You know…about what McCain wanted to say in what should be equal space in the New York Times in response to Obama’s op ed article. Here’s a link. I have no doubt that the Times will never publish it or give McCain equal space because it does not interest their readers and is not in line with their view of the world. But there it is in case you want to see both candidates’ view of Iraq, and not just Obama’s. Here’s my favorite part:

…the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City — actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

Progress is good. The only bad part is the actual progress is hardly ever talked about by the main stream media.

To be fair, here is a link to Obama’s previous piece in the Times. It’s always good to find out what both candidates have to say before we have to vote. At least, that’s what I think. I especially like the part where he says:

Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been.

Wow. Just wow. I think I remember something about Bin Laden’s no. 2 actually saying that it was on a video released some time in the past few years. Oh well…..it might not be now but at one time the enemy thought it was which is why we had the surge to get them out. Said surge appears to be working if you look at the facts.

So there you have it. Both sides. For your review. Even if the Times was not willing to post both sides, at least I (and probably others) am/are. I’ve read both pieces. I encourage you to do the same.

I’ve posted previously here on the hard facts that tax increases always mean less tax revenues and lost jobs, whereas lower taxes mean growth in the economy, jobs and tax revenues. These are facts put out by the government accounting office. You can read my previous post on this here (the source article is linked to and its sources are listed within the article).

I know it feels like I’m beating a dead horse, and truly I am not angry at those that are still convinced, even given these facts, that we must increase taxes on our most successful businesses that employ the majority of our workers. So I’ve been doing more research on the subject. Today I ran across some quotes from JFK about lowering taxes. Yes - he lowered taxes during an economic time similar to ours. Here is what he said:

It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.

John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

The Bay of Pigs aside, having read this I can truly understand why he had the majority of the country behind him and why he was so popular as President. He really was a very smart guy who recognized the facts and acted to improve our domestic circumstances for the good of everyone.

Don’t be shocked…but if we had a democrat with some national security experience who also understood economics the way Kennedy did…I MIGHT be persuaded to at least consider voting for him. MIGHT.

Oh - you can see the full article with Kennedy’s quotes here on World Net Daily.

I know this chart will not be seen as “the truth” by some, but the Washington Post is a pretty reputable source.  You can read the full article here.  I don’t know about you, but I always like to see side by side comparisons of the candidates’ different plans and policy positions.

Okay, so we’re back from our trip up north. I saw my nieces and nephews, sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins, mom and step dad. I got to see my newest nephew be baptized live and in person…by a really cool Nigerian priest. Seriously, the guy represented all that is good in a priest from his calm, comforting demeanor to how patient he was with the toddlers at the service to how carefully he treated the babies. A very, very nice man. We also spent time at the lake where The Boy and the spouse caught a mess of fish which we fried up and ate. Yummy.

Anyway, this was the second trip we took with the new Pilot vs. packing, standing in long security lines, and hopefully waiting for seats in crowded airports. I’ve been thinking about this a lot, so here are some pros and cons to consider when deciding whether you should drive or fly:

Driving: You leave on your own schedule

Flying: You sure as hell had better not be late or they will give your seat away…no exceptions.

Driving: You can pack whatever you want in the BIG bottles, in big-ass suitcases and nobody will complain but your spouse who has to figure out how to fit your bags into the car.

Flying: One small carry-on and one small bag which are both searched thoroughly by a power hungry TSA person and are lugged everywhere by you since baggage handlers tend to “misplace” checked bags.

Driving: These days, gas costs a LOT of money. Even in the Pilot which gets good mileage for an SUV.

Flying: There is a fuel surcharge, but it nowhere near matches the cost of filling your tank three times a day.

Driving: You get to sit in your own car, drinking your own beverage of choice, stopping to eat and for bio-breaks wherever and whenever you prefer, and you get your OWN pillow and blanket-free of charge. Plus, you get to watch your own movies and play your own games on your own computer…for free. Oh, and make phone calls. On your cell. As many as you want provided you can stand the dirty looks from the spouse who is trying to listen to his music.

