Obesity and Impotence

Headline from a News network:

Obesity May Impede Sexual Health

Got me thinking about other bloated organisms with impotence problems:

"That's why, just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation's best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge, a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's secretary of energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice"

That item was culled from the President's "We're really trying hard" speech about the Gulf oil disaster. Funny, the only thing I've heard in the media is BP trying different things, and failing, and government hacks pointing fingers. I have yet to hear that the US government had a clue of how to cap the well. Even the Admiral of the US Coast Guard admitted as much. I think the government is paying too much for "a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation's secretary of energy... Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia" that have no effect.

The most that I've heard from US Government scientists is to hear them on NPR talking about how bad the spill is, and how bad BP was in drilling the well. If the government can't get the job done, then maybe it's time to lose some weight?

Open Letter to a Neighbor

Dear Mr. Mexico,

I hope this letter finds you well. We seem to be laboring under different impressions about our relationship and the property line between your yard and mine. I don't wish to cause you distress by bringing this up, but the situation has become intolerable. As civilized neighbors, I believe we can work things out in a civilized manner.

The County Assessor's office has a clearly marked boundary on file, pursuant to our last discussion about the property line, from February 2, 1848. I do recall that it was settled under less than friendly circumstances, but a deal is a deal. While we had respectful exchanges opinions about each others' yards, we realize that our right to dictate behavior stops at our respective side of the fence. I respect your authority to set rules for your yard, so I would kindly ask that you respect my right to exercise authority over my yard.

Just because I pay you to mow my lawn doesn't give you the right to send your kids over to climb my tree whenever they want. While innocuous in and of itself, your kids frequently leave pop cans and candy wrappers on the lawn. Plus, they tend to tell my own kids that they cannot climb the tree when they are, inflaming tensions between our families.

Also, I would be so humble as to point out that there is a big difference between my inviting you over for a beer, and you coming over while I'm at work and helping yourself to the contents of my refrigerator. Your refrigerator may be near empty, but that is not sufficient justification to helping yourself to what is mine. I'm a generous guy, if you ask around the neighborhood, you'd see that it's true. Still, your presumptuousness is wearing on my patience.

Yes, some of my kids have no problem with the behavior of you and your kids, but my kids have a sketchy idea, at best, of property rights. Some of my kids like the fact that your kids will mow my lawn and wash my car so that they don't have to, but that's beside the point. I decide what goes on at my house, not the children. So, don't send your kids over to have my own kids yell at me for sending your kids home or for insisting on my property rights.

You really need to have a discussion with your children about Cause and Effect. When they throw rocks at my dog, he gets angry. That's why he's bitten your kids on a couple recent occasions. If your children insist on continuing to throw rocks, the dog's mood will not improve, and more biting will ensue. Rant and rave all you want, but they're the one throwing the rocks at the dog to begin with.

I know that my attention to this issue has been spotty, as I still am dealing with some creeps from a couple blocks over, the ones that stole my BBQ grill. Still, I do think that we need to address this swiftly and with all due civilized discussion.

Your Neighbor,

U. S. America

No, the World Did Not End, Yet...

Ha!

I decided to give up apocalyptic musings for Lent, and so to help me, Congress and President Obama decided to pass health care reform legislation. Okay, you caught me; I'm being flip.

Is it the end of the world, no. At least not until the legislation actually starts wreaking the destruction it promises to. The problem with our health care system is this; it works great for the Haves, okay for the Somewhat Haves, and not really for the Have-Nots. Seeing as how the Haves have fallen out of favor with the rest of us (with copious defamation from the mouthpieces of the Have-Nots), their opinions have been largely ignored. The grievances of the Have-Nots have filled the airwaves, print media, and Internet.

There are also a lot of Used-to-Haves out there, embittered by their Used-to-Have status, and they've been no help at all. A lot of these folks borrowed heavily to imagine themselves in the Haves caste, only to have those pesky 7-year balloon mortgages pop.and maxed out consumer credit tighten up.

