Let Rahm Run...So We Can Kick His Ass!

I have never liked Rahm Emanuel, and I truly hope he loses his bid to become the mayor of Chicago. I am glad that he is gone from Washington and will not miss him, though his replacement, William Daley is just another Chicago politican in the White House, a former Chase Executive Committee member, who while the President hates bank executives, obviosuly loves this freakin' guy!

I do, however, as much as I think he's a total DB, think that Rahm Emanuel should be allowed to run in that mayoral race. See, in order to run for mayor in Chicago, you are supposed to have lived in the city in the past year. Well, Emanual was living in Washington, working at the White House. Two voters have brought a suit against Emanuel, stating that he is not eligible to run for mayor due to that "lived in the city in the past year" clause, but I think while well-meaning, that clause was put in place for obvious reasons and should also be nullified in certain circumstances.

If someone has shown that they have a history of living in the city, but have not lived there in the past year because they have been serving in a higher office, or serving in the armed forces, or serving a worthwhile cause that has taken them out of the city, the should still be allowed to run for mayor.

Again, while I don't like this guy, he quite clearly has earned the right to run for mayor of the city of Chicago. We should let him on the ballot and then kick his ass, not pursue this chicken-shit way of winning. We are better than that.

Who's Runnin' In 2012?

The field of Presidential hopefuls for 2012 is starting to take shape. While many of the expected big-name candidates are still doing their dance of acting like a shy girl on prom night, some of the more colorful candidates are already well on their way with their campaigns.

One such candidate is Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey, a self-proclaimed vampire that not only drinks the blood of his girlfriend and mistresses two times a week, but says "Certain criminals, instead of being put in jail, they should be brutally tortured and impaled. Upon them being found guilty of their crimes I'll beat them, torture them, dismember them and decapitate them." Sharkey adds, "I won't be bullied, I won't be blackmailed. Criminals and terrorists will fear me along with corrupt law enforcement officials. I will not tolerate crime or terrorism."

Game over! Can I have my ballot now? My decision is made! I see The Impaler has read my platform on crime, punishment and keeping the peace! Well, I must admit I adapted it from Vlad Tepes, Prince of Wallachia's platform, but a good idea is a good idea, right?

When asked about his chances of winning, Sharkey comments that basically with as bad a candidate as Sarah Palin is, and with how much people hate her, he's a much lesser evil in comparison.

Another notable candidate that has already filed his application to run for President in 2012, is Miami Beach resident Raphael Herman. Herman has run for mayor of Miami Beach six times and claims that fraudulent election results are the only cause of his six-time losing streak. Most notable about Herman is that he is not a naturally born U.S. citizen. When asked about the President having to have been born in the U.S., he claims he has evidence that President Barak Obama was actually born in Kenya and will use that evidence to cite precedence when he is elected President. "I was not born in America. I was born in Israel, but you see [President Barack Obama] wasn't born in this country either. I have his birth certificate."

Deonia "Dee" Neveu, a mother of five from Virginia has also filed her paperwork for her presidential bid. She seems to be wanting to point out to Americans who are misguidedly looking for a President with a wealth of experience that the constitution doesn't actually call for any type of political experience, and in fact, believes that the constitution was written so that any American could give becoming President a shot. "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself," says Neveu. "I don't want to live in the White House. "I would like to use a part of the White House to host fundraising events for America." Well, at least she has more political experience that our current President did when he began his campaign, right?

A reformed heavy drug user (from California, of course) who has found God, Mosheh Thezion is also running for President in 2012, though he is saying right up front that he doesn't like how he looks when he smiles, so we can expect not to see any smiles on the campaign trail. "They'll just dig it up anyway," said Thezion. "I hate politicians who lie. I tell the truth, I have nothing to hide, why would I want to hide something?" Seems like Thezion equates smiling to lying, doesn't he? I bet he was a huge fan of George the Great Satan Junior! Thezion follows up his statement that he used to use "pounds and pounds" of marijuana, cocaine, meth and alcohol before "giving up his sinful ways" by saying, "I grew up a loose liberal which is why I'm a conservative today." As I have always said, a liberal is a conservative that either hasn't hit rock bottom in their liberal ways, been the victim of a crime, or simply come to their senses yet.

Thezion also says that he will "abolish the Internal Revenue Service" and "pay off the entire national debt, permanently." I like how that sounds. Maybe I can get vampire guy to agree to the same financial policy.

Rounding out our cavalcade of interesting Presidential hopefuls is Rutherford B. Hayes, not to be confused with the 19th president of the United States by the same name. Rutherford says, "The current administration is engulfed with socialists, communists, and marxists as well as insatiable condescending egos." Yes, and birds go tweet!

