I wish we would get rid of these career jackasses.

I was watching celebrity apprentice. Rod Blagojevich is on there – or was. He’s adorable, but so totally useless unless you need to talk a paper bag into being a plastic one. He can barely use a cell phone and can’t operate a computer. Another guy opened up Word for him, and Rod took a half hour to type a paragraph.

Don’t try to apply logic to the health care bill. It degraded down from a Leftist dream-bill to an Obama political make-or-break stack of paper labeled “Healthcare Reform”. That’s it. It was called “Healthcare Reform”. Everyone knows the bill is poorly constructed, complicated, contradictory, unspecific, full of random specific chunks of Santa Clause, uses phony math and budgetary widgets, and is bristling with dangerous taxes. That’s why they had to cheat it through on reconciliation.

They’re talking about immigration reform now. I hope like hell that bunch fools can come to some reasonableagreement. Let’s hope the first thing Pelosi or Reid lets out on the floor isn’t written by a wack-job amnesty enthusiast. And let’s hope if they do bring up a rational bill there will be more than Graham on the Republican’s side ready to support it – despite their butt-hurtedness form the health reform ass raping.

So we have established the situation is bleak, but I cannot accept it is hopeless and not worth trying something.  Remember that our main goal is to save the state, not the city.

I think the first place to start is with the churches.  Encouraging non-US, preferably black, missionaries to go to Detroit would be beneficial in rooting out a lot of the corruption.  The problem is not simply that Unions are running amok or that Democrats are keeping the poor poor.  The problem is simply the human condition – pride.  It is not money that is the root of all evil, it is pride.  Men seek power and glory out of pride.  Men are selfish out of pride.  We are also lazy.  This problem needs to be addressed first and concurrently with any other program one decides to institute.

Secondly, professional black businessmen, actors, and artists of good character need to get into the inner city and start mentoring not only children, but adults, including in the prisons.  Natural leaders from within need to be supported in every way possible.  Maybe Alfonzo could lend a hand by coming into the high schools and middle schools and giving talks similar to his videos.

The social programs need to be reveiwed for success/failure and be deleted as found necessary.  If the people are being held down by the “helping hand” of the government, the hand needs to be removed.  Basic needs (food, water, and warm clothes) must be met; beyond that we only weaken the poor by making them comfortable.

Michigan needs to hire Rudy Gulianni to come and run Detroit like he ran New York.  He turned that city from one where you were afraid to walk around in, to one where you felt safe.  Of course, it has to be safe, not just feel safe.

A bipartisan organization must be formed to weakenthe Unions.  “The Next Job Could Be Yours” campaigns would be started state-wide.  The idea is not to remove and completely destroy the unions; the unions have done great things for the American worker over the last 150 years.  But the UAW in particular has increased wages and benefits so much that fewer jobs are available.  If you can pay $100 per hour in wages and benefits, would it be better for a city to hire 2 people and pay them $50, including benefits, or to hire 1 at $100?  When you push the wages too high, you either destroy the business you work for and everyone loses their job, or you just make it impossible for the company to pay both you and your fellow worker.  So who gets fired?  You or him?  Worth the risk?  We’ll have to go deeper than this.  I don’t know yet how Gettlefinger thinks.

Detroit could take a while to fix.  In the mean time, we must focus on other cities and strengthen them, like Ann Arbor or Grand Rapids.  My vote would be to strengthen GR.  The population is mostly Republican and that can only bode well for the state.  The city was on the rise before the recession, but they are hurting like everyone else.  Instead of moving large companies into Detroit, we should subsidize construction in Grand Rapids.  Plenty of infrastructure exists already.  Opportunity will take people away from Detroit and push them to GR.  As the population of Detroit continues to fall, our job of fixing it will get easier.  A red Michigan could be a game-changer in national elections.

So this is what we have so far with regard to key components necessary to revitalizing Michigan:

1.  Cut taxes, at least short-term (do we want to put an unemployment goal in here before we raise taxes a little? 4.5%?), for the top 1-2% income earners to create jobs.

2.  Fight the unions.  Now, let us discuss this approach.  Do you convince people one by one, to drop out of their union?  How do you bring down that establishment?

3.  Cut spending.  This will require us to look at the Michigan State Budget.  We could create a website that reviews the budget and proposes cuts to programs and then allow people to give there a opinion of the cut (or increase).