What does all that have to do with the "heath care reform"? The socio-economic infighting has let the Statists dictate the terms of debate as class struggle and not a more fundamental question: is the Federal government responsible for the individual citizen's life, from cradle to grave?

If someone is responsible for something, you'd expect to give them the authority and powers to ensure a successful outcome. In this case, by making the State responsible for the health and well-being of the Individual, the individual needs to surrender sovereignty to the State. The State must now make the choices for the individual to effectively discharge it's duties. Obesity is a problem in this country, so the State MUST take action to prevent it. Coercive measures will develop, not only for the individual health's sake, but also the fiduciary health of the State.

Insurance companies are already applying the financial pressure offering "discounts" to people that enroll in their wellness/parole plan, and financially punishing those that don't participate. Government will do the same thing.

Huckabee Gets It

It seems that very few folks understand the drawbacks of the "Economic Stimulus Package". Mike Huckabee understands, and said this during the GOP debate last night:

"We'll probably end up borrowing this 150 Billion dollars from the Chinese. And when we get those rebate checks, most people are gonna go out and buy stuff that's been imported from China. I have to wonder who's economy is going to be stimulated the most by the [economic stimulus]package."

Is anyone else going to have the stones to say that?

Economic Needle Exchange

I've been quietly watching the sub-prime mortgage mess, and the subsequent hand-wringing from economists, bankers, and politicians.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my impression: Having burned through their own cash and available credit, American consumers are now looking to the federal government for money to continue spending.

I won't accuse anyone specific of being especially profligate (except perhaps myself), but it seems that the federal government's budgeting and spending problems are mirrored by the population at large.

With the sub-prime mortgage mess, we had two terrible proclivities coincide. Consumers tried to buy houses that they could barely afford, and/or were bigger or nicer than they needed. Banks tried to lend money to encourage the above behavior in hope of getting even more money than they were already making on more stable loans. Mr. Greed, this is Mr. Avarice. Mr. Avarice, Mr. Greed. Now that proper introductions have been made, let's start f#¢&ing things up.

Our currency has already been in decline, and doing a tax revenue handout to non-taxpaying spenders will not help. If the federal treasury sends out a $500 check to each household, it'll only be worth $450 by the time it gets cashed.

As an added insult to injury, most of what gets purchased with the kickback will be on foreign-made goods, which will only continue to widen trade gaps, and continue the hemorrhage of money from the country.

Unless the american consumer decides to live well within their means, and buy things made in this country, nothing we do will halt the decline. The same could be said for the federal government as well.

As for me, if a check shows up at my door, I'm turning around and putting it in gold or Euros.

Fairness v. Bias

From WorldNetDaily:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is "looking at" bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, a controversial policy designed to ensure equal time for all political viewpoints on radio, but criticized by many as resulting in the opposite result.

Peeved by conservative proliferation in talk radio forums, she's hoping to try and rein in the archconservatives rockin' on the mic:

"Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact... because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way."

Oh, so shall we then apply the same scrutiny to PBS and NPR? Hell no, the senator says:

"The Corporation for Public Broadcasting exists – to ensure independence and freedom from political influence. Its mission is to protect public broadcasting from political persuasions of either side."

So if the CPB is free from bias, then why excoriate those who would verify the claim to impartiality? Feinstein was one of several Democrats to howl for the resignation of Ken Tomlinson, CEO of the CPB, as he dared to study bias in the broadcasts of PBS and NPR.

But for all her support of 'Fairness', the senator admits that it's all in the eye of the beholder:

" We all know that what is needed to create balance is subjective. "

And her unspoken ultimatum: Those in power decide what the balance is.

Dear Senators

A letter to my senators, that though they may not read it, you and Google can:

Senators Hagel and Nelson,

This is embarrassing, guys, and not what I elected you for. Looking at the news reports, it seems you guys, along with many others in Congress, are running around like Frenchmen; arms in the air, looking for someone to surrender to.