We've still got a long way to go before we start widdlin' down the pack and see if the vampire, Israeli, inexperienced mom, or guy with the same name as the 19th President, can give the likes of The Master & Commander, Mrs. Once Rodham-Clinton Now Just Clinton, The Lady Who Really Liked To Say The Word Maverick Last Time, and clear great choice Mitt Romney a run for their money. Either way, maybe we shouldn't be so closed-minded when it comes to platforms, America. Just because you're a total nut job doesn't mean you shouldn't be setting U.S. policy. I mean, hell, we let Pelosi do it, and The Impaler isn't nearly quite as frightening....

Why Is Polygamy Illegal? What's Our Deal?

Yesterday's look at marriage, civil unions, the church, and the state have quite naturally lead me to another side of the argument. It is a side of the argument that most people dismiss as the right wing nut jobs just coming up with a right field reason for marriage to remain between one man and one woman, but I honestly want to give the argument its due.

Like I said yesterday, how about we have marriages be the union from God and the church, and civil unions be the unions granted by the state? We let the churches decide what they consider to be a marriage, and we let the people and the government decide what they consider to be a civil union.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that a marriage is between one man and one woman, which for the most part, is how most religions define marriage. Now, let’s also say, for the sake of argument, that a civil union could be between one man and one woman, and one man and one man, and one woman and one woman. Marriage would be defined by the moral doctrine of the church, and civil unions would be defined by the legal doctrine of the state. I argue, however, if the state can allow a civil union between two consensual parties, why then, can it not allow a civil union between three or more consensual parties? A business entity can exist with more than just two people, so why not a civil union?

We could only allow someone to be a member of one civil union at a time, regardless of how many people are in that civil union. We wouldn't allow bigamy, (I mean, we're not animals) but that being said, if our civil unions are only governed by the state, why not allow them for three or four, or more people? Consenting adults, all taxpayers, not living off the state in any way, law-abiding, good people, living together in the same home - truly a collective. The gender make-up, totally up to the people involved.

Did I just ruffle your feathers there? Did all of you forward thinking, open-minded, environmentally-conscious, ahead-of-the-curve when it comes to living right people just stop agreeing with me? What's the problem? You want conservatives to be more open-minded, so what is more open-minded than polygamy? In America, it would simply be one of our civil unions that exists beyond just two people.

We have tax tables for single people, tax tables for joined couples, tax tables for joined couples with children, so why not have a tax table for the trio, quarter, quintet, sextet, and so on? Granted, it might get a little crowded at the court house, or in a hospital room that is just for the patient and their spouses, but hey, we can deal with that on a case by case basis.

All right, America, I await your schooling on all the reasons why a civil union can be between ANY TWO PEOPLE, but cannot be between ANY THREE OR MORE PEOPLE?...

Marriage, Civil Unions, The Church & The State

With all that seems to be going on right now in the great state of Taxifornia with the budget and taxes, it would seem that the ol' "gay marriage" debate has taken a bit of a back seat for now. I'm honestly quite comfortable with that as it seems that when the issue flares up, people really tend to stop looking at it rationally and let emotions get the best of them.

I'd like to take this pause to put together something that I had been planning on posting for quite some time, yet have not had a chance to get around to doing. How about we stoke the fire a bit?

I believe that most conservatives have a very good, black and white understanding of something. Let me explain. I have a marriage to my wife that is in place because we, based on our religious beliefs, held a ceremony in which we, in the eyes of God, joined together in a marriage. I also have a civil union to my wife that is in place because the person who performed our ceremony is also a state-appointed officiator of civil unions sponsored by the County of Orange, and by proxy, the state of Taxifornia. It is a very simple concept, and quite honestly, goes very well with the idea of the separation of church and state. Our marriage applies to all of the religious beliefs that we have - the afterlife, together forever, adultery, sins, etc., and our civil union applies to all of the stately legality - our legal obligations to each other and to the state that will exist throughout our union, as well as the legal obligations we have to each other if we split up and the legal obligations we have to each other pertaining to any children we might have together. Do you see how there are two separate things going on at the same time here? Our marriage is governed by our moral obligations and our civil union is governed by our legal obligations. I say that as a nation, we really should start looking at these as two separate things that occur concurrently.

Now, I am going to divert from the conservative pack here, but in the interest of finding a solution to our problem, let me say that when it comes to civil unions granted by the state, I am all for them. I am even all for them if we are talking about two men or two women wanting to enter into a civil union. I truly believe that this is a matter of state and should be governed by the state, and as such, any two people, regardless of gender, even transgendered, should have the same exact rights as everyone else in their civil unions. Two men and/or two women who have the same civil union certificate that my wife and I have should have the same exact rights granted by the state that we do.

One problem, however, that we need to fix before moving forward with our separation of church and state is that I do not have a "civil union" certificate issued by the state, but a "marriage" certificate. The state should not be allowed to issue such a thing as a "marriage" certificate. It should be called a "civil union" certificate, issued just like a business license, or any other state document. This should be issued regardless of gender and religion, again, just like any other state document. A "marriage" certificate, to run concurrently with a "civil union" certificate, should be issued by the church that performed the ceremony.

