California recently passed Proposition 8 which bans gay marriage. Many conservatives see this as a step back to good old fashioned American values; they see it as a step in the right direction.

Proposition 8 is, however, an insidious and detrimental assault on the rights of every person in the state of California–gay or straight, if you live in California, you will see repercussions from the passage of this proposition.

The CA Supreme Court had upheld a measure allowing gay marriage earlier this year but the voters have overturned that ruling. What the voters don’t seem to realize is that by taking away the hard earned rights of others, they’re setting the stage to allow the state to remove their own rights as well. If gay marriage doesn’t apply to you, you should still take heed. Now that the state has been given authority to start taking away fundamental rights, each and every person should expect to see more rights disappear more quickly than ever before.

Thought women had a right to vote? Maybe not for long. Thought minorities were allowed to eat in the same restaurants as whites? Perhaps that will soon be ending.

It’s dangerous to take away the rights of a group of people–the rights, in this case, that all other groups of people have enjoyed since this country’s inception. Rights that, in this case, aren’t harming anyone. There is no good reason that anyone should have voted in favor of Proposition 8. It’s hard to gain legal rights from any government. And once those rights have been gained and taken away, it’s even harder to get them back. And by giving the government the right to single out groups of peaceful people who are not harming anyone to have their rights taken from them, I assure you, the government won’t stop there. More rights will begin disappearing from more groups of people. Maybe this time it wasn’t you that lost the right to love whomever you choose. But maybe next time it will be you.

With the election over and Obama officially elected as our “king” to be, everyone is waiting impatiently to see if he is really going to live up to those vague election season promises of “hope” and “change”. While his supporters see the possibility that he may really be in it to change America, I have a much more pessimistic streak in me which makes me wonder if he isn’t just like 99% of the other people that have ever run for president. In other words, isn’t he just a power hungry egomaniac like the rest of them?

Time will tell, but one of the most important issues facing America at this moment is what to do with the Gitmo prisoners, and how Obama handles that situation will tell us a lot about whether or not he really possesses the strength of character that he’d like us to believe he has. I believe that most of the prisoners in Gitmo are probably innocent. If they were truly guilty of terrorism, war crimes or other unspeakable acts, they’d have already been dealt with and the guilty verdicts would have been shoved down our throats as proof of our progress in the war on terror. But those people have largely been left to rot without a trial and without attorneys, all the while enduring torture and isolation. This January we’ll see if Obama really wants to change America.

Today, I thought I’d clue you in to a little bit of personal information about myself. I work in payroll. I process people’s paychecks. And I have first hand experience witnessing the devastation that Uncle Sam throws upon hard working American citizens.

It wasn’t always like this. When this nation was formed, taxes were low. The entrepreneurial spirit could take a person wherever they wanted to go in life. Things changed some during the Industrial Revolution and it became harder to leave the lower class for the middle class and even more difficult to leave the middle class for the upper class. And then, the Great Depression. FDR used the Depression as an excuse to socialize the American economy, and things have never been worse for the working class. Taxes are higher, work incentives are lower and it’s virtually impossible for the average person to start a business, let alone become successful as a business owner.

And it isn’t just individual taxpayers who suffer as a result of this socialized governmental system. Even huge corporations suffer–you may not believe it, but I have proof that they do. Take the example of the average Federal tax levy. The IRS sends the levy to me–the payroll girl–and I’m expected to first sift through 12 to 15 pages of legalese to determine what needs to be done with the levy. It’s then my responsibility, after spending at least an hour of company time trying in vain to comprehend the document, to track down the employee (still on company time) and demand that they give me the social security numbers of any dependent children. I then take another hour or so from my company to set up a garnishment on the employee’s wages. All told, enforcing a Federal levy (or state levy, garnishment, child support order, etc) could take up to 4 hours of my time. That is wasted time. That’s wasted wages that my company is paying me and that the IRS (or state, etc) is not reimbursing us for. That’s forcing employers to do the government’s job and giving the employer nothing in return for it. In fact, when we return documentation to the IRS, the envelopes don’t even come postage paid. You heard me, it’s the employer’s responsibility to pay postage to return the IRS’s documents to them after doing the IRS’s job for them!

