Fackin Truth Blog

Chronic bloat and fiscal liberals

So Standard and Poors (S&P) downgraded the US credit rating. I can't help but side-eye the folks, including the President, who are griping about this new development. I wish my personal "economy" could maintain a 800 credit score while in an obvious shambles.

I remain unimpressed with the President's response, although he gets points for staying true to his "tax and spend... and spend" philosophy of the government's bloated role in our lives:

"Last week, we reached an agreement that will make historic cuts to defense and domestic spending. But there’s not much further we can cut in either of those categories."

If you ever worked for the government, set foot in a government agency, or simply lived in this country for 10 minutes, you know FOR SURE the government has a lot of fat to trim off the loin. Failed programs. Paper pushers. Employment/contract "hookups." The basic iniability to fire non-performing employees. Don't tell me this shyt ain't rampant and in need of some serious soul searching. "Can't cut" is code word for all the reasons folk "won't cut."

This fella seems to agree with me, and highlights the exact kind of foolery I'm talking about.

New government job. Associate Administrator for Administration. (Is that like Associate Manager for Management? Associate Eater for Eating? WTH?? But I digress...) A glorified paper-pusher who will make bewtween $119K and $179K per year. I swear that position sounds like smoke and mirrors to employ somebody's couch potato neice/brother/sister/cousin/great aunt twice removed. Here's how the job offer starts:

"Come on board with us and take a journey that will challenge your mind and develop your career. The quality of our lives, the shape of our communities and the productivity of our Nation's economy depend on our transportation systems. We recognize and value the importance of our workforce and the diversity of backgrounds and ideas that each employee brings. The U.S. Department of Transportation: Careers in Motion." Journey to challenge your mind? Seriously???

Take a look at the Executive Core Qualifications this glorified assistant must possess:

ECQ 1 - LEADING CHANGE: This core qualification involves the ability to bring about strategic change, both within and outside the organization, to meet organizational goals, as well as the ability to establish an organizational vision and to implement it in a continuously changing environment. Am I the only one who envisions a change fairy flitting around the office sprinkling happy dust on employees who don't give a rat's azz? But I digress...

ECQ 5 - BUILDING COALITIONS: This core qualification involves the ability to build coalitions internally and with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, nonprofit and private sector organizations, foreign governments, or international organizations to achieve common goals. Schmooze much? This is the invitation to travel around the world on the government dime. Lavish hotels. World class dining. At least it would be for a cause, unlike these folks who traveled the world on tax dollars to stare at billboards. I want THAT job.

I'll never knock somebody's hustle to get work. I won't even knock the friends/relatives/assocates who provide these hookups on a regular basis. I just don't want to pay for it. 

I can admit I may be like one of those freshly saved church folks - so proud of their new-found love for Jesus that they turn into Bible-thumping idiots who you cross the street to avoid. But I'll also admit I believe wholeheartedly in the foundation of fiscal conservatism which holds dear that the government should have limited tentacles reached into our homes and our pocketbooks.

Now if I could only get over the socially conservative tendency to judge folk, thump Bibles, and... Nah. That's never gonna happen.

Going Galt over Big Government

There was a time, long long ago, when my party-loyal Democrat parents led me to believe that Republicans were the greedy, racist, blood hungry folks from Washington who lived under my bed when the Boogey Monster was on vacation. For years, I stayed away from understanding politics since I already knew the Repubs were the devil's spawn and everybody was too dayum emotional about it. Naturally, when I turned 18, my voter registration card read "Democrat." That was easy. When voting, I found the right column, pressed all the buttons, and smiled that my civic duty was complete.

As I entered into my career, I found myself surrounded by intelligent and trusted coworkers who also stood as vocal conservatives. Their consistent and persistent positions caught my interest. Ron Paul further ignited my interest in party politics with his sometimes-radical positions, such as abolishing the Federal Reserve. I found myself agreeing with this quirky male whose party affiliation began with the "R" word.

I'll never forget the day, several years ago, when a close friend (a registered Rebublican) graced me with the first logical personal assessment of Democrats (Liberals) vs. Republicans (Conservatives). Without an iota of the misplaced emotion that plagued my old understanding of the parties, she indicated her agreement with Conservative fiscal policies and her disagreement with Conservative views on social issues (and the way those social views sometimes spilled into policymaking). I was hooked on expanding my understanding, and I discovered something important about my personal views:

I'm a freakin' fiscal conservative. My aversion to Bible-thumping, homophobic, often-hypocritical social conservatives kept me from associating myself with anything in the conservative bucket.

