Oligarchy, Anarchy and Democracy, Oh My!: Part II

I was so desperately trying to think of the correct term that, essentially, the land and property that we "buy" does not really belong to us. The sovereigns probably use this as an argument to already further their perplexing agenda of "rights," but imagine their disdain at what is called eminent domain.

Essentially, eminent domain gives power to the national government to seize property with fair (due) monetary compensation but without owner consent. This is usually done when land is needed for government or public use. Surprisingly (to me at least) I did not know that this could be exercised on other things such as patents and copyrights.

My opinions on eminent domain are not fully formed so I won't go into that here, but the fact that sovereigns (and many other law-abiding citizens) think that the property they own is "theirs" are right, but only up to a certain point. The fact that we live in a land governed and protected by a Constitutionally-abiding government means there are rights, but also reminds us that it's the government's land, not ours.

The article that triggered my memory is here. I wasn't planning on blogging about it, but you're more than welcome to share your comments and thoughts on eminent domain and the impact it has on citizens and land owners.

Oligarchy, Anarchy and Democracy, Oh My!

Maybe I have a sick sense of humor, but when I read this article from my beloved hometown, it reminded me thusly:

This is a clip from the Family Guy episode "E. Peterbus Unum," in which Peter creates the micronation Petoria when the mayor shows Peter that his house is not part of the United States. Insanity, hilarity and the U.S. Army ensue.

In all seriousness, however - regardless of the fact that Peter establishes an oligarchy, and so-called "sovereigns" look to a more anarchy-type government (or lack thereof) - you have to wonder how sovereigns get up in the morning and operate within a democratic country. The lack of a driver's license, insurance, and bristling at paying mortgages they applied for reminds me vaguely of a kindergartner stomping his feet when his mother asks him to play nice with the other kids in the schoolyard.

The Constitution of the United States has long been a source of pride for this country, yet sovereigns view it as an oppression of their rights, a piece of paper that stifles their complete and utter freedom. Last time I checked, the government did not owe it to us to establish our own fractured, individual, feudal-like system in which we lay claim to bits and pieces of land and respond to no authority except the one between our ears. Furthermore, you better believe that the few powerful - those with the land, the weapons, the means to barter or trade things of value - would probably start taking over the many tiny pieces in a complicated Risk game-like quest to claim the land for their own. There would be war waged every day. Can you imagine what would happen to our nuclear stockpile if this country went "sovereign?" What individuals in this nation would afford themselves the power? Those with money? Those with the most land?

Furthermore, you'd better believe that the lack of a government means lack of protection. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: if you don't like the government and believe law enforcement is oppressing your "rights," then don't come running to the White House the next time someone attacks the home land. Don't call 911 when you have an emergency. Don't try to drive on roads not owned by you. If you want to mail a parcel to someone, you'll have to figure out how to do it without paying for postage. And just forget about getting married and anyone recognizing the legality of it. Oh, and don't expect people to barter with you for every service you need - most folks around the world still recognize the value (although decreasing) of a U.S. Dollar.

What irks me the most is that some of these people bristle at being convicted for, say, drunk driving because it infringes on their rights. Rights for what? Driving impaired and putting me and my children in danger? How about the delusion that a mortgage doesn't require repayment? You can bitch and moan all you want about interest rates - that's a bit of a different story - but you borrowed the money, you lunkheaded twit. Do you really think a private bank has the power to loan you money for property that is "rightfully yours" and then not have the authority to tattle on you to the government when the property goes into foreclosure?

Our government, through the Bill of Rights, guarantees us as citizens to certain freedoms not restricted by our government. Last time I read the Bill of Rights, it was okay to own a gun; it was NOT okay to put others in danger by driving drunk. It was okay to have a free press and free speech; it was NOT okay to use your freedoms to the disadvantage or danger of your fellow citizens.

This is what gets me most of all: That folks think of themselves most instead of cooperating with the other millions of people who call this land their home. Do these sovereigns have no sense of pride of being part of a larger community and only care about themselves, THEIR rights, what is ENTITLED to them? What a selfish, self-serving movement. Don't they see the other people around them? We all have to get along somehow.

No doubt that the government they see is self-serving, corrupt and dependent on the obedience of its citizens, but that same government provides protection from other governments around the world. This country would be gobbled up and disappear if it was every person for themselves; if not by the few powerful sovereigns in the country, then surely piecemeal by other countries looking to expand their borders, in which we'd just become citizens of another country with another government (if they were feeling generous). Let's not think of the worse situations - second-class citizenry, slavery, or worse.

So, for the few sovereigns of this country who want their piece of the feudal pie: Good luck. Being born on this soil does not entitle you to a grain of ownership, although it does entitle you to its social services, military protection and a chance to navigate through its confusing, enraging, but loop-holed tax system. And if you do get the chance to travel the world and see what "freedom" is really about, let me know what you think about the "freedoms" that some countries afford their citizens when you get back - that is, if Border Patrol will let your sovereign butt back in the country.

Pillow Talk Boycott

This was too juicy to pass up. 

Although it addresses a very serious concern, you have to chuckle when you start to read about how easy it is for a woman, in a man's world, to find a way to frustrate him.  

The women's caucus in Kenya, in an attempt to call attention to the bitter relationship between the country's prime minister and president, urged women to withhold sex as a way of protest.   This has been particularly interesting because Kenya is considered a conservative country, and all this discussion of sex and pillow talk usually has been regarded as taboo.  The women fear that the prime minister and president's argument could open the door to more violence in the country, and so are finding a way to bring women into political concourse and influencing change.

Before the ban went into effect, there were conflicting reports as to how men would handle this ban:  One Martin Kamau insists that this would do nothing but embarrass him, especially since he was "being punished" and not the one causing the problem.  (I'd like to point out that political activism gets the better sound bites instead of political passivity, so Mr. Kamau, perhaps this will give you an especially delicious incentive to participate.)  Another man claims "seven days was nothing" and could "wait a year."

Even the prime minister's wife supported the campaign "100 percent" and hoped the campaign's publicity would be a success.  

It looks like it has.  One man (who I assume swallowed his pride for this one), after the week-long abstention was up, then filed a lawsuit against the activists and claims the following: 

James Kimondo said the seven-day sex ban, which ended this week, resulted in stress, mental anguish, backaches and lack of sleep, his lawyer told the state-run Kenya Broadcasting Corp.

*pause for a beat, then two *

Backaches and lack of sleep?  That's what supposed to happen when you are having sex, Mr. Kimondo.  *snickers*  

The retort from one the activists is even better:

'I have not been served with the papers, but I was told they are coming and I am eagerly waiting,' said Ann Njogu, executive, director for Centers for Rights Education and Awareness.  'It will be interesting to see the face of a man who is not willing to abstain for the sake of his country.'