Do you see where I am going with this? When it comes to morality, let's deal with and seek an audience with religion. When it comes to legality, let's deal with and seek an audience with the state. Let's have a separation there. The religions do not get to dictate to the state who can have a civil union, and the state cannot dictate to the religions what they consider to be a marriage.

If the U.S. Constitution calls for a separation of church and state in the literal sense, then why is it that the act of joining two people together in a court house in the eyes of the state carries the same name as the act of joining two people together in a church in the eyes of God? I argue that they should not be called the same thing, as they are truly two completely separate things. Should we not all be getting civil unions at the court house and marriages in a church? I can go through a ceremony at a church, but if it is not performed by someone licensed by the state, then my civil union is not valid to the state. The marriage is valid to the church and to God, but the civil union does not occur unless the ceremony has the approval of the state by means of the ceremony being performed by a state-approved agent. Does it not make sense, then that a civil union could be an agreement by two members of the same sex? It's a legal agreement witnessed by a state-appointed agent. Makes sense to me.

But, then, what also makes sense to me, is that if I am getting married in a church, or being married by an agent of the church, should not that marriage adhere to the traditional definition of one man and one women that the religion adheres to? That also seems to make sense to me. So, man and woman joined together by a person ordained by the church, marriage - Man and woman joined together by a person ordained by the state, civil union - Man and woman who have done both, either in a ceremony performed by one person with both church and state ordainment, or two people, one with church credentials and one with state credentials, or at two separate ceremonies - in the eyes of the church and God, marriage - in the eyes of the state, civil union.

It all boils down to a game of semantics, then, doesn't it? Now, mind you, I am saying that a man and woman with a civil union should have the same exact rights and privileges that a man and man or woman and woman have through their civil unions. Now, if the semantics are important and we need to start talking about what the churches themselves call the joining of two people who are the same sex, then isn't that a matter for the church, and not a matter for the state? Isn't that what you wanted in the first place? Separation of church and state. If two men or two women can convince the Catholic church to marry them, then hey, more power to you, but that should have nothing to do with my ballot, my courts, and my government. If a man and a woman, and a man and a man, and a woman and a woman, all have the same rights under the civil unions that are issued by the state, then at the state level, and honestly, even at the federal level, the argument should be over. You can call it whatever you want to, but legally, they should all be civil unions that are issued by the state. Anything beyond a civil union should be between people and the churches, not people and the state. Like I said, separation of church and state.

Tax Hikes & Spending Cuts The Taxxy Brown Way...

I will give you, as I have said many-a-time before, it was most definitely time for Arnie to go. I would have much rather seen, however, a legitimate business woman as our new Taxifornia Taxernor than lifetime politician and union whipping boy Taxxy Brown. If this were a Presidential election, we would have just re-elected Jimmy Carter. Way to go, Taxifornia!

So, now, that the issue of Taxernor is settled until we can try to get a business person in there again, let's talk about the main reason that I am concerned about Taxxy Brown...taxes. Sure, we'd all like to pay nothing (and hey! half of you actually do!), and I realize that we do need to pay something so that we can fund our infrastructure, military, and what-not, but for those of us that are in that 50% that do pay taxes, should we not undertake the initiative to try to keep as much of the money that we earn that the other 50% get to pay - nothing? It may not be a reality, but at least it gives us something to shoot for, right?

That being said, I must also say that Taxxy Brown is at least, unlike most Spendocrats, willing to cut some spending, taking a step closer to at least getting the 50% who pay no income taxes to help foot the bill as well. He as also said that he is going to take his tax increases to the voters, so we will see if that actually happens.

What taxes are going to get raised and what spending is going to get cut if Taxxy Brown gets his way? A lot of programs are going to be reduced, and the temporary tax hikes implemented by the Taxinator will be kept in place for another five years! Five years?! Yep, five years!:

Income: A 0.25 percent surcharge on each personal income tax rate, which would generate $3.2 billion in the next 18 months. But, if your personal income tax rate is zero, does that mean you have to pay 0.25 percent? What do you think?

Dependents: A reduction in the tax credit for dependents from $227 to $99, for $1.9 billion over 18 months.

Sales tax: A 1 percentage point increase in the state sales tax - from 5 to 6 percent, bringing in $4.5 billion over 12 months.

Licenses: An increase in vehicle license fees from 0.65 percent of a car's value to 1.15 percent, bringing in $1.3 billion over 12 months.

Proposed spending and service reductions
Among Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed solutions to help close a $25 billion deficit are the following:

Cell phones: The state pays for about 96,000 cell phones for state workers. Brown would cut that number by at least 50 percent.

State vehicles: State workers use about 13,600 state-owned cars, pickups and vans, not including about 12,000 used in public safety. Only cars needed for critical functions would be kept.

Cal Fire: In the many wildland areas that have been developed, emergency response would be transferred from state firefighters to local firefighters. State firefighters would be cut from four workers per engine to three.

