Must Read for the Weekend.

Common Sense: The Case Against An Out-Of-Control Government by Glenn Beck.

I heard about this book and given Glenn Beck's track record I decided it would be worth checking out. As most of you know Glenn Beck has a talk show on radio in the mornings and on Fox News in the evening. He has written several other books that you should check out.

Now, for those of you who watch or listen to Glenn Beck on a regular basis you will find the arguments brought forth in the first half of the book to be nothing new. The first hundred pages are a rehash of arguments he has made on his radio and television shows. He does, however, clear up some of the arguments by providing some good examples. For those of you who are not regulars to Mister Beck then the first half is definitely work looking at. There are some good arguments to be made.

The reason why I say that this is a must read is for the last sixty or so pages. Glenn Beck includes Thomas Paine's original "Common Sense." I remember reading Paine while in college and didn't give him much thought. Yet, after rereading this piece I found myself to be amazed at the arguments he brought forth in 1776 and how well they applied to government today. Honestly, its an amazing piece of work which should be closely looked at even today.

Overall, its an easy read and a very short book, but, it is very profound.

You can buy this book here.

Double Speak!

As most of you are probably aware, the Senate today passed a bill which would put the Tobacco Industry under the regulation authority of the Food and Drug Administration. Many people are applauding this landmark legislation which has been in the works for over forty years. People like me, however, are a little worried about the precedents this law will set.

Now for the sake of this argument I will agree with those who feel that smoking is the ultimate evil in our society. Cigarettes are evil and those who smoke them are "unhealthy" and shady individuals, blah, blah, blah. Ok! I get it! Smoking is a choice and certain people have decided not to while others enjoy it. I chose to smoke and I chose to give it up. That was a personal right and freedom that I had. The right to choose to commit a legal action.

However, this new legislation would allow the Food and Drug Administration to step into a "PRIVATE" industry and tell them how to run their business. Tobacco companies will be forced to give up the list of items contained in its product. It will be forced to cut back on its advertisements. It will be forced to drop the labels "light", "mild," etc. from cigarettes. It will even be forced to change the amount of nicotine in its product. All the while the same industry which the government has just stepped in to control will be forced to pay for all of this regulation. Really? Is any of this constitutionally allowed? As of right now, due to previous lawsuits, the Tobacco Industry has been forced to run ads against its own product. I find all of this to be completely ridiculous. This legislation will allow the government to make decisions for a private group under the guise of the greater good. Their hopes are to ween people off of this evil product. The issue here is that it sets a horrible precedent. What will be the next industry which the government will deem "unhealthy" and force to regulate? Now, our economy is not socialist (yet), but, this does lay down the framework for eventual government control in all industry. Something that is the exact opposite of free market capitalism.

Now, the prime issue I take with this legislation is the double speak from our politicians. I am beginning to wonder if politicians have short memories or they just don't care what they do. The reason I think this is because of a piece of legislation brought up a few months ago. Now, the hopes of this bill will to be able to change a product that people are addicted to and hope that they will never use it anymore. Yet, a few months ago the government passed SCHIP (children's healthcare reported on this blog a few months ago) and raised taxes on cigarettes. The reason why they raised these taxes was to pay for the whole program. Now, I ask the government this! If people stop smoking won't we raise less tax revenue to fund this and other programs? What will we have to tax instead? Didn't this administration promise me that my taxes wouldn't go up a dime? Seriously? I just don't understand how these politicians work.

Now to make it clear, this is something that both sides of the aisle have supported. It has been the first time that I've seen legislation pass with support from both Democrats and Republicans. I find it funny how both sides are willing to curb your freedoms. I find it funny how the first time these guys have worked together there are issues of constitutionality in a bill. Washington D.C. is just getting more and more out of touch and ridiculous as the days go by.

By the way, is there any way we could regulate KFC and have them give us the secret recipe for their fried chicken? I would actually support that.

Sad but True!

This story would be utterly hillarious if it were not true! However, today I had an amazing experience at my local post office that I must share with my readers.

The story starts over the weekend while searching for jobs on the internet. I have been looking for jobs in North Carolina where I intend to move in a short period of time. Finally, after weeks of searching I found the perfect job (the job itself is unimportant to the story). Yet, to my dismay I noticed that they only accept applications that are mailed through the United States Postal Service (USPS). No faxing, no FedEx, No UPS! "No problem," I say to myself as I fill out the application and come up with a cover letter. I was slightly worried though because come Monday I had only four days to get the application in.