Ouch.  Hit 'em where it hurts, Ann!  

Apparently, the activists regard this as a victory as Njogu said that they are planning to meet with the prime minister and president.  

Perhaps one of the famous women in the United States' boycotting history is Rosa Parks, whose refusal to give up her seat to a white person on a bus sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott in the 1950s.  No doubt her act of civil disobedience at the time inspired a nation to follow a path of reform, acceptance and equality, and let's assume this:  The white man who was refused her seat was probably humiliated for being the target of a black woman's protest.  Prohibition in the United States was also influenced by the work of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, who instead of promoting moderation of alcohol decided educating children with a "dry sentiment" was the best way to promote the movement. 

In any case, women have found a way - not always grand, mind you - to influence public opinion and participate in politics, even when they are most explicitly not welcome.  Perhaps it takes creativity to get the point across, but the irony of it all is that no matter how hard some men try to separate the political from the personal, we all find out it is much more related than they'd care to admit.  If political and personal matters were so separated, then the likes of John Edwards and Bill Clinton would have a different political history, indeed. 

Wait, Whose Privacy?

Because this is just ridiculous

No, not the fact that mug shots are being published - once you're arrested, your identity and transgressions become public property for the safety of others.  Newspapers are finding some delicious (perhaps) morbid interest by the public in examining mug shots.  Not that this hasn't been done many times before by the folks at TSG, but now mainstream newspapers are getting in on the fun. 

The ridiculous part I'll just quote for you below:

Shannon Nicole Hulton was arrested for drunk driving earlier this year. She says she “knew that so many people were going to see this picture, so I don’t want a really gruesome picture of me where everybody knows the situation.” She adds that this is a “horrible invasion of privacy…and it makes me uncomfortable and sad.”

Um... you smiled for a mug shot after you got arrested for drunk driving, and then you complain about your invasion of privacy?  You put the public in danger and got caught; that's the point of criminal justice.  You do something to endanger the public, you are going to pay with a bit of embarrassment, a bit of your privacy.  Even worse offenders than yourself are able to give a photogenic shot for the police.  Because folks like you, even after you make a dumb mistake, are still at ease enough to smile for your cute little mug shot, not worrying that you'll be mistreated in prison, will have the right to a defense attorney assigned to you at the expense of the state, and that you live in a country where they don't put drunk drivers to torture or death.  You poor gal!  Your privacy was invaded!  Never mind the fact that you'd probably be singing a different tune - erm, smile? - if an innocent person were killed because of your stupidity.

I just... I can't... attempting at... processing... stupidity... CRASH.  Rebooting...

Further on in the report, the defense attorney interviewed makes a pretty good point:  

“If you have a photo of a person with a toothy grin after just being arrested for a very serious crime, jurors might find that somewhat offensive, and find that the person is looking at it in kind of a dismissive way.”

Right on, sir - although prosecutors might welcome this cheeky humor.  

May Day Money

Wife has 800,000 secrets

Well, the secrets are all the same, and until recently they resided quite privately in the wife's personal bank account.  Until the bank called the husband and suggested that he move the money to a different account.  

Here's the back story:  A wife had $800,000 that was not earned during the marriage, and kept it in a bank account in her name only.  Since the money wasn't earned during the marriage, it is not considered marital property.  She decided to keep the money a secret from her husband, who apparently had spending problems.  Well, the bank called their residence, and spoke to the husband about this sum of money and suggested he move it to a different account.  The wife is now suing the bank for disclosing that information to someone whose name was not on the account, and claims she paid her husband $155,000 to keep the marriage intact and reestablish marital bliss in the home.   She is suing the bank for this amount that she paid her husband for their (illegal) disclosure. 

The link above provides two viewpoints:  the gentleman on CNN says that it was wrong for the wife to keep such a huge secret.  The lady says that it's the woman's business since the money was earned outside the marriage, and the bank did break the rules.  They both agree on the legal aspects of the issue (i.e., it's the woman's money only) but then argue about the disclosure of the money between them. 

We do not know where the money came from, just that it came from before they were married.  Two women called into the CNN show and defended the wife's actions.  Unfortunately, no men called in to weigh their opinion on the matter. 

I have a few thoughts on this matter, of course.  One is that I think it's interesting the man got in a huff that this now-rich wife, who apparently has the upper hand in the financial aspects of the marriage, did not disclose her financial status.  He doesn't even change his mind when we find out that the husband has a history of spending problems.  Look:  For whatever reason they got married, I bet she had a good reason to keep her stash to herself.  

Let's say that the money was from her own personal business earnings.  Perhaps it was a life insurance policy.  Or an inheritance.  Whatever it is.  If you were dating around and had this huge amount of cash on hand, would you really want that person to know about your financial statements?  Personally, if I were in that position, I'd rather men think that I'm a poor typist than someone who has plenty of disposable cash on hand.  It's mean, but I think I'd keep lots of secrets about my life until I knew I could trust them and they weren't hounding for a booty call or some of my money.  Money talks, even if it's not yours.  

My second thought is that there is a disparity in this country about who has the financial upper hand in a marriage.  Most of the time, in married situations, the woman does earn less, or stays at home.  She has her own responsibilities in the marriage.  And oftentimes, people get the impression that if a woman earns the household moola or has more assets to her name than the husband, there's something wrong with the guy:  He's lazy.  He's a mama's boy.  He has no ambition.  He's a loser.  He's not man enough.  The concrete reasons are murky, and the discrimination blunt and unfair, but the name-calling remains.  

I think this guy from CNN felt indirectly threatened by the wife's financial power, and maybe even a little offended that she'd keep a secret like that, even though I think her reasons are completely justified:  The wife had to PAY OFF THE HUSBAND to maintain marital peace after the money was discovered.  Doesn't that explain something to us?  If the husband found out, he shouldn't be demanding his wife's money.  Maybe he has the privilege to demand why she hid it, or where she got it, but the wife knew the only way he'd shut up was to get 155k.  I bet you that money has already been spent by the husband.

I'd like to shake this woman's hand.  Good for her that she kept her property separate from this jerk.  It sounds like she had a good reason (or 800k of them) too.  I know that keeping secrets, at least in the Christian marriage tradition, is frowned upon and shouldn't be done.  But the reasons she married the guy and kept the money secret are her own decisions, and considering she had this huge lump sum of money that she was SAVING, not spending, probably reflects her financial responsibility better than the husband's likely squirrely spending habits.  And even if she wanted to spend that money to create more income for herself, that additional income may have been considered marital property, and could have created even more of a mess. 

She wasn't pilfering any of the marital property for her own gain.  Sounds like the husband got away with that, though.  

Gossip That's Not Straight Talk

Perez Hilton, you have built an empire on Hollywood gossip, fame and fortune, Hollywood insanity and Hollywood paparazzi.  Yet for someone who can dish out the the harsh words to your SoCal contemporaries, finding out that not everyone wants to coddle a hot-topic item like a crying child seems to be pretty redundant.  