4.  Happier people are more active and social, or is it more social and active people are happier?  Any way, the State could subsidize companies to install full spectrum lights in their offices or install them in street lights so that they are full spectrum lights during cloudy days and normal lights at night.  Thoughts?

5.  Force businesses to build alongside the Detroit river and create a waterfront park like Wyandotte has.

Anymore?

Yes, just picture it.  We could have a bar (English or Irish bar) like the O’Shallaly (ever been there – fricken blast).  And in the summer we could show movies in the park.

It’s fine for passive citizens whose allegiance is more or less irrelevant. If you were a functioning part of the framework –allegiance would be different. A soldier, for example, can’t question his orders. He must obey them, unless of course they are illegal. Our current climate nearly has solders requiring basic training in military law – with all the appeasement we’ve been attempting in Iraq when civilians get killed.

Sometimes bad things have to happen to protect good things, and we need people willing to do the bad things. Those are patriots. Those are men like Oliver North who stand up and take blame honorably. Those men are like the SEAL team that shot those poor confused pirates in the head.

Sacrifice. Your people before yourself. Patriotism.

I wouldn’t call the US a big company. Yeah, the government is, but the United States of America and the Constitution are much more than that. They are an idea. That is what America is – it’s not just this jackass government. I don’t understand how one can be a patriot “for now” unless they plan to change some core beliefs – like becoming a socialist.

If Denmark (referenced from previous post) or any country wants to impose their government on my people – I’ll fight them for no other reason than the fact that a foreign – unelected – group is compelling something on my people. This is a primal patriotic response. The Taliban and Al Qaeda use it to convince people who don’t know any better to fight the Iraqi and Afghan governments.

Also – if our government became unjust or oppressive – like Iraq and Afghanistan WERE – that would be a different story. I would then fight the government as a patriot to the United States of America. Of course, some of the people I would be fighting would also be patriots. It’s a matter of politics at such a points.

Regardless, politics doesn’t dilute the meaning of patriotism. Patriots put their society before themselves. And despite the trends in word use, patriotism is just as important during times of peace. Patriots support and protect their society in millions of ways besides killing rivals and aggressors – like trimming tree branches away from stop signs and clearing snow away from fire hydrants.

“Everyone would consider himself a patriot by Kevin’s definition, but though the definition sounds nice, it is functionally incomplete.”

I think I’m forced to agree — it seems disingenuous to say I’m an American patriot and then cover my mouth to mumble ‘for now’. “Ask not what your company can do for you, but what you can do for your company.” Huh?? That doesn’t make sense, because at the end of the day, USA is just a big company. If Denmark wants to push the US government out and offer US citizens the same package we have but with a system of government that makes more sense, you’re really going to take up arms to defend the capitol? What are you defending? It’ll be the same people, same culture, same land mass, just a different name and better rules. I’m for freedom, sunshine, scenery, and a certain way of life. Whichever governing company wants to offer me those has my support.

Or not?

F-me 72 minutes long.

I appreciate efforts to make positive comments. But holy horses ass don’t you hate being treated like you’re a stupid jerk who has no idea what’s happened in the past year?

Indeed, I love the idea of a capital gains tax cut on small business investment. But I’ll swear this right now – and let it be heard: If Obama and his Democrats pass such a tax cut, and actual cut and not in name only, the following Saturday, at the first strike of noon, I will cross my front street and take a shit in my mail box.

This address has amazed me. I wasn’t expecting Obama to be so brazenly and blatantly contradictory and – well – disingenuous. This address was one contradiction after another – and one skewed view of reality after another.

Seriously – he’s still trying to sell the Recovery Act as a jobs creator? Even MSNBC is calling that bill a big fat failure. No one with a brain is proud of that load of pork – Liberal victory party.

Seriously – he thinks there’s no support for this asinine health reform bill because he didn’t explain it well enough? Does he really think we’re that stupid??? Who the hell knows what is in that bill? The week before last his camp had locked themselves in a room, made dirty secret deals in order to grab votes for a secret bill. All the while Obama is constantly – on every channel every week – spouted poetry about vague ideas of health reform. Didn’t explain it well enough… Oh yeah – if only the American people understood the bill they’d all be on board. YOU KNOW DAMN WELL YOU KEPT IT A F****G SECRET BECAUSE YOU KNEW DAMN WELL IF AMERICA DID KNOW WHAT WAS IN IT THEY’D SHIT THEMSELVES OVER IT!!!!