Flying: You get to sit next to a huge guy that invades all your space and insists on putting the arm rest up so he can lean into you, he smells bad, he burps, he has gas, and he snores. You’re lucky to get a coke and you probably won’t get even a pretzel or a peanut unless you’re willing to pay through the nose for a pretty bad sammich. Just when you have to “go”, they turn on the fasten seat belt sign and allow nobody to go to the privy for the duration of the flight. No phone calls, unless you want to pay through the nose. In-flight entertainmnet? Well…maybe they’ll run some commercials and cut sit-coms….maybe some movies on longer flights you can see if you’re lucky enough to have a seat where it’s visible or an individual unit that works. But don’t count on seeing the whole flick….chances are there will be weather or too many announcements thrown in there to finish any one movie and still be able to hear/see it. And the food? Well, we all know the deal there. Even the first class stuff really isn’t that great.

Driving: No annoying people to deal with (except at the restaurants where you can at least get your own table). No screamning kids (except your own). And nobody kicking your seat or leaning back so they knock your drink and food into your lap.

Flying: All the bad things about other people in the mix listed above.

Driving: It takes a long-ass time to get anywhere!

Flying: It doesn’t take that long….but is it worth the hassle? I have to say sometimes it is if it’s the only way to get somewhere when I need or want to, but overall it’s a PITA.

All in all, even with the additional time, after these last two trips I have to say I prefer driving because I get to have all my stuff with me, make my own choices, and wear sweats until I get there (no I’m not comfortable on the plane in sweats…it’s like wearing PJ’s….I’m casual but not THAT casual).

What say you? Driving or flying? These days, which to you prefer?

That Iraq didn’t have any WMD capability.  At least, that’s what we heard when we turned on our nightly news.  I did see a story on cable that said Iraq had, in fact, been working to acquire nukes.  But I guess having tons of yellow cake, a core ingredient for nukes…does not count.  Or does it?

…The removal of 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy. 

U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the 23,000-acre (9,300-hectare) site — surrounded by huge sand berms — following a wave of looting after Saddam’s fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns.…….Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon…. 

It’s always good to have all the facts before we talk about what/who was and wasn’t in Iraq before we went in with force to remove its leader who was not complying with U.N. resolutions.

Anyway…it’s good the yellow cake made its way to Canada safely, where it can be used for peaceful purposes.  Score another one for the good guys.

We’re off for a car trip tomorrow to see my family up in Wisconsin.  Yes, we’ve looked at our route carefully and we think we will be able to avoid the flooded areas without too much trouble.

There have been three babies born in the family since I was last up north for a visit.  This time Tommy and The Boy are coming with me, and we are making a side trip to a cabin in the north woods following my nephew’s baptism.

Yeah!  Road Trip!  If I can grab some pics of the flooding on our way (from afar, hopefully) I will let you have a peek.

Time to pack.  For up north.  Where I will be able to wear sweatshirts and jeans at night!

Hey, don’t get me wrong. If someone gets injured or a doctor is negligent, I think people should be allowed to sue….for a reasonable capped amount. Say..cost for medical bills and cost to live in case they can’t work due to the injury plus up to a certain amount for “pain and suffering”…I think a quarter of a million isn’t unreasonable for this as long as all the other aforementioned needs of the person are taken care of.

Okay, I’ll stop whining about frivolous law suits and tort reform and people trying to get something for nothing. Except…for THIS girl:

Patterson’s lawyer told The Smoking Gun that a “design problem” caused a decorative metallic piece on the underwear to fly up and hit Patterson in the eye while she was putting the underwear on.

What? Some stupid girl couldn’t figure out to put some infection-causing Vicky’s Secret undies on and now she thinks she has grounds for a law suit? What the hell? How easy would it be to just rip the thing off the underwear and “say” it flew up and hit her eye? Right?

Every time I hear about a law suit like this I just cringe. If she wins, the cost of the “good” stuff will certainly go up for all of us.

Okay, so…I know those of you that are convinced that if you tax “rich” people, then tax revenues will increase probably will not agree with what I have to say about taxes. But if you’re on that side of the issue, maybe if you glance at my issues with increasing taxes during a slow economy maybe you can at least understand (if not agree with) my position.