As a general rule, fiscal conservatives believe in limiting the government's reach into your pocketbook, descreased government spending, and increased business (which means more employers leading to more jobs).

On the other hand, fiscal liberals believe in big government spending for more government programs - most of which don't work and tax us into funding causes we'd otherwise like to opt-out of.

My latest foray into all things political led me to the term "Going Galt." The term is linked to the book "Atlas Shrugged," where the character John Galt encourages innovative movers and shakers to go on strike against socialist idealism, which breeds mediocrity. Today's use of the term Going Galt applies to entrepeneurs who give up on operating a business in America based on the reality and the potential for huge economic losses caused by governmental red tape.

David McElroy witnessed this phenomenon when a coal miner in Alabama declared defeat in starting a business that would employ 125 people desperate for jobs:

I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I don’t know. I mean, I see these guys — I see them with tears in their eyes — looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So as I stood against the wall here today, basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.

Comments to that article, and to this additional short article, feature real-life stories of people walking away from self-employment and business ownership after getting regulated out of the deal.

I don't believe I'll ever be a party loyalist, because none of the major parties have it all right. I don't hold a single fantasy that any party is free of players who spend too much time serving corporate interests, climb into bed with lobbyists, and conveniently forget their campaign promises to actually help the public as public servants.

This is a good time to question your old beliefs to understand the logic beneath. This is the worst time to rely on party loyalty in exchange for truly understanding the foundation of our choices. My eye is on the fiscal conservatives who just might be able to lure Galt employers back into the game. We need those employers. Mortgages don't pay themselves.

Legislating Morality

My co-worker and I regularly lament about this nation's newly-expanding love of legislating morality. Under this philosophy, lawmakers exercise unreasonable liberty and loose interpretations in passing & enforcing laws against any behavior that is contrary to their personal morals.

Now I am all for outlawing immoral behaviors that threaten the life and limb of another human being. Murder is immoral and illegal because nobody has the right to determine the expiration date of another random life. And I sure don't think we should be allowed to beat our neighbors within an inch of their lives when a misplaced fence encroaches across our property line. In those cases, laws function as intended - to protect citizens from harm.

But what happens when law is used as an attack on personal freedoms? I happen to hate the sagging pants phenomenon. If my son's pants look like they're creeping from the region of his waist, I request a correction right away. Some say the baggy pants represent a man's availability to other men while in jail. Others say the fashion statement is part of the hip hop culture. I don't really care if it causes my house to spontaneously clean itself, it's not a look that describes the path on which I want to send my children.

BUT... Do I want my lawmakers wasting time finding ways to outlaw this fashion statement? Not particularly. My personal dislike for saggy pants shouldn't become grounds for wanting to criminalize the behavior. Shyt, I never had a pair of saggy pants rob my home, inflict me with a wound, threaten my life or traumatize my kids. A few states clearly disagree with my position. From the article about outlawing saggy pants:

According to Andrew Bolton, the curator at the Costume Institute of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, fashions tend to be decried when they “challenge the conservative morality of a society.”

From the same article:

Debbie Seagraves, the executive director of the A.C.L.U. of Georgia said, “I don’t see any way that something constitutional could be crafted when the intention is to single out and label one style of dress that originated with the black youth culture, as an unacceptable form of expression.”

Now I won't get into describing how this legislation is usually directed at behaviors (either real or stereotypical) exhibited by minorities. Instead, I'll get to the incident that really triggered this blog post. The latest issue involves a much more benign moral issue. Unlike sagging pants, Issue #2 doesn't even flirt near lines in the sand where inappropriate body parts may be exposed. We're talking about another common behavior (often attributed to the Black community): Eye rolling. Yeah I said it. Rolling. Yo. Eyes.

A woman from Elmhurst rolled her eyes and sighed during a public meeting and was promptly ejected from the proceeding. As a result, the city is looking to create a "disturbance and disorderly conduct" violation which would effectively criminalize the silent objection expressed via rolling of the eyes.