There’s also the story of that poor, unfortunate employee. There are legitimate reasons that a person may fall behind on their taxes–illness, financial hardship, moral opposition to having one’s property stolen to fund wars, a deadbeat baby daddy refusing to pay child support, or in the case of my employees, they’re good southern folk who don’t think they need to pay Uncle Sam since they tried to secede from this country anyways. And then the IRS tracks the employee, often times a person who has worked for my company for years and often times displaying an exemplary work ethic, and enforces a Federal levy on them. The IRS doesn’t care if you have rent to pay, children to feed or medicine to pay for. The IRS only cares about one thing, and that’s stealing your time and the fruits of that labor. If you, Mr. Taxpayer, should become the victim of a federal levy, you’ll bring home $200 every two week pay period, no matter how much your gross pay is. If you don’t have medical benefits, you may be lucky enough to bring home a whopping $350 MAXIMUM. The IRS isn’t going to give you enough money to buy shelter, food or gas to go to work. You will be working and homeless once the IRS has its way with you. You, Mr. Taxpayer, are very literally better off on welfare because it’s a waste of your time to work if you can’t keep enough of your pay to even feed yourself.

I’ve had three employees simply quit coming to work within the last month after the IRS caught up with them. It’s unfortunate because these aren’t the leeches on society that the IRS would have you believe. These people work full time–in fact, these three people were working full time plus days worth of overtime each pay period. These are people with a work ethic. These are the kind of people that we need to be encouraging to be productive. Instead, society is encouraging them to get on welfare. That puts a burden on my employer who now needs to fill three new positions and train three new employees who, unfortunately, may not be good employees like the three we’ve lost. It puts a strain on the families of those three workers who are now unemployed. It puts a strain on every member of this society who must now subsidize those families who can no longer financially support themselves.

I’d say that the IRS should be ashamed of itself, but I know that the IRS has no shame. The IRS isn’t like a human being capable of showing compassion for others and the IRS has no interest in seeing individuals or American society succeed. The IRS has one goal and that goal is at odds with the individual goals of every single person in the United States. Don’t let them fool you into thinking that these predatory tax collection methods are good for us. They’re not. They’re just causing good people lose their incentive to contribute to society.

With the election drawing near, the media is talking a lot about red states and blue states, but there are a number of underlying issues that don’t get much coverage in the mainstream press. The most fundamental questions about what the role of government ought to be are conspicuously absent, and it seems that both major parties envision a much larger role for the state in the daily life of Americans.

Over the last few years the Republicans have drawn some much deserved criticism for their willingness to erode constitutionally protected civil liberties in pursuing a “War on Terror”. The fact that America has been led into two invasions in an undeclared war against a tactic has also gotten a healthy amount of discussion. The US constitution stipulates that only congress may declare war, and there has been no declaration of war by congress since December, 1941.

Now it seems likely that the Democrats will take the reigns of power because Americans are rejecting Republican abuses, but I wouldn’t expect constitutional government to be the result. The Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, and FISA enlargement will likely all remain in force. FISA only passed with the support of Democrats in congress. American foreign policy will remain interventionist even if it becomes a little less unilateral. New enlargements of government are likely to follow. An interview with Barack Obama has surfaced, which indicates he favors the redistribution of wealth by the state. Once a nation has reached a point where it is openly legislating wealth redistribution, it has become avowedly socialist.

The concepts of collectivism and authoritarianism have been present in both major parties for a very long time, and while Obama and McCain both represent the flowering of different brands of statism, one must look to the roots to find a real explanation. Some Americans will welcome socialism at first, but “spreading the wealth around” and putting “country first” have totalitarian implications.

When the government provides “free” health care it becomes invested in all the lifestyle choices of its citizens. I wonder how many Obama supporters on college campuses realize that their binge drinking becomes an issue of national interest when the cost future health problems will be borne by the taxpayer?When government confiscates a portion of your income through taxation for the “social good”, it has control over the way the fruits of your labor are spent. If you have an aversion to undeclared wars, welfare, germ warfare research, subsidies for corporations, or the torture of enemy combatants you are still forced to pay for these things rather than being given the choice to freely give to social causes that you support. When government mandates a “free” education for every child it also controls what curriculum may be taught, how school districts may be run, and which children get extra funding. The list goes on.