Raising Capital Gains Taxes

Obama wants to raise this tax from the current 15% to 25%. For us “ordinary” (gag) Americans, this means whenever we sell stock - or sell our houses - we will have to give 25% of what we make to the government. If you plan on selling your house, I would do it soon so you are not hit with almost double the cost of the sale. With the current housing crisis, I don’t understand why someone who wants to be president would want to take away almost twice of what little these people might eke out of their small investment just to get by.

Raising The Social Security Cap

I actually agree with this one. But when Obama says he will not raise taxes on retired people, he is lying. Any retired person that makes more than $50,000 will have to pay Social Security withholding on anything they make over that amount. Make $60,000 on your retirement withdrawals from your 401K? Be prepared to pay Social Security taxes on all of it.

Raising Taxes on Big Oil

I know the dems are tired of hearing this, but it’s true. Jimmy Carter tried a windfall tax on big oil in the 70s, and it resulted in major gas shortages, hours long lines, and steep increases in the price of gas as the oil companies passed the “windfall” taxes on to the consumer. I don’t understand how anyone can think that raising taxes on any type of business won’t in turn raise the cost of whatever good or service that company provides. For me, it defies logic. I try to remember that the government already makes more than three times the amount the oil companies do on each and every gallon of gas we pump into our tanks. Think about that and then think about who’s the bad guy when it comes to the price of gas.

Let The Suspension of the Alternative Minimum Tax Expire

I have to read more about this, but from what I understand this is an additional tax that some people might have to pay above and beyond their normal rate. The tax was passed decades ago when legislators wanted to make sure”rich” people were paying their fair share. But what was considered “rich” back then now solidly will hit the middle class of today. Luckily, the suspension of this tax seems to be holding…for now.

Raising Corporate Taxes

Okay…um…currently America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the entire world. That means we are the second most expensive country in which to build a business and sell goods. This high tax has caused many companies to go to other countries to build their businesses and produce goods. I think Ireland has a 10 or 11 percent corporate tax rate. I saw a lot of businesses being built when I visited there a few years ago. Ireland is a beautiful country. Its corporate tax rate makes it even more appealing to businesses that are trying to succeed without the heavy burden of our tax rate. It seems that lowering this tax rate rather than raising it would be the most logical way to keep jobs here. But maybe that’s just me.

Raising The Death Tax

Obama can nuance this all he wants. But he has said he wants to raise the death tax rate to 46%. So…let me get this straight. We pay taxes on what we make while we are alive. Then we pay taxes on any money we make from investing the already taxed income when we cash in stocks. We would also pay 25% on any money we make from selling our houses. And on top of all those taxes, Obama wants to take an additional 46% of whatever is left once we die? What the hell? Oh, I know…..he says it’s only the “rich” he wants to do this to. But I don’t care how much anyone makes….it’s not right to take almost half of what they have left from their dependents once they are gone. It is NOT right.

I realize there are $50 billion worth of “helps” Obama includes in his tax strategy to “help those that need it”. But to me, when you drill down and realize just how much these higher taxes are going to cost when it comes to everyday living, keeping jobs in America, and a sense of what’s fair it doesn’t seem like any of this will truly help anyone once the full impact of policies like these are felt by each and every one of us.

Oh, sure…some will say “the rich can afford it”. Yeah, right. The “rich”. I quit working during the Clinton years once we sat down and figured out that 90% of every dollar I was making was going straight to taxes. So we removed my full income from the tax base, as many others will if Obama and a democratic congress have their way.

Votes have consequences. I’m sure many feel the Bush vote had too many especially when it comes to Iraq. But since the economy is the number one issue on our minds, we have to all think about what the long-term consequences - to ALL our pocketbooks - will be if the country continues to veer left and follow the philosophy of “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need”. The needy always pay with policies like these in the end. Much more than they think they will when they vote people into office that promise to “get” them more of the money other people have worked so hard to earn for their families.

According to data from the general accounting office, raising taxes has ALWAYS brought in less tax revenue and lowering taxes has always stimulated the economy and brought in more tax money. Something to think about. Numbers don’t lie. I’d post links but if you “don’t believe that” (even though it is fact) then you won’t bother to follow it anyway.