Naturally, as stated in the article, the woman was opposed to an issue under discussion. It begs the question, "If she had rolled her eyes in support of the position, would she be facing such 'criminal' scrutiny?"

In this case, like so many others, one person's discomfort, moral indignation, or simple bad hair day leads to the unjust limitation of another person's rights. In other words, she hurt his widdle feelings so she should be smacked with a violation.

I'm rolling my eyes about this one. Now what??

Share your thoughts in the comments.

I'm gonna throw my paw into this flaming cat fight to say...

Don't blink, because you may never see this again. In a few moments, you'll witness me engage my precious typing fingers to comment on... of all things... a friggin beauty pageant. Miss USA to be exact. (God. I think I just threw up a little in my mouth, but I digress.)

Just in case you were lucky enough to actually miss this on the news, here's the summary. The gay Miss USA judge (and famous blogger), Perez Hilton asked Miss California (Carrie Prejean) a controversial question during the competition. And the poor little blond thing gave an answer that arguably cost her the title. (Doesn't she know that "world peace" is the correct answer to all those dayum beauty pageant questions? Just ask Miss Congeniality.) Anyway:

Prejean, a blonde student was one of the favourites to win the Miss USA title at the pageant held on Sunday at the Planet Hollywood hotel and casino in Las Vegas and shown live on TV.

Having negotiated earlier rounds of modelling in a swimsuit and evening gown, she was down to the final 15 and had to answer a single question from one of the panel of five judges.

Prejean picked celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, who is openly gay and calls himself 'queen of all media'.

Hilton asked her: 'Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?'

Prejean paused for a moment before replying: 'Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.'

She continued: 'And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.

'No offence to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be - between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.' [source]

Since that time, all hell has broken loose in the media like a cat fight of biblical proportions (no pun intended). Perez Hilton kicked it off by calling Prejean a "dumb bitch," which I suspect came with a lot of neck-rolling and batted eyelashes. But I call "Dumb" on Perez Hilton for asking that question in the first place. Why?  Because gay marriage is the new double-punch hot-button issue that grabs people by their political AND religious nuts (preceded only by the equally double-punched question of abortion). And I don't think that kind of question has a place in all the priss and prance of a beauty pageant. In fact, if the answer isn't "World Peace," I call foul on the question (but I digress again).

Now I can't leave Perez hanging in the wind for turning the stage into his personal platform for gay rights. Because Miss California did the same by converting the stage into her personal pulpit.

But Hawa, aren't you a Christian? Didn't you agree with her immediately and wanna smack the pink out of Perez's soul?

No. HELL no. I'm not siding with the self-proclaimed Christian Keepers of the Moral Center for Finger Pointing. Because Christians, especially Christian Conservatives, are notorious for picking on the "other" sinners. By "other", I mean anybody believed to commit worse sins than the sanctified among us. Really, it just gets ridiculous.

If you believe homosexuality is a sexual sin, then get consistent with your bible thumping finger pointing. What about putting adultery back on the books as illegal and giving the betrayed spouse legal rights to sue? Why not disallow all these TV shows that glorify sex before marriage? While we're at it, lets make sure liars and common fornicators can't adopt children.

You see, I don't want my government ruling under a narrow set of "Christian" beliefs. Not only do we pride ourselves on allowing religious freedom, but John McCain and Sarah Palin taught us a HUGE lesson about the way Christians can't even agree about religion (read: Christian conservatives scare the crap out of me). Even the Klu Klux Klan considers themselves a Christian organization. So I can do without lessons from some folks on how to be a Good American Christian.

Marriage from a government perspective is about the legally binding contract between two people. And that's what I want my government to tend to. If two consenting adults of the same sex decide to marry, why shouldn't the mate receive property rights and other spousal benefits? Leave the legalities to the legislators. Leave the religious dilemma to individuals.

And please, by golly, leave the politically and religiously-charged questions OFF the beauty pageant stage. It's just.... not.... cute.

When natural selection CLEARLY gets it right...

Imagine this. The 32 year-old mother of a 13-year old child can no longer bear children, but she wants a child with her current boyfriend. What options for them come to mind?

A surrogate mother?

Fertility treatments? Octomom did it in grand style.

Adoption?

How about a darned PUPPY?