You asked a question and you got some straight talk.  Literally.  Miss California is in favor of straight marriage, period.  What did you expect?  Sure, her answer had some blond hues to it ("opposite marriage"?) but expecting the girl to be such a politician in her answer is, quite frankly, playing with fire.  And you got burned, sweetheart, in front of a few million people for expecting a nice, vague answer, or even an outright lie just to win the crown. 

You additionally took to your own blogging powers to rip her a new one with profanity and fuel your own gossip story.  A gossip blogger who has injected himself into the very environment that he enjoys skewering on a regular basis!  How interesting.  Perhaps you should be skewering yourself for taking issue with such an honest answer.  You didn't expect that, did you?  Feeling a little defensive?  Now everyone's taking sides and getting their five minutes of press time on the issue, anxious to place themselves on either side of the rainbow-colored line.  And whether you like it or not, both you and the lil' Miss are leading the charge; there is no controversy without yin and yang. 

Frankly, I am tired of hearing that those who do not support particular agendas are horrible people.  Why are we arguing about who's the bad person?  Why are we sitting around pointing fingers and spinning ourselves in circles, making ourselves dizzy and sick with trying to keep the peace?  There has to be a better way to approach controversy than with gossip, profanity and accusations.  The girl wasn't even attacking anyone.  She stated her opinion plainly and without telling Hilton that he might go to hell, or whatever reason she thought marriage is between a man and a woman.  What is wrong with telling the truth about your opinion on something?  Are only liberals entitled to that privilege?  Everyone just says "whatever" when Miley Cyrus endorses gay marriage, but heaven forbid someone says nay.  The media picks up on all the savagery and reports it in fine detail, down to the last droplet of blood that Hilton sucks from anyone's anti-gay propaganda, reducing naysayers to the basest, abusive and intolerant straight supremacists.  Please.  I'm sick of the drama.  

Look at it this way:  In both the United States and say, for example, Christianity and its branches, someone who murders is a bad person.  The ideology that murderers are "bad" are the same in church and state, and we all agree that murderers are bad.  But are gay people "bad"?  Depends on where you look.  The Bible says they're going to hell.  The United States says nothing except that they are protected under their discrimination laws.   Hey, a loophole!

Instead of arguing about gay marriage, there has to be a compromise that does not involve the religious aspect of marriage.  Whether you like it or not, marriage has long been both a religious and public institution, and it puzzles me that we have not figured this out yet.  Can we agree to separate church and state here?  Can we agree to an institution of civil union that affords at least most of the benefits of being married with the exception of recognition from a religious institution?  Look, if you've had a partner for 20 years and that partner falls ill, you should be able to see them in the hospital and be treated like next of kin.  You should be able to share insurance policies and get yourselves taxed like crazy as a couple filing jointly (I still don't understand why gay folks would want this, though, because you do get dinged more than if you were filing separately).  

Anyway, state and federal institutions that afford these kinds of privileges to married couples should be given to united couples, too.   I think the concern is that if a state recognizes a gay union, they will expect religious institutions to recognize them, too.  Those ideologies have to stay separate.  I don't know what the implications will be if states begin to force churches to recognize these unions, because most churches will refuse.  Who really thought they could persuade the Pope on the Catholic Church's stance on condoms?  That's a bunch of wasted breath, people.  Fight a war you might actually win. 

Michael Jackson Announces He's Broke

Well, not really, in so many words:

Michael Jackson Announces 'Curtain Call' Concerts

Surprise, surprise!  Another music sensation finds that he can't live the lavish lifestyle without, someday, the money running out, so I guess it's back to work.   While some fans think that comeback concerts are to appease and fulfill, it's really just back to work for the musician.  Why do you think New Kids on the Block and the Spice Girls went back on tour?  For their fans?  Hah! And don't get me started on Britney; based on the reviews of her opening concert in New Orleans, you better hope that Ticketmaster will be offering refunds to those later tour dates.  She ain't gonna last. 

Forgive my acerbic nature today.  Compared to the amount of money that these people earn and how much they spend, the theory is that they should be keeping our economy buoyant for years to come (well, if only they spent it in the right places).  It's a similar story with the public faces we love:  Actors and former NFL greats endorsing diet foods, finding new exposure on "reality" shows, and God knows what else they'll do to keep their tiny corner of fame on the gossip blogs.  

PostSecret-ness

PostSecret just came out with the announcement of a new book, called "PostSecret Confessions on Life, Death and God."  

This blog is one of several that I check on a regular basis, and for whatever reason you think of me because of this (voyeurism, morbid interest, or just knowing a great thing when I see it), you can't deny that the response to Frank's blog has been life-alternating for people across the globe. 

Case in point:  I have the four previous books that Frank has published, and I like to leave them out on the coffee table.  People usually pick one up and start to flip through it casually, as if it were a photo album.  Then they start reading the postcards and flipping through the pages, reading and swallowing the information as fast as they can, and then go through the other three books in a similar manner.  

I'm not sure what it is about PostSecret - perhaps it has the same Confession-like healing that some Catholics claim to feel after the sacrament of Reconciliation - but sometimes, even in pop culture (over 219 million hits on PostSecret constitutes pop culture, for sure) you learn something new every day: 

When I was younger I used to believe that God and Satan were like Mr. Willy-Wonka and Mr. Slugworth. That they were really working together to see who was honest and I thought that if I told anyone, and exposed God's plan, that I would be blamed for blasphemy.

How's that for a different look at judgment?  Most folks come to PostSecret to avoid just that:  Judgment on their past actions, on current feelings, or future decisions.  We all expect to be judged at some point in our lives, maybe several times, whether in the form of  job evaluations, our parents, or an IRS audit.  It's everywhere.  Most folks believe they will be judged after death, as well; but the assumption that an all-good Presence would be doing the judging is wide and fleeting, while the idea that a possible cooperation with an all-evil Presence may help round out a fuller picture of our consciences.  For a Catholic who believes that Satan was originally in God's good graces, this makes it all the more interesting to think about. 

Would You Rather Be Called Satirical or Bitter?

I've been encountering some invitations on Facebook to participate in surveys about, well, me.  After reading a good 20 lists from my list of friends and being tagged by several, I decided to do a list, but at the same time, I wanted to protect some of my dignity.  

So with tongue in cheek, I decided to make a list that was truthful but funny at the same time:  Things that I wouldn't have a problem admitting to the world.  Things that maybe, if my boss saw them, wouldn't embarrass them to have me as their employee. 