The more that government grows, the less choices citizen’s are allowed to make. Not to mention the fact that government does not have a great reputation for efficiency. What choice does a citizen have if government runs the health care system poorly? In many countries there is no alternative, so if waiting periods for treatment are long sick people will just have to cross their fingers and hope that they survive until they can get medical attention. Just take a look at social security as an example. The money that was paid in by people approach retirement was not set aside for that purpose, but rather raided to pay for government largess throughout the years. That is why social security is facing insolvency over the next decade or two. Could individuals have really done any worse had they been left with their their earnings and the responsibility for their own retirement savings?

America has had neither a free market nor a constitutional government for many decades, but we may be on the verge of seeing politicians abandon any pretense of adhering to these ideals. Ultimately I find the prospects for America’s near future to be very depressing. The political class is having great success in getting the American people to trade in their freedom using fear and thirty pieces of silver. If the American people don’t realize the implications of this soon, then it may be too late to stop it.

There are many scientists who claim that human emissions of carbon dioxide are warming the Earth through a greenhouse effect, but there is another camp of scientists who are pointing towards the heavens in the search for what drives the Earth’s climate. The Sun is the source of all energy for planet Earth, and ironically the greenhouse effect is just a model in which a little bit more of the Sun’s radiation is trapped in the atmosphere by certain gases. Over the last year there has been news that the Sun is acting in an unexpected way and that could have big consequences here on Earth.

There is evidence that global temperatures dropped by as much as 0.65C between January of 2007 and January of 2008. These data alone are not particularly useful, but they correspond with an unusual drop in solar activity. Reduced solar activity could mean a reduction in the amount of solar energy that enters the climate system of the Earth, and a reduction in solar wind could allow more cosmic rays to enter the Earth’s atmosphere, which may increase cloud formation according to laboratory tests.

There is also anecdotal evidence that many places may be headed for a cold winter this year. Here in New England, 3-6 inches of snowfall are being forecast in some areas over the next couple of days and parts of upstate New York may see 12 or more inches this week. That seems like a very unusual amount of snowfall for October, especially when one considers that some scientists are claiming that the Earth is in the middle of an unprecedented warming period.

A lot of people are going to say that global warming can cause cooler temperatures and greater snow fall in certain areas, but I have a feeling that global warming hysteria may go the way of global cooling craze of the 1970’s as the story unfolds. I’m not a climate scientist, and I don’t claim to understand everything that affects global climate. However, it seems like historic climate shifts such as the Little Ice Age could not have been produced by man, and therefore indicate that climate fluctuates naturally.

Just because some scientists endorse a theory, doesn’t mean that it’s right. History shows that scientific consensus can be terribly off base. Like the ancient Greeks, who gave us the idea that by bleeding a sick person one could balance their humors and restore them to health. It is possible that current “cures” to global warming may not be needed and may possibly be counter productive. Greatly slashing the use of fossil fuels and energy consumption is not cost free. It will in fact have a great impact on the world economy. Only time will tell which theory of climate change is correct, but if the proponents of cooling are correct we may know before too long.

I was playing with Stumble Upon today when I found this website with audio proof that Mr. Obama has no qualms against redistributing wealth, and has (evidently) spent a great deal of time pondering over the surest method of accomplishing this redistribution. As anyone who has previously read this blog knows, I’m not a fan of McCain. However, at least McCain is being honest about his intentions: war, war, war! Obama, on the other hand, will evade the questions since he knows it’s in his best interest to hide the fact that he does believe in the redistribution of wealth (aka Marxism, communism, socialism, etc).  Click here to listen to the interview.

It’s not exactly news that the United States has a very militaristic foreign policy, but it does have an effect on Americans, whether they realize it or not. Military adventures overseas can escalate into full scale wars, which are costly in both money and lives. These interventions also have a negative impact on how the United States and US citizens are viewed by the rest of the world.

A US official is confirming reports that US forces launched a raid inside Syria on Sunday, which supposedly targeted an Al-Qaeda member. Syrian sources claim that civilians were killed in the raid. Some people may feel that such an action was justified because the Syrian government may not have been cooperative had the US sought permission to apprehend this alleged terrorist. The fact remains that the US congress has not declared war on Syria, and the US did not have permission to invade Syrian territory. When a foreign power sends troops into a sovereign nation without permission, it amounts to an act of war without a declaration of war. That violates long standing international law.