Apparently Shana Brown of western Pennsylvania is a much more complex thinker than us simple-minded organisms. Because the genius machine in her dome concocted a plan to drug her 13-year old daughter and allow her grown-assed boyfriend to rape and impregnate the girl.

Seriously, the girl escaped the sick plan on three different occasions:

"The three attempts to occurred in Brown's home in Uniontown, about 50 miles south of Pittsburgh, according to the criminal complaint. The girl told police the plot was apparently hatched sometime in December after she rejected her mother's proposal that she allow Calloway to impregnate her and then marry him."

If your eyes aren't burning from their sockets yet, you can read the entire story here.

Now I'm not one to be unreasonable. I want to be fair. Let's all offer the mother a round of applause for giving the girl the option to screw the boyfriend and have the baby while wide awake. [crickets] I thought so...

It's a shame when odd news goes from funny and quirky to tragic. While we've all complained (once or twice) about bad mothers who can't stop having kids, how about the sweet natural selection that robbed Ms. Brown of her fertility? Who knows what Tales of Fantastic Mothering would have met offspring #2.

I hear there's a special place in hell for Baptists who drink and *gasp* dance. There must be a special place in jail for mothers who condone the statuatory rape of their own daughters, and the flaming morons who join the party.

I'm too deep into nuggets y'all - NOT

I once thought about approaching the FBI with a little puzzle that I thought I solved. The unmarked and well-guarded salt shaker at the McDonald's Fry Station contains a top secret mixture of salt, a touch of sugar, and FRIGGIN CRACK COCAINE. Those delectable strings of golden goodness are addictive, and worth the risk of heart disease that comes with every beautiful perfectly-fried stick.

Does that sound over the top? Okay. Well how about this woman who is so into her nuggets that she summoned  9-1-1 when McDonald's ran out?

Angered that her local McDonald's was out of Chicken McNuggets, a Florida woman called 911 three times to report the fast food "emergency."

Now I'm not hating on anybody's food fetish. I remember the time I almost cried when I forgot the sun-dried tomatoes on my delivery order. Or the time my fiance wanted to run the mini-van through a local diner after watching a man at another table eat the last serving of grits with breakfast.

But I ain't into nuggets, y'all. (Although KFC is a whole other story, but I digress.) And I just can't relate to the fire behind this fast food fiasco.

Some mothers truly excel at multi-tasking

I recently boasted about my multi-tasking prowess as a natural outcome from years of training in single-motherhood. Imagine how quickly my puffed-chest deflated when I discovered this pro who clearly graduated at the top of her class:

An Ohio mother faces charges for breastfeeding her daughter while driving her other children to school.

"I'm following behind a lady in a van who is driving while breastfeeding her newborn baby and talking on the cell phone," said a 911 caller.

Officers then pulled over the mother and issued her a ticket for not having her child in a car seat.

Well, we can't all be Valedictorian.

Because some news stories fade and die before we see them...

Chicago Man Arrested for Allegedly Targeting Obama With HIV-Infected Blood

"A man from President Obama's hometown of Chicago has been arrested for allegedly sending Obama and his staff envelopes containing HIV-infected blood, in the hopes of killing or harming them.

It's only the second time ever that HIV-infected blood has been sent with malicious intent through the U.S. mail system, a spokesman for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service said." [Full Fox News story here]

I wanted to believe this was some redneck backwoods bubba who didn't get the memo that we're supposed to be living in a post-racial America (cough::bullshit::cough). But alas, it turns out to be an Ethiopian refugee named Saad Hussein. And according to his priors, he's just a little insane in the membrane touched.

Yeah yeah. I know I just breezed in here with an odd news story waaaaaaay after I promised to update more often. I've been busy. Fo'real. I have projects going on every-frickin-where -- from web jobs to the anonymous blog that the Mr. and I finally started.

But I love to talk. And I love to write. And although I may take down my badly neglected health/cleansing blog, Fackin Truth is the first love I just can't stand to part with.

So don't be a ninny and just check back soon to make sure I'm keepin it fresh with ma first love.

Eight is Enough? Try FOURTEEN.

No, I'm not talking about the eight years Departing President DipSchnit spent in office. I'm talking about the California woman who just made history as the second woman on record to deliver octuplets who all survived more than a few hours. That's eight babies worth of swollen ankles and morning sickness.

