Saturday, July 16, 2011

The Republicans Are Not Interested In Helping You


It doesn't get much clearer than this folks, from Mr. Erick Erickson: House Republicans, This Is Your Time For Choosing

Choosing what, Mr. Erickson? Choosing to have unemployment at 25%? Your recommendations that House Republicans stick to their No guns will only have the effect of shooting ourselves in our feet. The GOP has consistently been out of step with U.S. opinion throughout the budget process, failing to meet essentially the first requirement of voters: Do your fricking job.

That doesn't mean say no because you can. That doesn't mean waste time and moan and complain until things are so critical it causes this mess. That doesn't mean being contrary.

Per Mr. Erickson, "Should the United States lose its bond rating, it will be called the “Obama Depression”. Congress does not get pinned with this stuff."

How stupid do you think the U.S. public is? Do you think we cannot see the frustration on Obama's face as once again the GOP has denied him on the very basis that it's him they have to agree with?! Do you think we don't see the statements you are making over and over again and realize that it's the GOP who is holding up the process?

19 polls released recently said that a majority of the U.S. public now recognizes that taxes must be raised (see here). The deficit cannot be cut solely by abolishing spending. The government requires some revenue to function, therefore the government requires taxes. I wonder if Republicans would continue to drop the tax rate until the government can no longer pay for the salaries. Then what? They take over and declare themselves Emperor of all of Rome?

If the U.S. public supports raising taxes, then the GOP needs to shut up and let the Democrats raise taxes. Really, the GOP has nothing to lose. They have fought valiantly against raising taxes. If they agree to it, and it causes the country to fall into depression, then they will be right, and the GOP will be able to say a giant "I told you so" to the U.S.

And here is where we get to the truth about Republicans. The rhetoric they are spewing isn't so much about the concern over the country if raising taxes fails to help the economy; they are concerned over what happens when raising taxes works. The Democrats get all the credit, and the GOP looks bad for delaying the solution to the U.S.'s faltering economy.

This is what the GOP is afraid of, and why they are fighting so hard against EVERYTHING Obama and Congressional Democrats throw at them. They aren't afraid of sending the U.S. into an economic tailspin; they are afraid the Democrats will win.

Kind of an interesting statement on the amount of power the Republicans think the Democrats have, huh?

Mr. Erickson goes on to talk about TARP, and how we have discovered the money was mostly allocated to banks. The economist's response would be "Of course you give money to the banks. The banks need the money to make loans to get the economy moving again." If Mr. Erickson had any true comprehension of credit markets, he would understand this. He would also understand that TARP failed not because it went too far, but because it didn't go far enough to help individual homeowners. Whose fault was that? Republicans. Republicans made TARP so unpopular that it failed to include a provision to protect homeowners, which helped deepen the recession. This article mentions that the stock market dropped 7% when Republicans "won" and beat TARP (Erick Erickson's Bad Advice).

Here's another great quote from Mr. Erickson: "If the President can force your hand by using entitlements as a lever to punish the American people if you don’t do as he wants, you will have established this as a precedent. From here on out, if you lose this fight, every time you balk at expanding government, social security checks will be withheld, medicare payments will be withheld, and in just a few short years, surgeries will be cancelled, vaccinations withheld, and hospitals shuttered."

Mr. Erickson, the President isn't trying to force your hand by using entitlements to "punish" the U.S. public. He is stopping payments because there is NO MONEY TO PAY FOR THEM, thanks to YOUR party's insistence on keeping unnecessary tax cuts that do nothing for the poor, because for the most part, the poor don't pay income taxes! How can you claim that a tax cut on yachts for millionaires will help a poor person? All it does is free up more money for the millionaire, so he can go buy another yacht, and drive up prices for everyone else! The tax cuts are what got us here!

