Category: Ranting

A donkey in elephant’s clothing

I read an interesting article today about our nation’s projected deficit over the next decade. The Congressional Budget Office had estimated a deficit of $2.01 trillion for 2005-2014, but that’s going to fall short. The updated estimate is $2.29 trillion. For those of us keeping score at home, that’s $2,290,000,000,000. I believe the official term for that is A Lot&#153.

It’s been awhile since I mentioned the presidential election, but I haven’t forgotten. There are many issues involved, of which I’m sure I’ll bitch about most of them over the next two months, but our fiscal crisis is what needs attention now. President Bush has no rational reason to praise himself as much as he has for our economic situation. Based on the promises of more federal spending in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, I fear it’s only going to get worse.

I’m not going to babble about the economy because I don’t believe the President has as much control over the economy as most people believe. Alan Greenspan’s opinion matters more to me. But I do care about the deficit. As much as this may surprise you, I’m a fiscal conservative. I don’t believe the government can solve all of our problems. I don’t believe in throwing more money at problems. I don’t believe in wealth redistribution. The tax code is unfair and the government is too large. Every one of those is a reason why I’ll be voting for John Kerry in November.

Reading Andrew Sullivan recently, I read his comment that sums this up as succinctly as I could, so I’ll quote him here:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government. By any measure, that makes Kerry – especially as he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending – easily the choice for fiscal conservatives.

Bill Clinton, in conjunction with the bi-partisan Congress, balanced the budget. President Bush, with the support of the fully Republican Congress, has returned us to Reagan-era deficits. Granted, the economy was better under President Clinton, but my argument loses little significance. President Bush believes the government can better than we can. He doesn’t want us to pay for it, though, which is why we get tax breaks. Yet, I can’t help feeling that, since he so obviously treats us as though he’s our father, it’s bad parenting of the worst kind that he wishes to pass our debts to our children and grandchildren. This is compassionate conservatism?

My calendar is broken

As part of my job, I’m responsible for system design. The easiest way to represent these is with flowcharts for the overall process, as well as the interaction of various systems. The de facto standard for flowcharts is Microsoft Visio. Since my project is only in design phase for a short time and the retail price for the standard version is $200, I chose to “try” the Trial Version of Visio for August. (In my former job, my employer provided Visio as a standard workstation installation. Since I’m now paying the bill, it’s not standard.)

When I installed it, I received this message. I wouldn’t normally expect to get into a battle of semantics with Microsoft, but I must when reading their statement that “This copy will expire on August 31, 2004”. Like any reasonable person who knows English, I understood this to mean that I can use the Trial Version until 11:59 pm on August 31st. I was mistaken. When I started Visio on Tuesday, I saw this message. That isn’t what I wanted to see. Microsoft and I agreed that I could use the software through the 31st, but they broke our deal and I’m none too pleased about it.

In the past I’ve been a supporter of Microsoft. I don’t believe that being a monopoly is bad as an objective reality. When a company earns it, it’s free enterprise at its best. Even though Microsoft went too far and strong-armed competitors, I don’t mind a few violations of the rules of competition as long as they don’t mess with the English language. There I have to draw the line.

For my last use of Visio, I created a flowchart to represent the Trial Version evaluation process. Even though I will not purchase Visio, it’s a great product. See for yourself and guess which path I chose at the decision point.

That’s why England is better than America

Robbie Williams. If I mention him to people, odds are good that I’ll get a blank stare. But if I say Jessica Simpson, even a 2-year-old will know who I’m talking about. Outrageous, if you please.

Why do I mention this? Because Jessica Simpson’s singing is proof that Satan exists. How else could she get a recording contract with so little talent? Because I didn’t care, this didn’t occur to me until I heard the singles for her new album. The first song was forgettable, since I can’t remember the title and can’t be bothered to look it up. I know the video had rampant hilarity as she poked fun at her “stupid” image, but it doesn’t matter. Her songs after that first single are the problem.

Her remake of “Take My Breath Away” annoyed me. Considering that Mrs. Lachey has none of the range of Terri Nunn, someone should’ve taken the microphone away from her when she hinted at singing that classic. I imagine the producer commanding her to “Emote. Emote. Emote!” during that recording session, but the important lesson that her fans need to learn is simple: screaming does not equal emotion. So I said “Ugh”.

That “ugh” was a minor whimper compared to the violent tantrum of obscenities I spewed when I heard single #3, the current release from her latest album. Not only has she botched an 80’s classic from my youth, she’s butchered a new 90’s classic from my early adulthood. She covered the brilliant Robbie Williams song “Angels“. When I write “covered”, I mean “tortured the life out of it“.