State jobs: 57,000 workers would get 10 percent pay cuts, and hundreds of state jobs would be eliminated as the state transfers more responsibilities to counties in foster care, incarceration and social services.

Redevelopment agencies: Redevelopment agencies would be phased out to save billions of dollars, although they would be allowed to finish existing projects. The money saved would first go to the general fund and in future years would be given to schools, cities and counties.

Courts: A permanent reduction of $200 million annually for the state's courts.

Governor's office: A 25 percent reduction in spending, or $4.5 million cut.

Parks: State parks would lose $11 million more in funds, requiring continued park closures.

Medi-Cal: Benefits would be capped, with limits placed on prescriptions (six per month per recipient ) - unless they are lifesaving - hearing aids ($1,510 a year) and durable medical equipment ($1,604 a year). Co-payments of $5 would be required for most visits. Doctor's visits would be limited to 10 per year.

Disabled and elderly: California is one of the few states that provide day care centers for disabled and elderly adults who might otherwise be in nursing homes; Brown would eliminate this program altogether to save $176 million in 2011-12.

Healthy Families: Fewer than 1 million children receive medical insurance under this program because their families do not qualify for Medi-Cal. Brown would eliminate the vision benefit and increase premiums and co-payments.

So, that's the laundry list that Taxxy Brown is going to propose. We'll have to see if it makes it to the ballot, and what he is going to do when voters shoot it down...

GobiernoUSA.gov

One of the ideals that I still remain steadfast in, and most likely will for the foreseeable future, is that just how a nation has a flag, a national symbol, a national anthem, and so on, so should a nation have an official language. As many of you are currently reading this musing in my native American tongue of English (or American English to the English) could probably guess, I propose that our official language in the USA should be English. I propose that no child graduate from high school in the United States without at least a remidial command of the English language (I know we say that now, but I mean, really, actually be able to speak English), and more importantly, I think that any interaction you have with the federal, state, and local government should be in English.

So, you're saying to yourself, I've been reading Old Man Savastano's rantings for years, and this is nothing new, so why the re-hash on making English the official language of the USA?

Well, I bought a new computer and was cleaning up the pre-supplied "Favorites" that Microsoft thinks I will need and one of the folders is "Websites For United States", and in that folder is one familiar web site, "USA.gov" and the one unfamiliar web site, "GobiernoUSA.gov". Go on, check it out. http://www.gobiernousa.gov. It is so nice to see the American taxpayer paying for twice the web site because we, as a nation, have never really had the balls to pick an official language, even though we all have known for quite some time which one it should be.

How much of our tax dollars go to creating web sites and printing things in other languages? Should not part of the process of being naturalized be that you can do so in English? Oh, wait, hold on a second, it is part of the process. You DO need to have a basic command of the English language in order to pass our naturalization tests. So, why then, would you need a U.S. government website in Spanish? Oh yeah, that's right. We can't forget to take care of our uninvited guests as well. I mean, when you throw a party and people that you have never even met before and don't seem to know anyone you invited just happen to show up, you offer them a drink and a seat, don't you? Quite clearly, in America we do, and to top it off, we make sure that we offer you those bebidas and sillas en Espanol because though you have no respect for our laws, we still want you to feel right at home...

Mercedes-Benz Sees 15.3% Growth In 2010

According to an official statement from Stuttgart, relayed to me through BenzInsider.com, Mercedes-Benz has reportedly managed a year-on-year worldwide sales growth of 15.3 percent. This figure is due largely to the demand from the Chinese market as well as in the United States.

Over the past year, Mercedes-Benz totaled 1.16 million vehicles sold, which subsequently allowed Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz’s parent company, to exceed its projections that involved a 10-percent growth across the board from Mercedes-Benz to Maybach, the uber-luxury vehicle brand, to Smart, with its compact urban cars. Overall, Daimler was able to sell 1.26 million vehicles from the three makes—a 12 percent increase from 2009′s numbers.

“Last year was a complete success for us,” stated Dieter Zetsche, Daimler AG chairman and the head of Mercedes-Benz Cars. “We have grown stronger as the world-wide market for passenger cars and as a result can win market share.”

While the annual increase is very impressive on its own, the consistency by which this growth was achieved is also quite amazing. Globally, Mercedes-Benz was able to experience double-digit growth on a monthly basis. In China, Mercedes-Benz experienced exceeded double of their annual sales from 2009. In the US, sales increased by 14 percent over the year.

Aside from the numbers showing Mercedes-Benz’s strong year, the sales growth is a reflection of the global automotive market’s recovery, particularly the premium or luxury car segment. These figures are clear indicators of the rebounding market. Zetsche says the brand can start 2011 with confidence, thanks to a competitive product range and numerous new products.”.

56-Year-Old Cross Ruled Unconstitutional

I honestly do get the argument about the separation of church and state, but for people to sit here today and say that the Christian-based beliefs of the Founding Fathers did not play a role in thier lives and the founding of the United States of America is blatant history revision. I, for one, refuse to support that revision to this nation's history, despite the fact that you're only going to catch me in church a handful of times per decade.

