% taxes. And it's all so the politicians can play stupid promise games and get votes. And it's all a lie.

The sane approach is to simplify it, tax the poor schmuck his 50%, tell him to suck it up, and eliminate the mountain of paperwork. But that would put lots of accountants and politicians out of business.

Darn.

Assembly and the Wire Tap

Humans have a built in need for sovereignty over their person. This is possibly derived from the way we evolved as pack animals and our need to climb the hierarchy. We call it Freedom in our political system. Philosophy and Theology call it free will.

In order to feel sovereignty over my person, I require privacy. I want to be able to do what I want within the walls of my home, away from the prying eyes of anyone who might judge me. And I want it to be simple. I want the fact that I close a shutter to be a signal to others that they are not allowed to look inside, even accidentally through a crack or keyhole.

I want a simple popup notice on my computer to inform people that it is my private property and they are not legally entitled to look at anything on it without my permission. I want this to apply even if they surreptitiously gain access to my passwords. And if they look, I want the option to have them punished.

And I consider privacy to be a basic right -- a human right derived of a biological need, not one that can be abridged by any court or action. I'm not alone -- lots of people want privacy. Lots of people want complete and utter privacy. People want it so much so, that they've derived this right from one of the amendments to the US Constitution. In some cases this has become quite controversial: One has led to a perennial public debate (about which I don't give a damn one way or the other as it happens.)

Hell, I even want privacy in my home so strong that I can set up an illegal operation, like say a pot farm, in my basement with absolute surety that the only way I'll be exposed is if I let the information out. (Which would surely happen if I did something stupid like sell it or tell someone.) Maybe I want to set up a particle collider to create a pocket universe over which I rule as a God. And that's my right too. Many people (especially law enforcement folk and nosey busybodies who should mind their own damned business) think this is a justification to reduce privacy rights. They're wrong.

I also want complete and utter privacy in my conversations with other people on the phone. I want to be able to pick up a phone and call someone without any thought at all, and know that it is a point-to-point communication. And if it is not, I want a little indicator on my phone to light up telling me that the far end has a second line picked up or that the far end has a really good speaker phone that I can't hear the echo in.

Unfortunately, the bad guys won this one outright. They argue that privacy cannot exist in this medium. They also argue by some severely tortured logic that they have a right to tap your calls if they think you're a bad guy (they're the bad guys because they're nosey bastards).

But there is hope! The way I see it, a phone call is an assembly of two people, possibly for political purposes. And while the founding fathers hadn't a clue that there would some day be a telephone network, I'm sure they would agree that having a phone call or a conference call is in essence the same thing as getting together to have a meeting.

Well if you have a meeting, you can see who is there. You have full disclosure. And you can post guards to catch eavesdroppers. If I even think that the NSA might tap into my meeting, it changes what I feel free to say. That's a Bad Thing.

If some twisty bastard (lawyer) can think up a way to warp an amendment against unwarranted searches into the right to abort a baby (again, I don't give a shit one way or the other), surely he can think up a way to strengthen the right to have a phone call.

As it happens, we have the technology right now to circumvent wire taps built into every digital phone. A simple firmware change to the DSP could implement guaranteed end-to-end military grade encryption and it would even work with a conference call. Selling these phones would enable the public to tell the Justice Department to shove CALEA right up its ass and would give us back our right to Assemble Freely.

Would it make police work harder? Sure. They'd have to go back to co-opting one of the parties in the conversation and do undercover work rather than sift through digitized recordings. Would it make it more dangerous? Probably.

Does this matter?

No.

Strap in, shell out.

Let me preface this with a bold statement: Laws requiring an 80 lb kid be in a booster seat is just plain stupid.

I was driving through Ontario a few weeks ago and caught news broadcasts touting their new law requiring that kids up to 36 kg (80 lb). The parent groups were saying things like "even if we save just one child, the cost is worth it," and "it's obviously necessary in today's world". A police officer came on with, "It's a great stride forward in protecting our kids." This mirrors a bunch of laws popping up in the states requiring the same stupid thing.

Let's go to justification? From an engineering standpoint, why the hell would anyone see a need to put a kid in a booster seat? Apparently kids are getting hurt by existing restraints. The only possible reason to elevate the level of the kid is to change where the shoulder belt crosses the kid's chest.

So, the argument goes, this is obviously a problem with the fact that parents haven't shelled out enough money on this mass marketed "safety" crap, rather than properly designed restraints in cars. And the fact that kids take first opportunity to loosen their seat belts as soon as parents start driving has nothing to do with it either. It's also obvious that they will sit still in a confining booster seat way better than in an un-boosted seat because they mind better when parents pay 60 bucks for a booster seat.

Face facts, these laws are nothing more than a lobbying effort on the part of the booster seat manufacturers to sell more stuff. Any government really serious about kid safety in cars would mandate five point harnesses adjustable over the entire range of human development. Then they would mandate key-locks to defeat uncooperative brats.

And what about this argument that "even if we save one life it's worth it?" That too is crap. Wake up people, we put dollar values on human life all the time. Every auto manufacturer weighs the cost of potential lawsuits for design flaws against the cost of implementing fixes. If you run about saying silly things like "life is priceless" you start thinking that "life has infinite value". Well it doesn't. Get over it. Saving one kid’s life isn’t worth a 500 million dollar blackmail scheme.

My prediction is that those same manufacturers will next “recommend” that booster seats be replaced every year and imply that you’re abusing your kids if you don’t.

And what business is it of the government stepping in and circumventing evolution anyway? If stupid parents don't take proper steps to protect their kids, it's just that many fewer of their defective stupid genes making it into the world.

But hey, who’d be left to vote for crooked politicians if they all died off?

University of Where Exactly?

My neighbor’s son was just rejected by the University of Michigan, which as it happens is an excellent school. While my normal instincts of Darwinism and survival of the fittest would tend to pass this off as simply not being able to compete, I know for a fact that it's not true. He had outstanding grades and near perfect (I did better, but then again, I'm a genius) SAT scores. Why was he rejected? The school claimed that "due to the large number of excellently qualified applicants and a limited number of students, they regretfully ..." Yadda Yadda blah blah

I checked the admission stats. It's a who's who of Indian and Chinese students, out-of-state students, and a few Michigan students.

Why then are they called the "University of Michigan", and not the "University of Manhattan" or the "University of Bombay"? Presumably the social justification for using my tax money for general education is that everyone benefits from an educated populace. So my state taxes fund the school. So my federal taxes fund the school. And it goes on throughout my entire adult income-earning life, not the mere four to seventeen years my kid is in school. Now how do I benefit from an educated Chineese and Indian populace? Outsourcing, perhaps? They'd be less likely to nuke me? I'm struggling here - give me some ideas.

Yeah, sure they pay a higher tuition at first, until they get residency requirements fufilled. Some are smart and establish residency before enrolling in school (this is especially easy for out-of-staters). I say to myself, "Something's wrong here."

That would be my greedy bastard instincts taking over. I've decided: they exist first to serve Michigan students, then US students, then everyone else, if they get the money together. If India and China want their kids educated in the US, they can cut loose their billions and fund our education system. Or send them to a non-publicly funded college of their choice. (I suggest Yale and Harvard -- it would serve them right.)

We're better than they are.

I know we are better than they are. Briefly I thought we weren't, but they proved it today. They're barbarians. They pretend to God and in their hearts is only greed and power lust. Like animals, they lack the veneer of civilization that would quench the bloodshed.

Of course, I'm only talking about the vermin who would cut off a man's head screaming, "Allah is Great." While Allah may be great, I expect he won't get to spend much time with Allah. He can probably kiss those hundred virgins goodbye too.