Then I started reading some articles: namely two, starting with "25 Things I Didn't Want to Know About You" by Claire Suddath of TIME, and more specifically, "Here are 25 Random Things" by Douglas Quenqua of the NY Times.  Suddenly, one small Facebook meme started to spurn more journalistic inquiries than the economic stimulus package (a welcome change, in my view). 

I took issue, however, with Ms. Suddath's article and the way it addressed those who participated in the small chain letter.  I would agree with her on one point:  Sometimes there is such a thing as too much information.  There are some weird, even gross things I read about my fellow Facebook friends that startled me, considering that Facebook (or anything else on the Internet) should be assumed as permanent record.  

Yet, participating in spam/surveys is not necessarily an invitation for you to do the same.  I could feel the haughtiness oozing between the lines of her article, slithering across my keyboard and tempting my face into a righteous sneer.  So she doesn't want to share 25 things about her; great.  I don't even think I want to know now. 

The difference between these Facebook memes and spam letters, let's say, is that you are not wading through the spam forwarded to you by well-meaning others.  Facebook doesn't force the issue by emailing you every status update from your friends, unless you're being tagged in a note.  Even then, not many people will care if you ignore the tag, and from what my friends are (or are not) saying, no one is checking up on me to make sure I am reading all their notes published.  Eh, read it or not; the basic premise is, if you've got time, great.  If not, I won't take offense.  I promise.  (Plus, a lot of these Facebook memes do not threaten me with years of bad luck, take issue with my Christian beliefs if I do not forward emails, or otherwise try to guilt me into forwarding spam - a habit I gave up in high school.)

What I want to know from Ms. Suddath is an answer to this question:  How can one criticize pop culture without becoming part of it?  What makes you so high and mighty that you don't participate in it but still become the "expert" on why it's stupid?  Furthermore, when Facebook friend started quoting Ms. Suddath's article on the reason why they didn't participate in the survey, that was the TMI for me.  I don't want to know why you didn't participate; I really don't care.  But by quoting her article and telling me why it is a stupid thing to do spam surveys, you try to set yourself on a pedestal above me in terms of... what?  Setting yourself apart from the crowd?  Being unique, like a sweet snowflake?  Being cultured?  It's more like a cop-out :  Instead of battling the bull by the horns, or being impaled willingly to spill out the secrets inside you, you see the error of everyone else's ways and sit snugly in the audience, refusing to participate in something remotely exciting that may change the outcome of a seemingly one-sided fight.  This is what satire strives to do:  Becoming part of a pop culture sensation in order to understand yet unravel that which we accept at face value.  In doing this, we find out even more deeper things about the culture we live in, and most importantly, ourselves. 

Ms. Suddath, instead of participating in the spam survey and making a true art form out of it, has decided to become one of the snub-nosed, higher-than-thou types that refuse to participate in any kind of pop culture that has the ability to shed light on the ridiculousness of the situation, even while being a participant.  The ability to lampoon yourself is the best way to lampoon others.  This way, while doing something you don't like, it may shine more light on why spam surveys are more idiotic, rather than just saying so.  Ms. Suddath could have made a better article in TIME about this, but rather copped out and aggregated a list of her fellow friends' survey about the things they said about themselves.  While she mentioned no names, I wonder how I would feel if Ms. Suddath published something about me anonymously but without my permission.  (Like I said, you have to assume anything you put on the Internet is public knowledge and permanent record.  Some friend you are, Ms. Suddath.)

This is why I am publishing my survey that I put on Facebook, because I meant it in a satirical manner.  Call me the most snub-nosed of all, but at least this way, I can say that I did the survey, and now I can criticize it all I want.  

To wit:

1. I am tagging you in this note because I like to be a pain in your side. 
   
2. If you puke, I will not hold back your hair or stroke your forehead unless you're my kid. I will run the other way. Far, far away. 
   
3. I have lived through the drunk, deaf kids screaming and tripping the fire alarms at RIT continuously from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. in the middle of winter. (We had to leave the building until the fire department cleared the area.)
   
4. I have lived in California and admit the weather is boring. 
   
5. The sushi is delicious, however. So is the lamb shawarma. 
   
6. I know how to pronounce Charlotte Beach and Chili, but have never had a garbage plate. 
   
7. Either my irritable bowel or sweet tooth will kill me. 
   
8. I hope it's my irritable bowel, because that means I will still be skinny. (Laugh, people.)
   
9. I am shamelessly happy that my stomach does not have stretch marks. They are in other places, but not on my belly. 
   
10. My husband won't take my nonsense, which is nice. 
    
11. I still dish it out anyways. 
    
12. I type for a living. This means that Guitar Hero makes my carpal tunnel flare up. 
    
13. Ladies: If you become pregnant, beware the uncontrollable burps and flatulence. Guys: Beware of this. This is why you are not able to get pregnant, because it happens to you anyways.
    
14. I have dipped my toes in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. 
    
15. Sea lions in the wild are nice to look at until you get too close. 
    
16. There are 100 pictures of me in my daughter's camera. 
    
17. No matter where you are in the world, the Internet makes it possible. 
    
18. I have Googled myself, and am relieved so far. 
    
19. I voted for the other guy because no one ran in my party affiliation. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are still idiots, however. 
    
20. I love clubbing but would rather do it in Europe or Toronto. 
    
21. Catholics don't worship Mary or saints. If they do, then they're doing it wrong. 
    
22. Every year, I love my body more and more. I wish I had loved my body more before kids, but I can't do anything about that now. 
    
23. If you walk out of your door in California, you are probably breaking some law. 
    
24. I have lived most of my life outside Steeler Country (Erie is not Steeler Country. It is a football mutt town: Browns, Bills, Steelers, etc. etc.) Now that I live in Steeler Country, I am weirded out by the jerseys in church, the multiple fight songs on WDVE, and the sweat pants. Oh my gawd. The SWEAT PANTS. 
    
25. I am separated from Kevin Bacon by four degrees.
    

P.S. Ms. Suddath, if you don't want to know anything about my life, quit stalking me on Facebook and reading up on me.  I don't care to know much about you, either, although I fear I know more from that article of yours than 25 Random Things About You would ever reflect. 

February D.U.H.: The Modern Day SpongeBob

Pensioner gears up for 772nd driving test

I thought taking my SATs twice was a failure.  

The Happiest Place on Earth

Pittsburgh defeats Arizona for Super Bowl Title

Today here in Western PA, there is no happier place on Earth.  I'm sure I don't need to go into a recap of the game - it's all over the news.  People who hate the sport are wondering if this was the best game they've seen, and the media is in a frenzy about how this might be one of the best Super Bowls of all time.  Perhaps some links will help demonstrate why Steeler Nation has grown into the force to be reckoned with these days: 

UPitt takes to streets after victory

"Riots," and more "riots," in Oakland after game

Fans at the game

Overturned car and fire

It's one for the history books, for sure. 