The continuing movement to remove all reference to religion in this country may seem like a good idea to the intellectual elite who look down upon the believers, but trust me, folks, if we just flat out did away with religion as suggested by the Bill Mahers of the world, the ensuing hell on earth with no religious consequences would make you start praying for a return of religion.

As I have said many times before, as long as your beliefs do not harm others, then go right ahead and believe what you want. If Jewish and Muslim symbols offend you because you are a Christian, then you weren't really paying attention in church, were you? Flip that statement for all the competing religions, and for the non-believer. If you don't believe, then believers should not have a beef with you. It should be your choice. But, that should also mean that the non-believers should not have a beef with believers.

With all of that being said, then you may see why I find it very bothersome to read that a war memorial cross in a San Diego public park was declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court because the court says it conveys a message of government endorsement of religion.

It would seem some whiny non-believer who wants to rid the nation of all religious symbolism outside of an actual religious building is getting their way, and I think that it is sad to see the whining of the few being held in higher regard than the will of the many.

This case struck me as nothing more than modern-day, revisionist history, non-believer whining. It involved the nut-job "Judges" at the anything-goes 9th U.S. Distrcit Court of Appeals and a cross that has been in a park, honoring Korean War Veterans for 56 years. 56 years, in the same spot, doing the same thing, just being a cross in a park, a symbol of honor to the men and women who died in service to their country. Then, comes along the non-believer whiner who can't just keep their non-beliefs to themselves, but ironically, as they complain the believers do, must force their non-beliefs on the believers.

Is there really so little good in your life, so little to be happy about that you have to take up a fight against a cross sitting in a park? Really? Why do we listen to these whack-jobs, America? Why are we giving them a voice that is louder than the voice of reason?

Who Is To Blame? Let's Do A Better Job Of Figuring That Out

At least you never disappoint in being completely and totally predictable, mainstream media. Quite literally, even before the suspect in the Arizona shooting was identified, already blame was being placed on political discourse and specific people other than the shooter. Journalism, this is a prime example of why I left a promising career in you very early on. As I came to realize that facts and the truth were actually very subjective things to you, I sought a career elsewhere.

Honestly, I was holding out hope for you that you weren't going to once again fly off the handle, dive into the deep end, and sensationalize why this horrible tragedy happened, but as usual, journalism, you have proven to us all once again that ratings and sensationalism will always trump responsible reporting. The Founding Fathers saw your role as so important in our society that it is protected by the constitution. Today, however, journalism, you are no longer earning that privilege.

Yesterday, as the whack-job who committed this horrible crime was still playing his twisted game with society and the government in court, I read and heard story after story and heard plea after plea about how the political discourse and rhetoric of the day was to blame for this incident. I'd like to say that I am doing my best to see it, but honestly, journalism, I can't say that I am trying that hard, because I just don't see it.

This is a classic case of a complete and total psychopath who was determined to make his mark on the world somehow, no matter how heinous an act it took. He knew his life was destined for obscurity and set out to shock us all.

Journalism isn't alone in this, though. The politicians are also chiming in with just as much fervor to support the ridiculous. I mean no disrespect to the people who have died, those who were injured, and their families, but to simply blame this all on political discourse and what we perceive as an elevated level of it here in America today is simply inaccurate in this case.

This self-appointed "revolutionary" was going to strike out against the world, regardless of what was going on around him. It was simply a matter of him choosing a high-profile victim, then picking what he felt was the right time and place. This is the classic MO of all of these whack-jobs in the past. Take a minute and think back to all of the assassinations and assassination attempts that you have ever seen in a documentary or news story, or read about somewhere, and you will find that this one is no different.
Freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and the right to political discourse are some of the most important concepts that have made America such a wonderful nation. We have the right to speak out against the government and we have the right to question the policies of whoever happens to be making the laws at the time, regardless of their political party and beliefs. While I would never think to downplay this tragedy and how saddened I am by it, I am also bothered by the fact that journalists, politicians, and some Americans are misidentifying the cause of this incident in misguided attempts to change and dull political discourse to a level of their liking. I just do not think it is a good idea to tamper with something that has worked so well in this nation since its founding.

The thought that doing away with political discourse will somehow keep something like this from happening again is as crazy as never going outside because you might get hurt, or never driving in a car because you might get in an accident. We better not say that healthcare reform sucks, or that we don't like Nancy Pelosi, or that we think taxes are too high, because there might be some whack-job out there who is going to hear that and then go on a shooting spree. Well, you better do away with high school all-together, then, America, because you now have to make sure that there isn't a single high school student in the entire country that is ever teased or heckled or excluded so that we can ensure that something like this never happens again.