I get it, you guys want to get reelected someday, but screwing up this war is selfishness. A common criticism of the war in Viet Nam was that Congress meddled with how to fight the war. Another factoid about Viet Nam is how many people in the region were slaughtered, by the regimes we left intact, after we gave up.

Whether we were suckered in rightly or wrongly, let us agree to be men about it and finish the job so that we don’t leave the populace of Iraq in peril. It may not be in the “National Interest”, at least in the short-term, but it should be a point of national honor. I hope you have the courage to do the honorable thing.

Sincerely,

[St. Jimbob's real name will remain a misery, um, mystery]

Possible Reasons

Why are many Americans so down about our situation in Iraq, and so ready to run away? I pondered different generations, and their track records with commitment:

1) Baby Boomers - A 34% divorce rate tells me that when the going gets tough, these cats just pack up and go. Couple a flight instinct with an aversion to blood, and you can see why Boomer politicians are almost universally posturing with a white flag.

2) The 'Me' generation - 'Nuff said.

3) Generation X - Discovered the Boomers' "Don't trust anyone over 30" kool-ade, and mixed it with cough syrup. Makes Barney Fife look like the model of courage and intestinal fortitude.

4) Generation Y - The culture of Hook-ups is not the model of commitment that would fan the flames of patriotism, now is it? Sated with violent video games, a culture of glorified lawlessness, and petulant marxism, who really feels like volunteering to defend this mess?

Regardless of the failings of the overall populace, the men and women that choose to defend this country rise head and shoulders above their protesting peers. These soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines deserve every right and privelege that the snivelling masses shrilly demand.

Avenues

"As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

- George Washington, Farewell Address

10% Less, Right Now

If our national security is compromised by our fuel consumption right now, why wait ten years to cut usage by 20%. Let's start right now. Being January, we're at the beginning of a new year, so let's see if we can't drop our own usage by, say, 10%.

Ten percent, right now. How, you may ask? Make fewer trips to Walmart (another issue tackled later), use public transportation, plan your errands to reduce inefficiency, car pool. Use your imagination.

During World War II, gasoline was rationed. We were at war, and had to make sacrifices. Why not bring that same level of urgency to our consumption now?

While we're at it, another threat to our national security is looming in the form of our trade and currency imbalances with China. Not only have they siphoned away our manufacturing base with artificially low labor costs and created a trade imbalance with low-cost goods, but they've bought enormous amounts for U.S. debt, guaranteeing their leverage over us, economically.

Let's also buy less from China, say 10% less, right now. Every purchase, evaluate the need for the item, and look for non-Chinese alternatives. It will involve some time, research, and some sacrifice, but remember: This is our national security at stake!

10% less gasoline use, 10% less Chinese trade. Let's do it.

Quid pro quo?

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), is greenlighted for a seat on the Senate Appropriations Comittee. Whoa. Now how would a second-term, conservative-voting democrat from Nebraska, of all places, suddenly rate a seat on the Pork Cmte? As a reward for voting with the democrats in the past? Not likely. As an incentive to vote with a more liberal agenda in the future? Mayhaps. I think this maneuver is a tacit admission by the Senate Democrats that the election swing was more centrist, rather than the Liberal Landslide they've been crowing about on TV.

All through the campaign, Nelson's talked about fiscal responsibility, which simultaneously crowing about the pork he's brought home. What's his line going to be, now that he's got a seat right next to the barrel, with his hand on the lid?

Nelson said he’ll approach the task with three goals in mind:

* identify and reduce needless spending.

* improve transparency and accountability in the appropriations process.

* work with local officials in Nebraska to “ensure Nebraska priorities are recognized in the Senate.”

What that means, Nelson said in a telephone interview, is that “Nebraska is going to get its fair share now.”

By "fair share", I would imagine that means a restrained approach to appropriations, or does it mean that we'll get our "fair share" of needless spending?

And now that Nebraska has a hand in the cookie jar, how beholden are we to the folks that pushed the chair to the kitchen counter? We'll just have to watch his voting record this term to see if there's a sudden shift to the Left.