A Baby Post

I know some of you readers aren't very interested in kids (or are you?), but over the past two days, there have been three things that came up in the media (CBS and Facebook, specifically) that have come up, and I will explode if I do not address them.  Say what you will about my opinions about babies in the media - please do take advantage of my comments section! - but, in no particular order:

• Octopulets' Family Filed for Bankruptcy (and had six kids before octopulets)
  
• Vaccinations are GOOD!  No, they're BAD!
  
• Having kids = bad or no sex, no money, and no life. 
  

Let's start from the top.  There are now reports all over the media that this "miracle," this woman who gave birth to eight babies after over 30 weeks of pregnancy, has a lot more dirt under her collar than thought.  First, it seems that she already has a healthy brood - six children, to be exact - and she is only 33 years old.  Two of these children are twins.  Somehow, she was able to go to a fertility clinic, ask them to implant fertilized embryos in her, and they decided to plant eight - EIGHT! - fertilized embryos in her.  And they all took, and she chose not to selectively abort them, effectively more than doubling her offspring in the span of mere months. Furthermore,  she is living with her parents in a two to three-bedroom house.  She has filed for bankruptcy and has abandoned a house already.  The grandfather is planning to head back to his native Iraq to bring in money to support the family.   And no one knows where the father of these children are.  

What kind of lives will these children have now?  No matter that, if I had asked for fertility treatments, I would not have selectively aborted them, either.  I think that's the only good choice this woman has made in her life, to be quite honest.  We have these fertility doctors at Kaiser who decided to let this woman participate in fertility treatments, even though she is a multiparous young woman who has plenty of kids, between the ages of 7 and 2.  Then there's the question that she abused her fertility medicine, which may have contributed to the sudden fertility of her uterus to accept eight embryos for implantation.  There's her parents who are somehow enabling this to happen by caring for the grandchildren, but also letting the mother off without any sense of responsibility to herself, her fertility or her independence.  

Last of all, the woman herself... I have to say it:  She is an embarrassment to women everywhere, women who have tried to convince others that they are equally powerful as men, that they should be treated the same, that they are capable of taking care of themselves.  Over the years, women have fought for pay equality, for voting rights, for positions of power, and generally trying to get rid of that pesky, cliched glass ceiling.  And then we find these women who make the news by having 14 children, living with their parents, letting welfare do all the work, with an absentee father, no less.  Who is to blame?  The woman?  The doctors who decided to allow a woman with kids to go through more fertility treatments?  The absentee father, the accommodating parents, the welfare system, who?  This country is already fascinated with the likes of Jon & Kate and the Duggar families, so it's no secret that a woman who had 14 kids in six pregnancies has created a sensational media lion pit, with people screaming about the miracles of medicine versus those who are sickened by the Baby Glut.  

Next:  Are vaccinations good or bad?  Who the heck knows any more.  You'll hear all sorts of arguments:  

• Vaccines are bad because of the mercury.  Vaccines are good because they removed the mercury in current vaccines.  
  
• Vaccines are bad because there are only outbreaks among the vaccinated.  Vaccines are good because they prevent outbreaks from turning into epidemics.  
  
• Vaccines are bad because they pump our bodies full of inorganic crap.  Vaccines are good because they help prevent diseases like polio, which, most people my age do not remember when FDR was crippled from the disease and wonder why there wasn't a cure or prevention for it.  
  
• Vaccines are bad because they cause autism.  Vaccines are good because we can't prove they cause autism. 

So, you get the point.  People have opinions about vaccines, and mine is quite simple:  I don't want unvaccinated kids.  Granted:  There are some vaccines that should be optional, such as the flu vaccine, which is based on a virus.  New Jersey recently put a very controversial policy that requires all kids ages 6 months to 5 years to be vaccinated against flu, and that I do not agree with.  I refuse to vaccinate my daughter against a virus, no matter how threatening.  At the same time, however, I don't know where you get your vaccines, but the ones I got for my daughter were guaranteed mercury-free.  I also do not feel like dealing with diseases that devastated the population, diseases that my parents remember, where most older folks see that the risks of vaccination greatly outweigh the benefits provided by saving our kids from polio, meningitis, hepatitis B and rubella (which is even more threatening if a pregnant woman is rubella positive).  

Furthermore, I take issue with parents who decide to lie to schools about their religious exemption from vaccinations:  These people claim it's against their religion to vaccinate their kids, but they just say that so they can get around it.  Look:  If your kid pisses in the sandbox, I'm not letting my child play in there until it's cleaned out.  The same goes if an unvaccinated child brings mumps to school.  Have fun taking care of them while my child stays healthy, okay?  There are countries in this world who still know what polio looks like, and it is horrible.  The benefit to risk ratio is clearly in my children's favor. 

Finally:  I am not going to let people without kids feel guilty about this one.  If you know deep in your heart that you do not want kids, thank you for making a conscious decision and being honest with yourself.  I am proud that you know exactly what you want, and your decision will not be scorned here. 

However, I do take issue with childless people who think having kids means you are banished to a lifetime of no sex (or infrequent, obligatory sessions), being broke and covered in baby puke, sacrificing your looks for rolls of fat and cottage cheese thighs, and sleepless nights that have nothing to do with how much you imbibed the night before.  These people perpetuate a myth that I, in my personal opinion, am offended by and would like to clear up once and for all:  You don't get what you want without a little work.  

1. You want good sex after parenthood?  Choose the time of day (or night) wisely.  Looking forward to a night of naughtiness is a lot better than wondering if you'll "get to tap it" after going to a bar and bringing home an anonymous bar crawler.  
2. You want money after parenthood?  No one is stopping you from working your job and sacrificing that new car you want, which is, of course, the most important thing in the world.  (Insert sarcasm here.)  
3. You want to not smell like baby puke?  Take a shower and find a burp cloth.  The baby puke stops for a while until they start getting sick for real - hah!
4. You want to not sacrifice your looks and get rid of the fat?  Then start working out like you used to before having kids and not buying so much junk food - it's the same thing your doctor's going to tell you, so that should save you the copay.  
5. You want a night with sleep?  Well, if you have a newborn, nothing's going to save that, but there are ways to get your kid to sleep through the night, in their own crib, at around six months of age.   You are not banished for life to a family bed. 
6. You want nice stuff and money to spend?  You're right - kids can be a wallet drain.  You really do have to choose carefully between your toys and your kids if you want to retire properly (which is to say, without the help of our government, who will burn through Social Security and leave my generation nothing.  You heard it here first, folks.)

In essence, it is possible to have a life after children.  Maybe it's changed, but you can still play by your own rules.  Parents are not asexual, ugly creatures who stink.  Trust me on this:  I have seen with my own eyes beautiful, appealing couples who love their kids and smell equally as fresh.  To borrow a personally hated phrase that is overused and will probably sum up my argument best:  Parenthood and sex/beauty/sleep are not mutually exclusive.  