I am not saying that we shouldn't learn from what happened in Tucson, but I am saying that we need to be learning the right lessons and not fabricating politically-motivated rhetoric about political rhetoric. Let's look at why this whack-job was still walking the streets, and why he was able to buy a gun and ammunition despite obvious warning signs. Let's make sure that he was not part of a larger group of people, and truly acted alone. Quit blaming political discourse and look at what was really going on here. Look at what we could have done to avoid this by getting this kid off the streets when there were clear warning signs that something like this was coming, not how we can use this tragedy to make American politics more comfortable for those who don't want to be bothered by the discourse and just want the easy answers - the easy road.

These Are The Days When I Am Proud...

I had a post all ready to go for today, but with the events that occurred this weekend, I would think it remiss of me to not to divulge that the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords is weighing heavily on my wind when I think about politics. In the wake of such a tragedy, how amazing is it that the system does not break down and the whack-job who perpetrated this act of terrorism in his own backyard is going to walk into a courtroom and begin the long process of bringing him to justice. While I personally am anxious to see that justice enacted much more swiftly that it will occur, I just had to comment on how this is one of the wonderfully right things in America. No matter how bad the mob wants to enact vengeance, cooler heads prevail and the justice system is looked to instead.

In another shining example of something that is right with America, just a week ago, the transfer of power in the House of Representatives went off without a hitch. Again, another blatantly right thing with America and our system of government. Don't get me wrong, there is still a lot that we need to fix, but there are some things that are still working just as wonderfully as they were centuries ago.

This heartbreaking story of tragedy and heroism is also sadly, so very American. This story embodies the wonderful rights that are granted to us by the constitution - the right to have access to our government, the right to assemble, freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms - gone so horribly wrong at the hands of one of our own. It is so hard to see such promising and accomplished lives cut short by such an unaccomplished, waste of a human being.

These are the times, however, when America shows her true colors. When the accused, no matter how heinous the crime, still gets their day in court. When we come together, despite the beliefs that may divide us, to comfort, honor, and respect. When we put aside our differences, even if just for a short while, to do the right thing. These are the days when I am proud of you, America.

"How Gay Is The Removal Of Captain Honors From Command? It's So Gay..."

The problem with the average American civilian is that their idea of staying current on what is going on in the world is when they buy into the PC-driven-crap served up by the media during the one or two times per month that they are actually paying attention to the news. Even with our nation fighting two wars and still in the midst of the worst economy in three generations, the average American civilian still has it so good that they can find the time to participate in ridiculous crusades like the one that relieved Captain Owen P. Honors of his command for the content of his XO Movie Night intro videos that were made to boost morale and provide a bit of humor to the sailors under his command that spend months away from home in America's war zones.

I just finished watching a 12-minute, partially-bleeped out version of the video that the Virginia-Pilot compiled for viewing on YouTube, and honestly, while the humor in it is juvenile and crude, I can honestly say that I was not offended, especially when I think on the context in which these videos were made.

Imagine that you are spending months on end away from your family, stuck on an aircraft carrier, continually working and continually aware that at any moment, the wars that America is fighting could be at your door step. So, to try to keep your mind off of things and give you a couple of hours away from it all, the closed-circuit TV on the ship runs a movie. To try to boost the humor and enhance the "movie-going" experience, further taking your mind off of war, duty, and work, the ship's XO, who in addition to his long list of responsibilities, is charged with keeping up the morale of the sailors on the ship, recruits some of his fellow sailors and throws together what he and his cohorts believe are funny little pieces of humor.

The XO gets to seem more personable and approachable, the sailors helping create the movies get a bit of a break and get to have some fun and everyone watching gets a laugh. It is clear when you are watching this video that the intention of the XO Movie Night intro videos created by Captain Honors was to boost morale and be funny, to add some levity to the very serious work that the sailors of the U.S.S. Enterprise undertook each and every day during his stint as XO.

It also becomes very clear that it was not his intention to alienate, discriminate, or do anything more than poke a little fun. America, you have forgotten how to laugh! You are too concerned with the possibility of hurting someone's feelings and adhering to a ridiculous PC standard that none of us can have any fun anymore.

The problem that media sources had with these videos, as is stated in the articles I read, were that the videos were "lewd and homophobic". I will give you that they are a bit lewd, and of course, more lewd to some of the more sensitive souls in America, but they were shown on-board an aircraft carrier during a tour of duty on which everyone was an adult who was there of their own free will.

Watching the XO's intro videos was also not mandatory. Anyone who might have been offended was free not to watch. Have we gotten so PC that looking away and not watching is no longer an option? Are we simply left with nothing being able to even exist anymore? Everyone is not going to like everything all of the time.

As for the videos being "homophonic", I think I honestly went into watching this video thinking that the "gay" jokes would be a lot worse than they were. I think I have seen and heard far worse on just any normal cable channel out there. There is definitely nothing in this videos that you cannot see during prime time network television on any given night.