Mr. Erickson spoke of the wisdom of refraining from making decisions based on fear. This statement by him is about as fear-laden as you can get. He suggests that Obama is a tyrant who will refuse necessary services to people in order to further his political means. A bit like the pot calling the kettle black, considering the Republicans are threatening to throw the U.S. into a second recession in order for them to keep their "high" ground, yes?

The recommendations to raise taxes to help the economy are not based out of fear. They are based from mathematical calculations and observation of other countries. Europe has tax rates that far far far exceed the U.S., yet they manage to pay for universal healthcare, education, among other services. Their gaps between the "rich" and the "poor" are far smaller than here in the U.S., and on average, they get to go on vacation for two months a year.

Would you be willing to pay 30% in taxes to guarantee good education for their kids, universal healthcare, guaranteed employment, and more equal income levels? I would. And I suspect the Republicans will find that the majority of the U.S. would agree with me.

The only beacon of light in all of this for Republicans? If they bail now, which it seems they are doing here, then I can see them successfully spinning it as "Well, we saw what the U.S. public wanted (in higher taxes), so we're willing to compromise now." It makes everybody look good, and the Republicans don't walk away with a broken country and a broken party. I just hope that the U.S. public remembers on election day that it was the Republicans who got us into this mess in the first place, Republicans who kept us down there, and Republicans who delayed us getting out it.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Sex Is Not A Turn-Off For Girl Gamers (potentially NSFW)

Probably another one of these blogs you want to read before you let your kid see.

Sex Is A Turn Off For Girl Gamers

Okay, first off, if the error is still there, I'm assuming the 70% they refer to who prefer sex over video games are meant to refer to either women (as in older women) or they typoed when they meant men.

Secondly, the headline is ridiculous. The idea of sex isn't a turn-off to most women, period, and if you ask, most of the time the turn-off has to do with something ABOUT sex, not the idea of a passionate sexual encounter resulting in orgasm. In my experience, women who are turned-off by the idea usually refer to something like the grossness of it, or the concern of where "that" has been, or the woman is stressed out and overwhelmed by other things, that sex becomes simply one more thing on her already long list of things to do. This article describes the connection between anxiety, stress, and a women's ability to get aroused. If thinking about sex with you stresses her out, of course she's not going to get turned-on.

Most girl gamers I know (including myself) have sex drives equal to or surpassing the average male's. The words I hear coming out of my male friends' mouths with regard to their girlfriends are the same words I hear coming out my female gamer friends' mouths with regard to their boyfriends. "She never wants it enough." "He never initiates."

This poll doesn't reflect that girl gamers are dis-interested in sex. This poll reflects the inability of sexual partners to provide sufficient satisfaction, not just from a sexual standpoint, but also from the relationship view.

It's well known women have issues getting aroused when there is tension in the relationship. For men, sex is method TO relax. Women need to be relaxed in order to want sex. Focus on making your woman as relaxed as possible, and she'll put down the controller to show you a good time.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Anonymity in Crowds

Join the Guinness Book of World records here! 2011 Stanley Cup Game 7, Vancouver, Georgia St

So let me get this straight. They are asking people to identify themselves (and probably others) on a composite image taken before (?) Game 7 in Vancouver. The same area that went on to riot. Does anyone else wonder that maybe the cops or investigators might pour themselves through every last pixel of information on those pictures to see if they can't pick out people they identify from riot footage?

Ha! Where's your Fifth Amendment now? (yes, I realize it's Canada, not the US, but Canada still has laws against self-incrimination, so it still applies - kinda)

Do we have a provision for that in either Constitutions? If you identify a picture of yourself on the internet, and it gets to a cop, and the cop uses that to ID you from other footage of you committing a crime, is it fair game in court?

A great example of how privacy, law,and the internet have collided to make situations like these still a little nerve-wracking. Have some foresight before you blindly tag yourself on someone else's attempt at the Guinness Book of World Records.

Oh, I haven't asked, but does the website allow you to petition to shop out your picture if you so desire? Hmm. Lots of issues here.