Seriously – he wants to talk about putting old Washington politics aside? That’s what he spent the last bit of the address about, an emotionally calling for a start of new, and so on. Seriously? HE – Obama – was calling for an end to the perpetual campaign???  Come on – we aren’t all stupid. Obama himself IS that dirty style of politics – where you do [this] but talk [that]. That’s what this address IS!!!. He’s talking [$that] while doing [$this].

$that = nuclear, drilling, tax cuts, spending freeze, veto

$this = health takeover, redistribution, climate religion, command economics

I noticed something interesting. He claimed with regard to healthcare reform that he didn’t take it on to take a political victory. As he said it though, watch his body language. He didn’t believe what he was saying, or at least he wasn’t comfortable or confident saying it.

But the most honest thing he said was that he’d focus on job creation in 2010. No – I don’t believe he will focus on job creation in 2010. It’s just honest that he basically admitted that he sure as shit wasn’t focusing on jobs creation in 2009 – unless you count government jobs.

I’d get more detailed, but I’m just exhausted. Obama’s idea of sharing a cake is to take the whole damn thing up to his room. Of course his brother will disagree with that policy. So Obama will accuse his brother of “not sharing” by blocking his policy of sharing the cake.

I can’t believe a single thing Obama says anymore. I just can’t. It’s not partisanship either, or any of that blind religious belief in conservativism some would like to accuse me of, or racism, or prejudice against left handed people. It’s a simple fact I learned long ago: Some people lie.

Also, does anyone else find his narcissism a little off-putting? Shit, this whole speech was focused on Obama. I-I-I-I-I-I-I…

It is funny that every Democrat commenting on the speech has had something derogatory to say about Republicans holding up legislation. Those poor Dems… If they ever took a group trip to Baskin Robins we’d never see them again.

Come on Republicans. Get on board with our cake sharing policy! Don’t you believe we should share cake??? Why won’t you let us share the cake with you? You just want the whole cake for yourselves don’t you. Yeah, you’re selfish. Obama has bent over backwards to compromise with your guys and you’ll have nothing to do with it. It’s like – you expect Obama’s cake sharing policy to actually let you have some of the cake or something…

Shit I shouldn’t have watched this thing so early in the day. I was going to watch it last night but my connection got sick. Maybe I’ll have more detailed and less frustrated comments later.

Well then, stop using characterizations. I’d like to think I have something to learn from Liberal thinkers, but all they do, as you’ve done today, is state general needs and characterizations along with the ever present Bush bash:

I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger. If the bank CEOs had been under tighter control, the world wouldn’t be in an economic down turn. His policies reflect his ideals.

I can’t really blame you at this point though. All Obama has proven to be is a symbol – a mascot to be carted around and make fancy vague sunshine speeches while Nancy and Reid force through the most god-awful legislative concoctions man kind will likely ever know.

I don’t know how to learn anything from any of this. That’s why I keep telling you to explain the policies you support. You read a British magazine. You like it. So you let them do your economic thinking because they’re smarter than you? Seriously? Your admitting that my insulting accusation was true – you believe something without understanding it because you like believing in it. You have a “very British” perspective… That’s lame Dr. Dove – totally lame. I hate believing half the conclusions I’ve come to.

And I’m not getting emotional about a political side – ffs. Thanks for assuming I could actually care though. What annoys me is when anyone makes illogical or useless arguments, or simply states things generally without explanation to refute something I’ve carefully explained.

That’s why it’s exhausting you know. When you have an idea that you can’t explain, nothing is more exhausting than having it challenged. That’s why I said before: if you can’t explain something just say so. But don’t pull out comfortable Liberal falsities you choose to believe then be surprised when I call bullshit. And when I call bullshit don’t call me partisan – or ranting Noisy Dove – just because the bullshit is on the left today.

Give me a logical reason to support one of your ideas. If you do I’ll support it. Until then I’m going to assume that, if we have 10 chickens that each lay one egg every other day we will get 5 eggs per day. And if we slaughter one chicken, yes, we will have a great deal of much needed meat that we can use to proudly and historically feed people with, I’ll agree with that. But I won’t believe we will continue to have 5 eggs per day. And I won’t believe that we have increased our overall protein intake. It has nothing to do with ideology. It’s just logical.

Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps

Hey now. There’s no need to get offensive. You were ranting. You love ranting.