After having watched the video, I really find it a stretch to call it "homophobic". The videos have same-sex couples in the ship's showers with what the people who made the movies honestly thought was funny commentary, and every once in a while then-XO Honors calls his meeker alter ego (played by himself) "gay" or "faggot".

If the simple use of these two words offends you, then you might not like the video, but is that enough to cost a career Navy man who has led tour after tour year after year his job? I am sorry, oh sensitive American souls, but I just don't think so. If these videos were so bad, how in the world are we just hearing about them now, years after they were made? This is nothing more than years-after-the-fact PC political wrangling.

The video has the word "fuck" in it a lot, which I understand can also be offensive to some, but to say that I have never heard that very word at ANY of the jobs that I have ever had would be quite a ridiculous statement. In my personal opinion, sometimes the situation just calls for that particular word over all others.

You might not agree, but what makes me wrong and you right? In Honors' defense, the video that is out there shows a montage of the use of the word "fuck" over the course of years crammed into a minute or so. Again, if the word "fuck" offends you, I apologize, but to scapegoat one person for it's common use in American society today, regardless of their position, is completely ridiculous. I also say the same goes for the use of the word "gay". I say "gay" all the time and you can freely go ask any of my gay friends how homophobic they think I am.

I also find it very fishy (how offensive to fish!) that this is all happening right after the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. I'm not saying that homophobia doesn't exist in the military, but I just do not think that these videos are an example of it. I think that the press and the navy couldn't find a good post-repeal story to show that they are championing the cause and settled for the persecution of Captain Honors instead.

It is so sad to see such a prestigious and respected organization as the U.S. Navy, an organization that I have always held in such high regard, bow to the ridiculous pressure of a few people that found these videos offensive in the face of an overwhelming majority that obviously did not.

For Captain Honors to be reprimanded for these videos, given the centuries-long tradition of humor just like what is depicted in these videos within the U.S. Navy, and given the man's years of dedicated service and leadership, is not only hypocritical, a prime example of overly-PC-thugery, but also, in accordance with what I said earlier about there sometimes only being one word that can described something, quite gay.

Taxifornia Police Officers Can Now Search Your Cell Phone Without A Warrant

I have long made the argument that if the government and law enforcement want to listen in on my cell phone conversations, they can feel free to do so because they are not going to find anything interesting. My biggest argument against it would be that it would be a waste of taxpayer money for them to take the time to do so. Also, I would hope that if they are going to listen to my cell phone calls, they at least obtain a warrant, thus following proper channels and the law.

What if, however, it came down to a police officer wanting to search the actual contents of my cell phone for incriminateing evidence? Again, they are not going to find anything, but now we are no longer talking about a conversation flowing in the air waves, but something that I carry around with me in my pocket. Quite clearly, they would need to obtain a warrant to go through the contents of my cell phone, right? Well, according to the champions of individual civil liberties, the Taxifornia Supreme Court, no, they do not. Just how an officer can search your person if they suspect you of a crime, they can now, in Taxifornia at least, search the contents of your cell phone.

I agree that, for the most part, the law abiding have nothing to worry about in terms of being incriminated by the contents of their cell phone, but if a corrupt officer has your phone, who knows what they could put on there. Crooked cops have been known to plant drugs, so why not plant incriminating evidence on your cell phone?

I have always viewed the need for the police to obtain a search warrant as a check and balance to the authority of the arresting officers by the courts. Was this check and balance of the power of the police not the reason that the Founding Fathers added the Fourth Amendment to the constitution? When we start doing away with the obtaining of warrants prior to search, we are removing the check and balance that was the intention of the Fourth Amendment. Without search warrants obtained from a judge, we are removing the oversight of the conduct of the police by the court.

A Return, Even If Partially, To A System Of Checks And Balances

One great reason to look forward to 2011 is that we will see a return, even if partially, to the system of checks and balances in that putrid cesspool of ridiculous spending known as Washington, D.C. that the Founding Fathers (yep, I’m still going to call them that in 2011) put in place for a very good reason. 

2011 will hopefully see a time when we are not voting for bills on Monday that we are going to get around to having a chance to read next Tuesday; a time when there is a small voice that can say, “Hey, wait a minute, why don’t we wait a minute?” instead of cramming and ramming piece after piece of legislation through voting in the 11th hour when everyone is distracted by the flashy lights and Christmas songs and not really watching what is going on over in Crazy Town.

Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer actually gets to see the cavalcade of foundational system change for the sake of creating a new world order finally stop, or at least slow to a reasonable pace. Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees these m-f-ing hot air balloons actually quit with the god damned earmarks like they’ve been promising. When even Tea Party candidates are taking earmarks, it’s not time to change the system, it is time to wipe the damned slate clean and just start over.

Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees the Congress and the Executive Branch curtail the reckless and fruitless spending and spend what is needed, where and when it is actually needed. Let’s hope that in 2011, the American Taxpayer sees less and less “Change The World” and a whole hell-of-a lot more “Creating Jobs” and “Jump-Starting The Economy.”