I'd blame this post on my pregnancy, but that's too easy a cop-out.  There's also many myths that I would love to banish about babies, such as those perpetuated by commercials with babies in them, but this post is long enough.  I think I've skewered the popular media - and those who participate in it- enough for one day. 

Barack Hussein Obama, a Man

So today, we watch the inauguration of the first black United States President.  Millions of people have flocked to D.C., a kind of political pilgrimage, to see history made, and around the world, people are saying, "It's about time you got someone other than a white, male president in there.  We've been doing it for years.  Now get back to work." 

Sorry.  Maybe it's not that pessimistic.  Perhaps since the U.S. is such a young country, we can give ourselves a little leeway not electing a female or minority president until 2009.  But I still wonder amid all the hype and partying and celebration, that being caught up in the moment will soon jump up to bite me in the behind later.  Between the outgoing, unpopular President and an incoming President with a message of hope and responsibility, therein lies a country torn to bits by their feelings about war, about economic strife, about whose fault it was that we can't pay our credit card bills and mortgages, and about watching their jobs disappear.  

Let's step back and ask ourselves why we are so excited.  I am, to clear the record, so proud of President-elect Obama (he's still got a couple hours to go before inauguration) that he has made this journey and given hope to a constituency that has long waited for - shall I say it? - justice.  It seems that much of the black population is finally seeing change, seeing retribution for past injustices by a community largely white and middle class.  I don't doubt the historic implications.

However, our excitement lies in many different places.  A well-spoken gentleman from the bitter, embattled Illinois government has preached and taught a message to us, and it goes against everything that we cried for when Bush was in power.  After 9/11, we cried for blood.  We cried for retribution.  Don't think you didn't want revenge; you're lying if you think that the loss of over 3,000 innocent souls on U.S. soil didn't anger you and want you to point a finger at someone.  We screamed for Bush to find who did this and destroy them.  I don't care if you were Republican or Democrat; we saw our lives crumble with those towers, with the Pentagon, with those four airplanes.  

Then war began and we thought it would be over in, oh, six months.  A year, tops.  How sadly we are mistaken.  Do we not remember wars of our past, and how long it took before peace was restored?  Wars are not about turning governments or countries into parking lots and leaving behind the mess.  We made shock and awe and now are trying to teach an Iraqi police force how to do jumping jacks and dealing with Marines ghost riding government vehicles.  We listened to Lewis Black talk about Hans Blix and Colin Powell, and the government's search for weapons of mass destruction or "ice cream."  It quickly turned into a parody of our current President, the big ears and the honky-tonk accent, standing on an air carrier with the banner "Mission Accomplished."  We went from a country scorched to a country scorned, and other countries' support waned through a leaky ideology of "staying the course."  Eventually, we were left with not knowing what we wanted.  People died; we tried to get revenge; it didn't work.  The man likely responsible is hidden in the Afghani mountains, probably passing on ideas or leadership to other sects who scream jiahd, not unlike our screams for revenge after 9/11. 

Is it so hard to understand that we are like those we despise, more so than we'd think?  What makes us so different from President Bush, or Osama bin Laden?  What makes you different from the woman who wears a hijab or a Muslim who celebrates Ramadan?  How are you different from murderers on death row or white supremacists?  In the same vein:  Is it so hard to understand that we are also like those who we love and glorify, more so that we'd think?  Is Obama so much of a political savior that we put him on a pedestal, clamoring for just a glimpse of him as he swears an oath, or is he more like us that we should be able to say to him, "We elected you - enjoy your party today, but please get to work."  I don't doubt he is ready for that, and even doubt further that he will want to sit back and enjoy taxpayer's money on an additional five days of celebrations before starting on his likely first order of business.  

I have anticipated this day as much as anyone.  Like I said, I want the Obama family to be celebrated today and congratulated.  At the same time, however, I wonder how long it will be before we realize his humanity and start screaming for the change he has so long promised.  It didn't take long for Mrs. Biden to open mouth, insert foot, according to CNN; her husband's not even Veep yet.  Will Obama's smooth talking get him better luck with the red tape that blankets our nation's capital like a Sherwin-Williams globe?  Will Obama's withdrawal or re-allocation of troops prove success or civil war in Iraq?  What will we judge are his successes?  Will he be judged less stringently than his past fellow Presidents because of his poorly-liked predecessor or the color of his skin?  Should we take it easy on him because he has such a huge mess to clean up?  

Answer honestly.  The man - and he is only a man - will have to face his own humanity sooner or later, and we will flame him for it, no matter what kind of intelligence he receives, no matter how well he can utilize our military to protect us.  We will judge him based on the end result, not the sleepless nights or the necessity of pissing us off in order to keep us safe.  I would like to give Bush the benefit of the doubt in that regard, but history will write his Presidency soon enough, and those who write history will decide if he was a success.  As will we decide if Obama is truly the Presidential salvation we all voted for. 

Forecast: It's Cold and Quote-Worthy Today

In light of a BBC article that outlined some of the famous Bushisms we've been treated to in the past, I found an article on CNN that deals with a pretty serious issue:  STDs in the U.S.  (I promise to show you why Bush and STDs belong together.  Trust.)  Apparently, STDs have been on the rise, according to the CDC, especially among women, minorities and adolescents (15 to 24 years old).  I was somewhat surprised by this - why are the cases going up?  Are folks becoming more comfortable with reporting symptoms to their doctors?  Are parents screaming that there's too much STD talk in schools?  Lack of condom use?  Are parents embarrassed to tell their kids that no matter what your partner tells you, they might still be sick with an STD?  The possibilities are endless.

But what cracked me up was the final paragraph of the article.  I have a feeling the media relished the fact that this doctor, the director of the CDC's Division of STD Prevention, Dr. John Douglas, made this wonderfully apt statement.  Dr. Douglas states:

If the parents assume that's the doctor's business, or the teacher's business, and don't roll up their sleeves and get in there themselves, and if our schools aren't giving comprehensive education, and if our clergy and other community leaders who are interested in youth well-being aren't including sexual health on the agenda, we're going to create missed opportunities.

Erm.  "Roll up their sleeves and get in there themselves"?  Well damn.  C'mon folks, let's roll up our sleeves and get in there with our kids!  Couldn't this doctor think of a better way to say that intervention and education is key to preventing STDs?  At least churches wouldn't have to do the sleeve-rolling in that sense; educate people on what could happen when you jump into bed with someone's nether regions which have been to far-off lands and brought home one too many viruses back to the homeland.  So to speak. 

I think Bush said it best with a laugh-worthy Bushism in September 2004:

Too many good docs are getting out of the business.  Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country. 

Right. 

Who Deserves the Punishment?