I get really exhausted having these conversations. My personal beliefs on politics and economics are distinctly British. Its probably because I’ve been getting my news from the Economist since medical school. I let them think for me on this kind of stuff. They know more than me. The magazine is socially liberal and economically conservative. Oddly, they think Bush was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

American liberal political philosophy is no more illogical than American conservative political philosophy. Whenever I read something that says Bush was nobly defending our nation, and that Obama has a secret ulterior motive, I can’t help but to put on a liberal American hat and start fighting for their ideology. I just can’t help it.

I hate strong political views, because they’re dangerous, and almost across the board based on a simplified version of reality that jives with some kind of flawed political ideology. Look at the current healthcare reform bill. It is a total disaster, and the price tag is like a trillion dollars. I can almost guarantee it will make healthcare worse for everyone. Look at the war in Iraq. The American people were led to support it based on a lie. Its cost us at least a trillion dollars, and we still may loose the damned thing. On top of that, it has cost the U.S credibility throughout the world.

My point is that I don’t think we should have such strong emotional ties to political ideas. Good doesn’t come from it. They can devolve into the kind of nonsense conversations that noisydove and drdove get into.

I suppose my point is that our political conversations would be a lot more informative if they weren’t filled with characterizations of the opposing side. I have something to learn from American conservatism. You all have something to learn from American liberalism.

If the housing act – whatever the name of that was – the thing that make Fannie and Freddie – such overregulation – the world wouldn’t be in this mess…

Did you ever take even one economics class Dr. Dove? And seriously, I understand your point. It’s the point made by every other Liberal. We need to do this to help these. This isn’t fair. I think reducing the income of the rich is worth helping the poor. I don’t need to hear any more of that. I’d like to know HOW your programs are supposed to work, scientifically, fundamentally, philosophically, specifically – because they never have.

Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps:

Obama’s health reform won’t be helpful to the 40 million uninsured because it’s not health reform. If you can tell me how it WILL help the uninsured I’ll sure as shit support it.

The economic stimulus did nothing for any ‘little guy’ unless that ‘little guy’ runs an asphalt business or works in government.

Obama is already shrinking the gap between the poor and rich. The fact he got elected did that. The Dem policies continue the trend. Business is scared shitless of expansion. Most are tapering down – fearing over capacity, higher taxes, higher energy costs, and higher employment costs. That means entrepreneurs are struggling or hesitating to start or expand the industries that will feed and cloth us in the coming decade – due to lack of investment. You know, like solar panels and stuff, ironically.

And this monetization – this making of dollars out of this air, that’s reducing the gap more than anything. Once this downturn is over, and the pent up cash hits the market, what do you think will happen to the value of the dollar now that these hundreds of billions were magically produced? Inflation. Inflation is basically a tax on anyone who owns dollars.

This was adorable:

I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger.

So tell me then Dr. Dove, because Glenn and I would like to know. How will any of these policies help or better

represent the poor. I know that is your camp’s image: The guys out to fight evil business and help the poor poor. But all I see are ideas that harm business, the thing that actually does help the poor. All I see is a legacy of trapping the poor in housing projects and spreading a sense of entitlement.

And are you trying to say Obama think making everyone poor will make the country stronger? Or are you saying his

policies will somehow make poor people richer? I’d like to know how. If you don’t understand how just say so – because that’s what I think. I think you have no grasp of economic principle but like the feeling of compassion – so you buy into this illogical garbage.

For Noisy Dove: Ok, that was a beautiful Noisy Dove political rant, but you’re missing my point. I’ll try to explain.

For Professor Dove: My belief that Obama is trying to merge to two Americas is based on his background and political actions. Apart from a few token consessions, nothing he’s done has been for those with power and money. That’s basically the opposite of GWB. Obama’s pushing this current healthcare reform, which will be harmful to everyone except the 40 million uninsured Americans. The democratic goody-bag (aka economic stimulus) did little for businesses, and much more for “the little guy.”  And as to your comment:

“It does, however, appear that Obama is trying something drastic to help the poor.  But capitalism doesn’t exist without the poor.  It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on how America will look in 15 years as far as the inner city world, the well-off world, and how the overall economy will function.”

I have no idea how things will look. I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger. If the bank CEOs had been under tighter control, the world wouldn’t be in an economic down turn. His policies reflect his ideals.