So there’s my take on taxes. You might not agree, but if you took the time to read then I think it’s always a good thing to understand the other side no matter what your position.

No, it wasn’t some gross guy or some ogling old man (although they are there, but not in nearly the volume as they were in my old gym).

Anyway…there I was…on my fourth mile on the elliptical stairs…and I glance up to the silent T.V. wall in front of me…and see the following subtitle underneath a picture of a woman talking about something:

Had Bird Poop Facial

First of all, there’s no way in hell I’d ever have a bird poop facial. Also, if for some reason I ever felt the need to have one, I certainly wouldn’t admit it on national T.V.! Not even CNN, which is watched less than most cable news channels.

So is it just me, or is the whole having a bird poop facial and then talking about it on national T.V. a really weird deal?

P.S. If you’re interested, you can read all about the nasty bird poop treatment here. Ewwwwwww!

We all have felt the pinch at the pump every time we fill up our tanks lately. Congress has been hammering home the idea that it’s all the fault of big oil companies making a profit at our expense. But the numbers don’t necessarily prove that out:

The 27 largest US energy companies forked over $48 billion in income taxes in 2004, $67 billion in 2005, and more than $90 billion in 2006 - an 87 percent increase. Since 1981, the Tax Foundation calculates, the oil industry has earned a cumulative $1.12 trillion in profits - but it paid a cumulative $1.65 trillion in taxes (add another half-trillion to account for taxes paid to foreign governments).

You can read the whole article here. It’s in The Boston Globe. I think few people (including me until now) realize just how much oil companies have to pay to do business with foreign countries that are actually allowed to drill for and sell oil. So I ask you…who’s the villain here? Is it the oil companies that raise prices just to stay in business, or is it the Congress that not only continually tries to increase already burdensome taxes, but also refuses to allow oil companies to improve and build new refineries or drill for new oil in waters and areas close to home? Something to think about at least….if you’re one who looks at all sides of an issue before making a snap decision.

For a case study in new drilling, I offer the example of Brazil:

By specializing in advanced ultra-deep offshore oil exploration, Brazil has moved from being a country dependent on Ethanol for its gasoline consumption to becoming a net exporter of oil within less than a decade.

You can read the whole article here. Less than a decade to be independent of the world market for oil needs. Can you imagine?

We’ve got naval submarines that have operated with nuclear power plants for decades with no incidents. Yet Congress refuses to allow any new plants for fear that “something” might happen. France now gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. Yet 60% of our power comes from coal, the evil-doer that creates so many greenhouse gasses. I am left wondering…..this democratic Congress which is SO worried about the environment insists upon continuing the use of coal vs. the building of clean, safe, greenhouse-neutral nuclear power plats…for what? Because they don’t want to be blamed for “what if”?

Nothing about any of this makes any sense. Here’s what we should do:

1. Drill offshore on the continental shelf. I get that Anwar is a political hot potato. But for God’s sake…the continental shelf…can’t they give a little to gain a lot since other countries are already there taking the oil so close to our shores?  China has been drilling for oil 50 miles off Florida’s shores since 2006.  Something is wrong with that whole scenario if you ask me.

2. Allow oil companies to build new refineries. If we can’t convert the oil to gas, nothing matters.

3. Build as many nuclear power plants as we can and move away from the use of coal…if you TRULY care about the environment and aren’t just saying you do for the sake of furthering your political careers.

4. STOP GOUGING THE OIL COMPANIES. Near as I can tell from all that I’ve read, currently the government makes more than three times the profit on a gallon of gas than the oil companies do (15 cents for the government vs. 4 cents for the “eveil” oil companies when you factor in foreign taxes and demestic taxes plus the cost of transporting and refining the oil). Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think raising taxes further on big oil will solve the problem of prices at the pump. Jimmy Carter tried that and we all saw how that went.

For once…just once…I wish the Congress would get their heads out of their butts and do what’s right to save the country from crippling fuel and energy costs instead of doing what’s right for their own political careers.

At least, that’s what I think. After thinking about ALL sides and looking at the facts….what say you?