Moore: Automakers never listened to workers, consumers

On my Facebook page yesterday (between watching woot.com with a hawk's eye during the woot-off), I posted this link about was absolutely incensed at the Big Three CEOs. In the time of their "crisis," they flew private jets - separate jets - to beg the government for a bailout. One man in the article compared it to walking into a soup kitchen in a tux. They didn't bother to fly first class, or jet-pool, or even fly like the rest of us peons do.

So, there's the article about that. And then I found Michael Moore's interview with Larry King on the Big Three and his feelings on a bailout. His feelings are mixed - his father worked for GM for nearly four decades, and he watched Flint, Michigan (where auto jobs are in high demand) descend into darkness as GM laid workers off for the past several years. He says the big decision-makers, the CEOs, the high brass should be the ones to pay for this, but not the workers who will lose their jobs if the government doesn't bail them out.

Usually, when I hear Moore talk, I hear bits and pieces; he's not my favorite guy. But then something he said perked up my ears. A lot.

When Roosevelt came in and when World War II faced the country, Roosevelt said to General Motors and Ford, you're not going to build cars anymore. You're going to build airplanes and tanks and guns and the things that we need for this war because we have a national crisis. General Motors had to do what Roosevelt told them they had to do... President-Elect Obama has to say to them, yes, we're going to use this money to save these jobs, but we're not going to build these gas-guzzling, unsafe vehicles any longer. We're going to put the companies into some sort of receivership and we, the government, are going to hold the reigns on these companies. They're to build mass transit. They're to build hybrid cars. They're to build cars that use little or no gasoline.

Can you imagine? I think Barack Obama would be a brilliant man to decide to put the Big Three to work for the betterment of this country. If you want money, then build something that is going to help everyone in the long run. Start hiring smart people to create hybrids. Help boost our train system, improve our subways, and take after Europe with encourage people to leave their cars at home in the big cities and start walking and taking public transit.

No doubt that between the carmakers and the women of WWII that this country actually had to work together during a time of such utter darkness, watching the atrocities overseas and the death toll rise, this country ended up doing something better for the greater good. Have the Big Three gotten too selfish? I think so. They think about the bottom line, for the company, and only care about swelling those numbers to keep their investors happy and their pocketbooks full.

This country is at war, no matter how you look at it. Compared to past wars this country has been involved in, the death toll is so much lower, but the enemy is invisible. They have no organization and are scattered in bits and pieces, like an IED after it explodes. We will never find all the pieces to put away the enemy, but damn it, doesn't our military need the brains and the brawn and the workshops of the American people to help them build technology to keep them safe and hunt these terrorists out? Isn't there a way that we can redeem the names of American auto companies?

I hope Obama takes a tough line on this when he finally gets to office. Throwing another $25 billion at the auto industry will just result them in running out of money by February instead of Christmastime, and then it's off to bankruptcy court for them anyway.

Edited: After a couple hours of brewing (percolating?) over this, I now wonder how the unions are looking at this. They've been surprisingly quiet. Considering Obama needed their support to get elected, now I wonder if they are worried that if the government doesn't bail out the U.S. automakers, they will have no pull in how they conduct the union. They can force a corporation to give raises and such by asking union members to stage a walk-out, but no worker in their right mind wants that right now; keeping an unskilled job is hard enough these days.

So, unions have lost one of their bargaining chips in asking their members to picket. They are also now at the mercy of the government, watching and waiting. It's pretty sad to see that the unions, while trying to put the power to the little people, is still at the mercy of someone else. Somehow everyone lost on this gamble, and I'm sure that the unions are anxious to see what this means for their members, especially if their members are forced to walk for good.

What's Christmas without Christ?

Be good, not godly

The theory is great: No matter what you do for the holidays, just be a good person. I completely agree. We should all be good people this season, reaching out to the needy and checking our consciences before flipping the bird to someone on the thruway.

But, this quote from Fred Edwards, spokesman for the American Humanist Association, had this to say, and I am a bit bewildered:

Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of nontheists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.

Well, last time I checked, Christmas was still about Christ. It is inherently about religion, Mr. Edwards. Spell it out and tell me what it says. Don't let the commercialism fool you: There are still folks out there who take Advent seriously. I honestly feel that all folks should feel loved and not lonely during the holidays, but you bet I'm going to leave you out in the cold for 90 minutes while I celebrate Christ's birth on Christmas Eve.

I hope this holiday season can include everyone on its festive spirit, but at the end of the day, agnostics, atheists and nontheists chose not to believe. That's part of the Christmas spirit: The belief that a Savior was born, the hope for all mankind. You make the bed you lie in; you chose not to believe in God. They don't deserve persecution from a human, to be sure, but saying that the holidays are associated with traditional religion is like saying the sun is associated with warmth or water is associated with being wet: You can't have one without the other.

The 100th Post is for...

Woot. I am addicted to woot, but their board moderators tend to fit into the chiphead folks who have a God complex over their lowly, less chiphead counterparts and customers. Just because they know HTML better than I do gives them the right to silence anyone on their boards - eh, I decided to play the game. No First Amendment rights there.

I have a nice "Probation" sticker on my profile for the next four hours because I complained on the board that they deleted my woot-off post. There was no profanity, and specifically, nowhere on the site where I am not allowed to post about woot-offs, nor topics that are supposedly off-limits. I got a nice swat on the hand with an equally, minimally embarrassing icon of a vicious dog on a leash. No worries - they still have a customer in me, but I felt like I had to post on my blog without worrying about a probation sticker. Hah. Take that, woot mod!

Yes, I am juvenile. Yes, it felt good to post this anyway. I bought my own Christmas present from woot so Santa won't give me coal this year. Happy Friday, you lot!

Safe Haven or Escape Route?

Nebraska fears rush to drop off kids before haven law change

Not a good situation: Because of a loophole that does not specify the age of kids that are covered under the safe haven law, Nebraska legislators and hospitals are scrambling because parents from all over the U.S. are coming to drop off their kids for good - and only six out of the 34 are less than 10 years of age.

State Senator Tom White said that he thinks this is an "extraordinary cry for help" from people dropping their kids off. I doubt there are that many parents who are in true need of getting rid of their teenagers, but actually those who want to teach their kids a lesson, or just don't want to deal with teen angst. (Can someone show these parents The Breakfast Club and let them know they're not alone? Teens are angsty.)

You've heard of states that have safe haven laws specifically meant for infants so that they are not left in trash cans, school bathrooms, and dumpsters without fear of being charged with abandonment, if the children are in imminent danger. Yet every other state, which Nebraska should have paid attention to, had an age limit in their legislation.

I'll stop citing the article for now so you can read the details, but seriously, are there not enough government programs for parents to reach out to without dumping their kids off at a hospital multiple states away? Every state has support programs, mental health facilities, phone numbers and doctors in the phone book that involve getting help for your kid (and maybe even yourself.)