Anyways, come Monday afternoon I walked into my local post office and strolled right up to the counter. Now, its been years since I have actually mailed something besides an e-mail and used USPS. So, I was a bit worried about mailing it via the regular service and having it take more than four days to get to North Carolina. "No problem!", I said again to myself, "I'll just pay a few bucks extra." Now to be fair, the lady behind the counter was amazing and extremely nice to me. She put in the zip code into the computer and showed me the rates. To send it through the mail and have it take the normal 3-5 days it would have just cost me a $0.44 stamp. The next option was a two day delivery for $4.95 (or about 11.25 times the normal rate to get it there a day earlier). The final option was for $17.99 (40.8 times the regular amount) to get it there by noon the next day (mind you this is just a regular letter in an envelope not a package). "Five bucks is steep, but no big deal," I said. I pulled out my money when the lady quickly excused herself. Now, I had told her that the letter was a job application and she went above and beyond to check something for me. She came back and told me that the USPS could not guarantee that the letter would get there in time, even if I paid the two day rate!

Yes, you read that right! I was paying extra for two day delivery, yet, the government could not "guarantee" that my letter would get there in TWO DAYS! WAIT WTF! I looked at the lady took my letter and told her "No Thanks!" and left. Now, I will commend her because she could have just screwed me over and took my money, but she was honest. However, this raises a big concern to me. The government is wondering why the USPS is losing money (and by losing I mean hemorrhaging) and yet it doesn't know about incidents such as this. How would you feel if you ordered a large pizza and had it delivered, you paid with your credit card up front, and they promised that it would be there in 30 minutes; yet, you end up receiving it in 90 minutes and it turns out to be only a medium? You would never buy from that place again.

However, this is a problem with government. First, off your taxes pay for the USPS. Therefore, you are paying for ineptitude such as this. Second, it proves that government can't run a business. I think that this is a perfect example to explain why I am upset that the government now controls 60% of GM. GM is going to end up like the USPS. A company with an inferior product, which can't compete, and will hemorrhage money. All the while you and I will be paying for it. Another great example in this region of governmental failure is that of AMTRAK. Government has proven that it can't compete against private interests and business. So, it should just stop trying.

As for the job the application didn't get sent out! So, I would like to extend a big thank you to my government which keeps promising me help in finding a job, yet stopping me in one form or another from getting it!

Media Malpractice!

Above is a trailer for a must see movie. John Ziegler on election day interviewed several supporters of Barack Obama and recieved some very interesting answers. Every single person could state the negative press coverage of Sarah Palin and John McCain, yet, no one could even answer simple questions about Biden or Obama. How could this be? Well, Ziegler answers this question in his documentry title Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted .

I had the pleasure to view this movie the other day and I was, for lack of a better word, amazed. I remember during the election ripping out my hair in frustration over how the media was treating the McCain/Palin ticket versus the Obama/Biden camp. Yet, I thought it was just my bias becoming ever more apparent. I am by the way a moderate Libertarian. However, this documentry covers the inheirant hypocrisy and double standards the medias used throughout the election cycle to garner support for Obama and recieve high ratings.

Ziegler shows that this is true because it didn't start during the general election, but earlier during the race for the "Democratic Ticket." He shows how the media turned on the Clintons and shifted support towards Obama helping him get elected. The film ends on a funny note too when Ziegler points out that after the election the media showed its true colors. I'll save this one for you to see.

The overall story here, is that the media stole this election from us. Journalism is dead! They did not act in a responsible manner by reporting the truth and both sides of a story. This is scary because the media controls us and is now hand in hand with our government. In the end it will mean less people will be thinking for themselves as our freedoms and liberties will be taken away.

Needless to say, the media and Hollywood has bashed Ziegler over this film. They have labeled him as hateful, a racist, a stupid conservative, and a man with an agenda. By the way Ziegler himself admits that he is a moderate Libertarian who has only given money to the Democratic Party!

You can buy this film here.

Term Limits?

Have you ever noticed how newer politicians are very gung-ho and want to get things accomplished while those who have been in power for years don't want to rock the boat?

Have you ever noticed how newer politicians tend not to be corrupt while those who have been in power for years are rife with it?

Have you ever noticed how newer politicians have great ideas and want to innovate while those who have been in power for years want to keep the status-quo?

After yesterday's post I began to rethink these questions and the idea of term limits for government. It is very, very rarely that I advocate for something that is not in the Constitution (either state or federal), yet, I think that this would be a ground-breaking idea. I would love to see officials at the state and federal level to bring forth an Amendment limiting the time a person can be a Representative or Senator. I feel that this alone could solve several problems with corruption and could get the juices of innovation and ideas flowing once again.

After FDR the United States of America stated that it did not trust a person as the PRESIDENT to serve more than two terms. So why do we trust others in these positions to serve a lifetime? It gets to a point when a Senator has been in office for three decades that he is no longer serving the public, but, simply himself. Corruption tends to be more rampant with those who have been in power longer. Bad decisions which affect the state and country tend to be made by these same politicians. Its just mind-boggling!

Now, I have no issue with a person being a Representative then becoming a Senator and then going to the federal level and doing the same. This gives a person experience while still holding him accountable. As for specifics I think (but I'm open to discussion for this) that Representatives could serve 4 to 5 two-year terms while Senators should only serve 2 six-year terms. Its that simple!