When this story first hit the news and the proud doctors boasted about their delivery room prowess, I thought we were on our way to a feel-good story on the miracle of birth. But then the details started to leak, and we discovered that this 33-year old single mother already had 6 children at home. All under age 8. AGE 8. Those 6 children were the result of using a sperm donor. AND ALL EIGHT NEWBORNS CAME AFTER 8 EMBRYOS WERE IMPLANTED DURING FERTILITY TREATMENT. From the same sperm donor.

I'm flabbergasted. Seriously. A young single mother, living in a 3 bedroom home with her parents, now has 14 children all under age 8. On purpose nonetheless.

As Americans, we simply adore the miracle of birth. We oooh. We aaaaah. And we make disgustingly silly noises when in the presence of those tiny miracles. But an elderly neighbor of Ms. Octuplet went on camera with a myth-busting opinion of this birth. After giving a blank stare peppered with disgust, she asked the million-dollar question. What? And I'm supposed to be excited? She went on to note how the home is already flooded with young children, and questioned the mother's decision to have more, without a husband, and in an economy like this.

I have my own personal objections about this Miracle Hot Mess Birth, and I honestly felt guilty for throwing such judgment onto a perfect stranger. So allow me to let other parties criticize for me.

:: Economists estimate that it will cost $2.5M to raise the children.

:: News reports indicate that the father will travel to Iraq to work on contracts to help pay for the cost of raising the children. Edited to add: It's the woman's father who will go to work to support his grandchildren.

:: Interviews with medical specialists indicate that implanting eight embryos is borderline malpractice for a fertility specialist, and the norm is one to three.

:: Some of those medical interviews hinted towards the possibility of mental illness that should have been investigated by other treating physicians before allowing this woman to become the single mother of fourteen children. (Isn't that really a nice way to say "Dat Chick Cray-zee?")

From a logistical perspective, childcare costs alone could hinder employment and I suspect this woman will qualify for welfare services. Thankfully, our warped craving for bizarre news has resulted in her getting calls to buy her story, and some of those offers are in the millions.

So tell me, where has your mind wandered while watching this news story unfold? Hit me in the comments.

Time Magazine Names Barack Obama"Person of the Year 2008"

I can't say Time Magazine is good with suspense and surprises. Did we expect anybody else to win Person of the Year 2008? Back on December 9, I wrote a post at Michelle Obama Watch reporting that Obama had over 500K reader poll votes while the second place candidate stood at a paltry 24K. Unlike the primary and general election polls, that ish ain't even close.

During his follow-up interview with Time Magazine, Obama reminded me of the palpable hope I have in him to become one of the best Presidents this country ever had the honor to elect. He clearly embraces his accountability to the American people, an expectation I dropped like a rock a long time ago. Keeping on that theme, Obama offers a checklist for voters to use in judging his performance two years from now:

"Have we helped this economy recover from what is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? Have we instituted financial regulations and rules of the road that assure this kind of crisis doesn't occur again? Have we created jobs that pay well and allow families to support themselves? Have we made significant progress on reducing the cost of health care and expanding coverage? Have we begun what will probably be a decade-long project to shift America to a new energy economy? Have we begun what may be an even longer project of revitalizing our public-school systems?"

He continues the agenda with issues of international concern:

"Have we closed down Guantánamo in a responsible way, put a clear end to torture and restored a balance between the demands of our security and our Constitution? Have we rebuilt alliances around the world effectively? Have I drawn down U.S. troops out of Iraq, and have we strengthened our approach in Afghanistan — not just militarily but also diplomatically and in terms of development? And have we been able to reinvigorate international institutions to deal with transnational threats, like climate change, that we can't solve on our own?"

And he wouldn't be Barack Obama if he didn't include concerns about his performance that resonate with Americans at a personal level:

"Outside of specific policy measures, two years from now, I want the American people to be able to say, 'Government's not perfect; there are some things Obama does that get on my nerves. But you know what? I feel like the government's working for me. I feel like it's accountable. I feel like it's transparent. I feel that I am well informed about what government actions are being taken. I feel that this is a President and an Administration that admits when it makes mistakes and adapts itself to new information.'"

Congratulations Obama. Read the entire Time piece here, including a slideshow of Obama's college years rockin' the low fro.