When will the madness end? When will the talented musicians be popular? Every parent who has purchased her new album for their kid(s) should be sent to remedial parenting classes as punishment. Allowing a child to believe that Jessica Simpson is talented because she made an album is equivalent to teaching a child that placing her hand in fire is good because it leaves a cool scar or that not stabbing himself while running with scissors is the entrance exam to Harvard. It’s a fucking travesty. I pray she never finds the lyrics to “Imagine”.

They have a saying for this in Tennessee

President Bush is looking out for us. Even though the FMA is “dead”, our president believes that this issue must continue. Consider his statement from yesterday:

“Activist judges and local officials in some parts of the country are not letting up in their efforts to redefine marriage for the rest of America and neither should defenders of traditional marriage flag in their efforts,” he added.

“It is important for our country to continue the debate on this important issue, and I urge the House of Representatives to pass this amendment,” the president said.

Pass this amendment, even though the Senate has already shown that sufficient support doesn’t exist? As opposed to focusing on real issues like national security? Worry not, though. Anyone who is fretting that Republicans don’t have an alternate plan, they do. It’s called HR 3313 IH, and it passed the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. It states:

`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 1738c of this title or of this section. Neither the Supreme Court nor any court created by Act of Congress shall have any appellate jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 7 of title 1.’.

Do you read that text the same way I do? Let me offer a statement that sums up my interpretation:

“This simply defers to the states,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

This is hypocritical. While promoting a Constitutional Amendment, Republican leaders have stated that we, the right-thinking Americans, can’t trust state-level “activist judges” to continue defining marriage correctly. By extension, they claim that the Defense of Marriage Act isn’t safe. Yet, now that the FMA is on life support, Republicans wish to eliminate all federal jurisdiction over marriage? What about those “activist judges”? Won’t they do exactly what we’ve been told they’ll do?

Oh, wait… I know why… They’re using HR 3313 IH to remove any association of the “full faith and credit” clause with marriage. It’s good to know that they’re looking out for me. This will be a great precedent that Congress can abolish the federal judiciary from considering any argument I might make that one state won’t honor a contract entered into in another. Good idea.

Given the obvious fallacy of this legislation, I suspect it will not hold up. I guess I should be cheering, but I’m not. Congress is playing politics with our law. While this is not new, it’s hard to recall such a blatant attempt to redefine American democracy into something less than itself. That is my fundamental problem with the way our leaders are undertaking this “debate”. This is shameful, but it’s not going away.

Consider:

Republican officials also said it was possible they would stage other votes on gay marriage before the fall elections.

In addition, several officials said a constitutional amendment may be brought to the floor in the fall, closer to the election.

At least this issue is not politically motivated, as critics have suggested.

Stamp my passport when we return to America

Guess what? Just when you thought I was over the Federal Marriage Amendment, I’m back to discuss it again. This time, I’m going to offer communication with one of my Senators, Senator George Allen. Since the Senate is going to consider a Federal Marriage Amendment next week, it’s important to me that I make my opinion known. So I sent a letter. Again. This is Senator Allen’s response:

Dear Tony:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of marriage and a Federal Marriage Amendment. I appreciate your concerns and want my position to be very clear.

As a United States Senator, I will support and protect the traditional, common sense definition of marriage in law as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. While it was my hope that the existing Defense of Marriage Act could accomplish this goal, I believe that recent events and future court decisions indicate that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect the rights of the people in the States to define the institution of marriage.

To that end, I will vote for a Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when the Senate considers one in July.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you would like to receive an e-mail newsletter about my initiatives to improve America, please sign up on my website (http://allen.senate.gov). It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate, and I look forward to working with you to make Virginia and America a better place to live, learn, work and raise a family.

With warm regards, I remain

Sincerely,

Senator George Allen

You know I won’t just throw my hands up, roll my eyes and leave that alone. So I responded. Consider:

Senator Allen,

Although I’m thrilled to learn that you’ve developed psychic powers allowing you to know the results of future court decisions, I fail to see how voting for a Constitutional amendment will fix this. Perhaps if you could offer case names and majority opinions from those future court decisions, I could better appreciate the perils facing our nation. Until you’re able to forward me such informative details, you are wrong in your support of any Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

The amendments up for consideration do not support American ideals. The U.S. Constitution is our most sacred document. It should not be desecrated to remove rights from the people. It’s most glorious achievement is that it protects the people from government. Any marriage amendment does not meet this ideal. It eliminates the idea of federalism and the right of the people of individual states with respect to marriage. How will you “protect the rights of the people in the States to define the institution of marriage” by removing any option for the people to define the institution of marriage for themselves?