Readers of the blog will know that I’m not a fan of the United Nations, but there is merit to the idea that a nation should only go to war if it has been attacked and it has made its hostile position clear. The US now has a doctrine that says the military can go into a country unilaterally and kill its citizens without that constituting an act of aggression against that country. This is a very troubling and post modern way to look at the rules of war.

The US has also been engaging targets inside Pakistan, apparently without permission at times, for quite a while now. This resulted in some tense situations on the Pakistani border, where members of the Pakistani army reportedly exchanged fire with US and Afghan forces. It is now being reported that 20 people were killed in the most recent attack by an armed drone aircraft inside Pakistan. This attack took place 20 miles inside the country, and is reportedly the 19th strike to take place in Pakistan since August. These attacks may be having some success in killing militants who are responsible for attacks into Afghanistan, but they are likely also killing civilians in the process. Moreover, these attacks may radicalize the populace in Pakistan, especially when they are launched without consulting Pakistan’s armed forces.

Strikes like these present a danger of widening the war in the Middle East without the consent of the American people or the congress. Only congress has the power to declare war, but this means very little if the president is not restrained from attacking targets inside countries with which the US is supposed to be at peace. We could be plunged into a conflict with a country virtually overnight, and the US is not in a good position to be fighting another war at the moment. The United States is on the road to bankruptcy for a number of reasons, but excessive military extension overseas is a major reason why Uncle Sam is deeply in debt to foreign nations and investors. Sadly, it looks like there may be more wars on the horizon, no matter who gets elected to the White House.

Regular readers of the blog will be aware that I don’t usually write about the presidential race, since I don’t believe that either major candidate deserves a vote. However, it looks like Obama is likely to win the election and so I think that it’s prudent to inquire as to what he plans to do once he occupies the White House. His running mate has made some rather vague statements that seem to allude to an unpleasant next few years for the US of A.

Biden seems very convinced that the country will face a very serious crisis shortly after Obama is elected. He said the following in an address to supporters.

“It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Maybe Joe Biden is just very bad at using the English language, but what does he mean when he refers to a “generated crisis”? Who’s going to generate this crisis? Some people reading this are going to say that I’m cherry picking one quote out of a speech to make a slip of the tongue look like something ominous, but it is the overall context of Biden’s speech that makes me question just what the hell he’s talking about. Allow me to provide some more context.

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

So it appears that Biden is talking about some kind of foreign policy crisis. Perhaps some kind of terrorist attack, or a showdown with the Russians, and the way that the administration would respond, but he goes on to talk about the economy.

“We’re gonna win with your help, God willing, we’re gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It’s like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy.”

Clearly the economy is going to be a significant challenge for anyone who takes on the role of President next year, but the final quote from Biden that I’ll give seems to tie the picture together.

“…Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years…”

“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’…Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”

My guess is that Obama is going to address what he sees as ’systemic’ problems with our economy by restructuring that system, and not for the better. Certainly his running mate thinks that the administration’s changes will be very unpopular, even among current supporters of the campaign, since that is who he was addressing. I believe that Barack Obama will probably greatly increase taxes & regulations on all sectors of the economy, and he will almost certainly not address the role that the central bank played in this crisis by greatly expanding the money supply. In short, I believe that the Obama administration would attempt to broadly socialize the US economy which probably won’t lead to a sudden economic turn around.  He must be planning something drastic for his running mate to expect such a short honeymoon with an American public that claims to want change.

McCain probably isn’t any better, and I encourage anyone who plans on voting to support someone besides the two major candidates, but ultimately one of these two men will assume the office of President of the United States in January. Those of you who want to live in a free country are going to have to speak up and demand individual liberty and free markets in the face of growing authoritarianism, or the America that we all know & love may disappear forever.

Newsweek is reporting that abstinence only education will probably die out with the Bush administration. This is news that a large swath of Americans couldn’t be happier to hear. For one thing, abstinence only education has been shown to be completely ineffective.

“Now 25 state health departments reject federal abstinence money, up from 11 in little more than a year. In December, the government reported a rise in teen birth rates for the first time in 15 years; opponents wasted no time in saying that the trajectory changed on abstinence’s watch, and that Texas, the abstinence torchbearer, has a more dismal teen-birth record than any other state, with 62 teen births per 1,000 population. (The national rate is 40 per 1,000.)”