I think some parents think that this Nebraska law allows them to dump off their kids so they can get help and rehabilitated. Unless the child is in a life-threatening situation at home, I don't see how they can use a state hospital to help parent their kids. I am forever frustrated that some parents think it's a state's or country's job to help raise their kids, no matter what the circumstances. This from the same country who rallied a huge outcry when Bush passed legislation that allowed the government to tap our phones with no precedent! We only want help when we don't know what to do!

I hope it's less than a week before Nebraska gets this legislation passed. We need to protect our young in the most fragile days of their life and especially prevent helpless mothers making a frantic decision that puts an innocent life in danger. What kind of mental hullabaloo is going on in these teens' minds as their parents drive or fly them to abandon them at a strange hospital? "I love you, but get out of my house?" "I love you, but I don't know what to do with you?" Puts a lot of confidence in their hearts about the adult population, I tell you. (That was sarcasm, in case my blogging skills don't convey that yet.)

I hope most of these kids are actually safer in Nebraska than where they came from, for sure. But my gut feeling is that, as more and more reports of kids running away from their parents in the process of dropping them at the hospital and parents admitting they were trying to "teach them a lesson," I have low confidence that most of these kids are benefiting from their parents putting trust in strangers to help them.

Economic Bilingualism

Don't let the big words fool you. I've been reflecting on a conversation my father and I had last night about the big bad bailout, as well as an forwarded email I received about someone's proposal to "bail" out Americans instead of bailing AIG. In light of this, here's the email I received, along with my "colorful" commentary using some points that my father and I discussed. Do enjoy.

Hi Pals, (Dude. I don't even know you.)

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend. (Wouldn't we all want a slice of that fat pie? No surprise there.)

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. (Actually, sir, a nice little tool called Wikipedia states that as of the 2000 census, the US population is 281,421,906. You need to be precise if you're going to present legislation to Congress. You're a bit off your assumption. What's 20 million people, anyhow?) So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. (Again, Wikipedia states that estimates of minors in this country is actually 25%. You sliced off about 33% from your initial estimate. So, let's look at the numbers my way: 25% of the 2000 census population is 211,066,430 [rounded up].) So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00. (Divide 211,066,430 million adults - you don't need to say "18+" if you are saying "adult", that's redundant - into $85 billion, and that equals... wait. $402. Dude. You just used 85,000,000,000,000 - aka, 85 trillion - in your proposal. Doesn't sound so sweet now, does it?)

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend. (With what money? Your inaccurate calculation, which I so kindly fixed for you to reflect the actual amount of $425, won't pay my car bill and a student loan on any given month.)

Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. (Yes, please do.) Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. (Um. Actually, if it were $425, they'd be paying 127.50; for $402, it would be 120.60.) That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. (Whoops - actually sends only 25,500,000,000. Wait. Now this calculation is right. But that's because you used my correct calculation. Three zeroes is a big deal in Congress, all right?) But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. (Actually, now they would have $297.50 [your number] or $281.40 [my number].)

A husband and wife has $595,000.00. ($595 or $562.80.)

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family? (Not much, since there's no way I'm getting that much. But we'll play nice in the sandbox with our fellow citizen and wish upon a star that we got more than chump change to pay one of our several credit cards.)

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved. (Nope. Your credit history is still wrecked and no one will give you a loan to cover the down payment on your new mansion, which us Americans love.)

Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads (Maybe. But then again, they lose 10 years of their life that they could be using to build up their credit so a bank can trust them with a mortgage.)

Put away money for college - it'll be there (Let's face it. Not everyone will do this one. People like stuff. People like bling.)

Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs. (Whoa there, nelly. There are better ways than to depend on a stinking bank - which, incidentally, many are now owned BY THE GOVERNMENT - than to trust the FDIC-insured institution. Diversified investments come to mind.)

Buy a new car - create jobs (Create jobs? How about starting a company instead of pumping more debt into our economy? Trust me, by the time folks buy a car, they'll have two houses and a boat to show off, too. How about tax incentives to green companies, for folks building alternative energy, and policing white collar crime better so that CEOs will grow a company for the betterment of the country instead of their retirement funds?)

Invest in the market - capital drives growth (A bit of a better suggestion.)

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves (My parents' health care insurance? How the hell does that improve health care? Improving health care is about educating our fat, lazy population to exercise and cut the calorie intake. That is the only thing that will make insurance more affordable, when we start to PREVENT instead of REACT.)

Enable Deadbeat Dad s to come clean - or else (This sounds like a pretty personal statement to me. Out of left field. From someone with a vendetta.)

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces. (I understand that completely. No Adult Left Behind. Nice and catchy. Folks will love the allusion.)

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( 'vote buy' ) economic incentive that is being proposed
by one of our candidates for President. (Wow! 1K for every adult! That's more than we calculated up above - the US government pulls through for us again!)

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+! (Do tell, senor.)

As for AIG - liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up. (Stop. Stop. Stop. Do you understand how many Americans would be severely, irreversibly damaged by this? Maybe AIG shouldn't have gotten into real estate, but that doesn't mean you can break up a company where millions of Americans have an insurance stake in it. There has to be a better way to convert the real estate back into a viable insurance policy for those who put so much money into it. THINK, MAN!)

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't. Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.' But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party! How do you spell Economic Boom? I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion. (Coast-to-Coast block party? What about paying off debt and school loans? And you trust adults to know how to use that money? Please. Someone might do some good, and another idiot down the street will be hiding the money to get more off of welfare. While it's a free market and we can spend as we please, the problem lies not only with our government, but in our own wallets. We also got ourselves into this mess, and it'll plummet faster than you can say 'AIG Sucks Eggs.')

We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC. (Maybe we do. But then again, do I feel like being handicapped by the US Government to not be able to make my own living? No. I don't need my government to bail my ass out. I need them to protect me from nuclear weapons and terrorists. I need them to let me have a place to call home. I need them to persecute the guilty and save the innocent, put out fires, keep our streets safe, and gladly pay my share of taxes for these benefits. Harsh, but true. And do the folks at AIG and DC deserve that money? Only if they use it for the greater public good. Not for selfish purposes. Kapish?)

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam. (So you revealed your full name in this viral email. You're a brave man, Mr. Birk. I think mine is more likely to be passed in Congress. How does the LaDow Plan sound to you? Sounds kind of catchy.)

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

Kindest personal regards,

Birk

T. J . Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic (It's my blog and I get the last word. Invest in a calculator and let me know when The Birk Plan revision will be ready to present to Congress.)

Beauty in the Eye of the...

Original quote from Italian priest about "external beauty"

Revised story when nun beauty vote gets canceled - "internal beauty"

Priest gets in trouble with superiors and backtracks to say it's not about external beauty, but internal beauty - which is it, Father?