As long as we believe in freedom, the people have a right to make decisions for themselves, however immoral you may believe those decisions to be. With marriage, the only concept open for debate is what will the government of the people allow. Since we believe in equality, the government must not eliminate rights from citizens, despite a presumed majority opinion to the contrary. The government must recognize certain rights, whether or not the churches of the nation support them. The legal definition and the religious definition of marriage may differ, but the legal definition must provide equality.

Based on your support for any potential marriage amendment, please know that you do not serve me in the United States Senate.

Tony

P.S. Since you have psychic powers, you can serve me by providing me with this week’s PowerBall numbers. Thank you.

Whatever your opinion of same-sex marriage, a Federal Marriage Amendment is not the solution. The U.S. Constitution is sacred and should not be altered at the whim of a repressive social agenda. If we abandon American ideals with this amendment, this is the true slippery slope that concerns me. Please, regardless of your opinion, let your Senators know that this amendment is wrong.

The Titanic was unsinkable.

Yesterday, Senator Hillary Clinton visited San Francisco to headline a Democratic fund-raiser. During her remarks, she made an interesting comment. Consider:

“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Ignoring the obvious point that she is not a mother hen who can “take things away”, I’m going to move on to the productive aspect of my concern. Senator Clinton, please explain “the common good”. If you mean that we’re going to work to be fiscally responsible by reducing spending, ending the deficit, and repaying the national debt, I accept that definition. If you mean increasing revenue, ending the deficit, and examine the national debt, then I do not accept your notion of the common good.

I hate taxes, but no one will say they love taxes. I love fiscal responsibility, but no one will say they hate fiscal responsibility. We agree on basic ideas. However, the federal government is not entitled to any specific amount of revenue monetary inflow. The federal government’s role is to do things for the citizenry that it can’t or shouldn’t do for itself: national defense, public education, infrastructure, etc. But now, thanks to spending increases and tax cuts, we see an additional, expanding item added to the federal government’s responsibilities that shouldn’t exist: servicing the national debt.

We do nothing to reduce this balance. Indeed, in the last few years, we’ve increased it. We don’t stop spending, though. It’s irrelevant that the interest payments will continue to grow. We don’t care that this will become an economic tumor, consuming more of our nation’s wealth the longer it is left unchecked. This must stop.

During my undergraduate years, I created a debt mountain for myself through irresponsible use of credit cards. This cycle continued throughout my 20’s as I made payments that covered interest without touching principal, while continuing to spend on credit for necessities. I struggled like this for years until I began to earn a higher income. Once my income increased, I stopped struggling, but I continued to pay the consequences of my previous decisions. As I contributed more to principal, I watched my debt decrease. That lasted for several years. One day, after much discipline, I paid my last credit card debt in full.

The part of that story that is ignored is the true impact. As my income rose, I didn’t increase my spending. I didn’t get to enjoy the new cars, clothes, and computers. While many of my friends were able to acquire these items, my spending remained at my poorest levels. When my friends bought houses, I did not. I’d earned as much as them, but I wasn’t able to save for a house. I still rent the house I live in.

I don’t regret my mistakes because they’ve given me the life I have now. But I do not perpetuate them. As a nation, we’re perpetuating our mistakes. We believe that we’re invincible and no harm can occur from our debt. The dollar is the most respected currency in the world, but that doesn’t guarantee its future. We have to begin treating our economic future with respect and understand that our debt cannot continue to grow. America has acted like a trust fund baby for too long. Changing one side of the tax inflow/outflow equation is insufficient.

Joe’s insurance claim can wait.

Is talking on a cell phone in a public bathroom a habit exclusive to men? Answering a ringing cell phone?

I’m serious. I don’t have any clue if women do this or not. I assume not, but I’d like to know. Men do this all the time, despite it being a vile habit that must cease.

To the men who do this (yes, I’m talking to you, That Guy&#153): you don’t mind transmitting the sound of me urinating, so perhaps I will come to your house and transmit the image of you sprawled on your couch with your hand stuffed in your underwear.

No? Fine, but stop being an asshole.

Truth in advertising

Since I still have Yahoo e-mail (while waiting to migrate to Gmail), I browsed the wonderful Yahoo site to get to my inbox. As I’m sure everyone knows, they put ads throughout their site for your surfing amusement. Or, it’s because they’re unscrupulous fucks who would swipe your credit card to steal $10 because they know you won’t go through the effort to sue them. Either explanation is possible but the root cause is the same. They believe their consumers are stupid.

Consider this wonderful ad found on Yahoo:

I've already told Yahoo that I won't spend any more money with them. Don't bother trying to sell me your service.

how do am “rhetorical” meen, yAhoo? I’s whented too Colledge but i did’nt never lurn know werd like “r-h-e-t-o-r-i-c-a-l”. pleeze egsplane you meenin! butt i likes payeing mor, expeshully if it foor dial-up wit dat moedum thingy in mie conpootur. Hellp.