I’m no math genius, but I don’t think I need to be to realize that 6.2% of the teen girls in Texas are having babies, meaning that even more are having abortions and more still are sexually active. With numbers like these, continuing on with abstinence only is  irresponsible and somewhat reminiscent of a child simply covering his eyes to avoid seeing what he doesn’t want to see.

In addition to pregnancy, there’s a little matter of STDs. In fact, many state health departments strongly recommend that young teens be given the Gardasil vaccine to protect them from HPV, one of the most common STDs. If abstinence only education were working, Gardasil wouldn’t be necessary for 12 year old girls.

The abstinence only craze also raises the question of what constitutes an appropriate curriculum in a tax funded school. In my opinion, abstinence only and creationism/intelligent design are wholly unethical topics to teach in a school which is funded by tax dollars because they’re esentially fusing religious teachings with public monies–and misleading children. If a religious parent doesn’t wish for their children to learn about science and medicine, they’re always welcome to opt out of those topics or the entire public school system. The education of the general population should never be allowed to suffer to avoid hurting the principles of a few religious fanatics.

The issue now is whether public money should keep flowing to any abstinence program, given that few have any more scientific justification than Virginity Rules did. Comprehensive education is attached to a larger body of research, including studies finding that these programs may not only improve contraceptive use among teens, but lead to some of the same goals sought by abstinence advocates: delay of sexual initiation and a reduction of partners.

It’s time to face the facts. Abstinence only education has been a failure and has trampled the rights of the majority of Americans–people who may be religious but are able to take a realistic view of the world. American teens are now entirely uneducated about STDs and proper prevention methods. But they’re still having sex. The more moderate parents of America ought to stand up for the rights of their children. They shouldn’t allow the fanatics to dictate what will be taught in schools. And with the body of evidence pointing away from abstinence only as an effective educational tool, the case for real education should be easy to make.

In the United States, it’s illegal to grow hemp. Many people assume that hemp is illegal due to its mind altering properties. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. In reality, hemp has no mind altering abilities. It can’t get you high. Smoking industrial hemp would be like smoking a dirty sock–no fun at all and probably not very tasty.

“Hemp contains delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the psychoactive ingredient found in hashish and marijuana. While THC is present in all Cannabis plant varieties to some extent, industrial hemp does not contain an amount to produce any intoxicating effect, even in significant quantities.”

Now that we’ve cleared up the biggest misconception about hemp, you might be wondering how it came to be illegal to grow (but not possess) hemp in the United States. The short answer is that the US government’s blind obedience to the drug war punishes plants that even remotely resemble marijuana. Even though hemp can’t get you high, it does look like marijuana plants which makes it difficult for drug and law enforcement officers to distinguish whether your crop is legal or not. There are also very powerful lobbies–cotton growers, oil producers, etc, who would not appreciate the legalization of a crop which could very well put them out of business.

Now that we’ve discussed the reasons that hemp is illegal to grow in the US, let’s examine the reasons that it should be made legal. First and foremost, hemp is an extremely useful plant. Its fibers can be used to make textiles, hemp seed oil and other food products, diesel fuel, paints, detergents and paper products. Additionally, hemp is easier to grow and replace than trees so using it for our paper products is better for the environment. And I don’t think anyone needs to be told twice that using plant based materials in place of oil and oil byproducts is better for the environment.

Farmers would be well advised to grow hemp as a rotation crop because it uses very little water and has a short growing season. It could potentially help farmers keep the soil productive and avoid the use of pesticides and fertilizers.

All said, hemp is a versatile and worthwhile cash crop which must be imported to the United States instead of grown. The American people would be well advised to demand that our farmers be allowed to legally grow hemp (remember, this plant has no psychoactive properties). I myself use imported hemp to indulge my creative side by making macramé hemp anklets which I can literally wear day in, day out, in and out of the shower for years before they need to be replaced. The hemp fibers are strong, durable and soft. With the American economy on the decline, this would be the perfect time to allow our farmers to begin growing hemp. Not only would it provide a boost to the agricultural section of our economy without the need for any subsidies, but industry could use the additional hemp entering the market to make hundreds of consumer products to the benefit of the manufacturing and retail industries. It doesn’t make sense not to allow our farmers to grow hemp.