I know that you elected him so that you could get your free healthcare and your car note paid without having to actually go out and get a job, or for your papeles, or your mama’s papeles, but it is time for all of us – both those of you who voted for him and those of us who didn’t – to come together to expect this President to deliver on his promises on job creation, boosting the economy, and reducing government spending and the deficit.

I say the two years of playing in the sandbox with your buddies is rightly ended, and now it is time to come in and get to work. He wants Republicans and Democrats to work together? I say we do just that and start holding him accountable to those promises – not the ones where he promised everyone who doesn't pay any income taxes even more free shit, but the ones where he promised to enact actual change on this economy and that damned town he’s been living in for the past two years.

Good Riddance To The Taxinator! You Turned Out To Be A Damned Politician After All...

I would like to thank the Taxinator for giving us, the idiots who voted for him, one last slap in the face while he is on his way out the door. Whenever one of these politicians, especially the ones that claim that they are not really politicians, is on their way out of office, they always take the time to cast a few pardons here and there, regardless of whether or not they are deserved. In most cases, they are to friends of friends and colleagues of colleagues, and friends and/or colleagues of money-givers and future business partners.

Yesterday, the Taxinator did a favor for Father Of The Year Fabian Nunez and his murdering son, Esteban. Nunes is the rightfully disgraced former head Democrat in Sacramento who is now a business partner of the Taxinator's chief political advisory firm.

Raise your hand if you took part in a murder in college. Now, raise your hand if you got to plead your murder charge down to 16 years and didn't have to stand trial because your daddy was the Democratic Speaker of the House in Taxifornia when it came time for you to pay for your crime.

Now, raise your hand if your daddy was able to befriend a Democrat in Republicans' clothing who happened to be governor and on his last day in office got your sentence cut down to seven years.

Look, only one person in the entire state has his hand up! Oh, and don't go crying special treatment, Taxifornia murderers who are serving your full terms. According to the politicians, Esteban Nunez was subject to the same fair-for-everyone Taxifornia justice system as you.

I also love that Arnie (who, thank all of the powers in the universe will no longer be the the Taxinator by the end of the day today) didn't even have the balls to let the family of the young man that Esteban Nunez helped murder know about the reduction in sentence either in person, or through lackey communication. 

Fred Santos, the father of Luis Santos, had to hear it from reporters when asked how he felt about it.

Arnie ran on the platform that he was not a typical politician and probably somewhere in that steroid-encrusted brain of his still thinks that he is not, but this last minute back-door deal to reduce the sentence of a cold-blooded murderer tells me a different story. Sometimes, it would seem, the non-politician can turn out to be an even worse politician than the self-admitted politicians. Good riddance to yet another lying, cheating, despicable Taxifornia politician.

2011 Is Finally Here, So What Are You Going To Do About It?

I hope that I am one of the first to welcome you to 2011, a year that I think most of us are hoping is going to truly be the best year for all of us, at least in the past few years. For me, there is no room to complain about 2010, or 2009, or 2008, or 2007, and so on, really, but believe me when I say that I feel and agree with your sentimental optimism, America, in hoping that we all have a fantastic 2011.

If you’re working right now, then I hope you find yourself still working on 1/1/2012, and all of the days in-between. If you’re looking for work, I really hope this is the year that you find it – that you remember 2011 as the year that turned it all around. I think I can speak with confidence when I say that anyone I know that can have a hand in keeping the economy going, creating jobs, and getting us back on track, is going to continue working just as hard to make that happen this year as they were back in that dreaded year of yesteryear, 2010.

While not all of us had a particularly bad 2010, I know that the general sentiment about the year is that most people are happy to see it gone. I also tend to join in that point of view, if no reason other than I am hoping we see an even better 2011 for all of us.

For me, the trying years were 2004, 2005, and 2006, but again, looking back from where I sit today, there is truly no room for me to complain about those years. Good things still happened in those years, and I think even in the most trying of years for us, we can still find some good things. 2011, for me, is marking the year in which I stop reflecting back upon those trying years (other than to learn their lessons) and second-guessing what I could have done to change them, and instead, look forward to the milestones of the coming year.

2011 will see this missive turn 10 years old. How amazing is that? 2011 will mark the ever-lucky 13th year since I met my beautiful wife. 2011 marks the 23rd year that I will spend with some of my dearest friends. 2011 will mark the 26th year I am somebody’s older brother, the 6th year that someone will be calling me “Uncle” and the 4th year someone will be calling me “Nino”. That’s “Godfather” to you non-Spanish-speakers like me, and to people with Italian last names, it’s kind of a big deal.

While we all have to be mindful of our past, I think the lesson to take from the death of 2010, and to a lesser extent, from each New Year’s Day, is that this particular day really marks a time in which we need to turn our sights away from the past and look to the future. New Year’s Day marks a time to begin anew – to refresh our life-long goals and set an even stronger course than we pursued the year before. I hope that you will all join me in using today to do just that.