A few months ago I heard a laughable argument from a local Representative now Senator by the name of Jennifer Flanagan (surprise, surprise a Democrat) . She was being interviewed on local television by some unknown who was lobbing her softball questions. However, she did ask one good question; that of term limits. What was Flanagan's response? That term limits were a bad idea cause nothing would get done. NOTHING WOULD GET DONE? Yes, you heard that right! She argued that it took soooo long to settle in and that the legislation calendar was toooo short. That nothing could possibly get done in time if their were term limits BECAUSE people would be worried about running for a new office and spending time on their campaigns. Something I might add that they already do. So, what are we paying these people to do if they say that they have too little time to actually ummmm work? I have no clue and I ask all of you voters to seriously consider term limits and vote hacks like this out of office.

Of All Places!

I would like to start of this post with a challenge to my readers! Think for yourselves and question what you hear from the media! Don't take everything at face value and look into things that are brought up. Yet, at the same time keep and open mind and listen because you never know when you might hear a good political debate or even a point that might be interesting. Hell, I hope my readers even question what I write. My job here is to bring up and start debate and not be the be all and end all of the facts like the television media claims to do.

With that said, I was driving home this morning and I heard an amazing political debate from a very unlikely source. It was three radio djs from a local rock and roll station (107.3 WAAF Boston). Now one would not expect a morning show on a station such as this to have a stimulating discussion, but the "Hillman Morning Show" with Greg Hill, LB, and "Spaz" did just that. For over an hour they had an amazing debate in which callers would phone in and get very animated over. I at times wanted to pull over and call in to bring up a few points, but, I figured I would never get through.

Sooo... what were they discussing? Well it turns out the former Speaker of the Massachusetts Congress (who stepped down a few months ago in the midst of a scandal) is possibly going to be indicted for fraud and accepting bribes. While acting as a congressman Sal DiMassi accepted bribes between $4000 and $25000 to push forth legislation or help companies get government contracts. So what, just one corrupt politician it doesn't matter, you might say. The issue that arises is that this is the third (yes the third) Speaker to step down in a row while in the midst of a scandal for corruption. Not only that, but several representatives have been caught for committing crimes while in office. Several of these people are facing jail time as we speak.

Yet, for some odd reason we keep electing these corrupt politicians into power in this state. Then we wonder why the state is so horrible. Why does this keep happening? Many of the callers to the "Hillman Morning Show" discussed the one party dominance in the state. I would agree with this statement. Most of our politicians are from one party, the one with a capital D. They have been in power for decades in this state (except for a few Governors between 1990 and 2006). Others stated that no one shows up to the local elections in this state. This is very true and Greg Hill pointed out that the people who do show up are those who have something to gain by voting for a certain person (i.e. a job, money, or a government contract). I wanted to call in and make the point that almost all of the elections that these people win are because they are unapposed. So who else are you going to vote for?

Needless to say, Massachusetts is rife with corruption. So, for those of you that live there here is what you do. Vote! Show up and vote these politicians out of office! Run! Run for office on an independent ticket make others think and have a choice! Quit complaining! Stop moaning about this after the fact and be proactive.

Anyways, I wanted to thank the team on the "Hillman Morning Show" for airing this topic. Keep up the good work guys! You can hear their show on weekday mornings on 107.3/97.7 WAAF (Boston).

Welcome Back Jay Severin!

Earlier today, after over a month long suspension, Jay Severin returned to the airwaves. He is back in his 3-7 pm time slot on 96.9 WTKK (Boston).

For those of you not in the loop Jay Severin was suspended on 30 April 2009 after making disparaging remarks towards the "Mexican Community" (you can read the whole story from this post). Issues arose over this suspension from day one. Many point to the fact that the only reason why this occurred was the fact that the swine flu "epidemic" was all the rage in the media. Therefore, his comments made Mexicans look even worse and possibly caused more tension in their communities. The problem here is that Jay has made this remarks throughout his career and for some odd reason only now did it become a polemic.

I am afraid of what has resulted due to this. WTKK has sent a clear message that if one does not like what a controversial radio talk show host has to say all he needs to do is call and complain. What happens when Michael Graham or Michelle McPhee or others make border line comments? Are they going to be suspended as well? This is a classic case of "Freedom of Speech" disappearing in the United States. Its sad too because it is ever so easy to avoid this time of speech if one does not agree with it. Simply turn the dial and surprise surprise no more talk on your radio.

As for the show, for his first time back I would say it was barely above par for one of his shows. Jay Severin began with a three minute apology to his fans and critics. The apology was typical "Political Correctness" BS and one could get the sense that he was merely reading it because he had to and not because he wanted to. The topics of the day were about average for his show and at times it got annoying when every caller would simply call to say welcome back.

However, Jay, it is good to see you back! I'm glad! Just do me a favor and don't stop to double think what you are about to say. Don't censor yourself because you might offend someone. Otherwise your show with become a piece of mediocrity (like all the things the liberals want).