And Another Thing... Taxing the Rich, Bart Simpson and Shoplifters

Income Tax Relief: How Flat is Fair?
State Lawmakers last week were arguing once again about how much the "rich" should pay in taxes. It seems that because of a series of exemptions and loopholes, Connecticut families are able to pay much less than the 5% state income tax. A couple earning $50,000 a year would pay less than a thousand dollars in state income tax. A couple earning $100,000 a year would pay $4,500 a year, which is a half a percent less than 5%. And, as a result, Democrats say that Connecticut taxes are not progressive enough.

According to the story in the Hartford Courant, Senator Thomas Gaffey (D-Meriden) said

"...increasing the income-tax rates on the rich is necessary and fair because they received a large tax cut when the state income tax first passed. As part of that deal, the tax rate on dividends and interest income for those earning more than $100,000 was cut from a high of 14 percent down to 4.5 percent.

'For 16 years, at the time when the stock market was breaking records, the wealthiest people in the state of Connecticut had a massive tax cut,' Gaffey said. 'That wasn't fair to middle-income people that the rich got that gift for 16 years - not to mention the Bush tax cuts.

'The rich get richer at the expense of people who are slugging it out every day with two or three jobs. We're trying to bring some fairness to those people. I wasn't sent up here to protect the hedge-fund guys,' Gaffey said."

Okay, Democrats. We get it. You hate rich people. But, can we take a look at these "rich" that you hate so much?

First of all, a couple making $50,000 a year in Connecticut is not rich. I can personally attest to that fact. For myself, I spend 40+ hours a week working, and the rest trying to figure out how to earn more money. I live in a nice apartment, with just enough saved to tide me over a month or two if, God forbid, I were to lose my job or was unable to work. I do not have cable and my car is 13 years old. Do I sound rich? I would consider myself to be middle class. Now imagine double to food costs, double the insurance, double the clothing, etc... for a couple. Is that rich?

Is a couple making $100,000 in Connecticut rich? I know several hard-working families who make 6 figure incomes. They own their houses, for which they work extremely hard to maintain, to pay the mortgages, and to pay the high property taxes. Like me, they work 40+ hours a week at their jobs and managing their household. They budget their expenses so that they can send their children to college and enjoy some entertainment here and there. They are not out at Maxx's Downtown, telling their driver to stop for caviar on the way. They live modestly, and stretch each dollar to the fullest, while tirelessly trying to put something away for retirement. Are they rich? No, I would say they are middle class.

And... What is this "gift" you are talking about? Should we "rich" be grateful that you haven't taken all of our money? Is the 95% of our salary that you don't take as taxes just on loan, or is it a grant from our friendly state government? No, Senator Gaffey, you have it all backwards. We were out earning the money, with hard work and dedication, creating jobs and making the state prosperous, while you and your cronies were up at the capital raking in "record-breaking" tax revenues and plotting how to take even more.

So Senator Gaffey... Should me and my "hedge-fund guys" just let you reach further into our pockets? Or should we move out of state, where you'll get nothing? Or maybe, just maybe, you might get the hint that it's we $40,000-200,000 a year folks who keep this state running.

Bart Simpson bares all in film
Apparently Bart Simpson is supposed to appear nude in the upcoming Simpsons movie. This news really got to me for several reasons.

First, as I recall, Bart Simpson is a minor. Are the filmmakers, and the consumers of the movie, promoting pedophilia by producing and supporting this movie?

Does showing him nude encourage the already strong movement to prematurely sexualize children? What is the message we are sending when the rating will be less than "R"? Will cartoon nudity become a regular staple at the box office? And, is that just paving the way for real nudity to creep its way into PG (and G) rated films?

Lastly, to me, it shows the depths to which the Simpsons have sunk in terms of creativity. When the show first aired, it was new, inventive, and funny. It presented Americans with a different look at family life, and satirized the politics and culture of the day. As the show ran its course, it became more heavily depend on celebrity guest appearances and the plots became thinner and less meaningful. This scene in the upcoming movie indicates to me that the show has hit close to rock bottom (no pun intended), and must use shock value to attract audiences. It is a sad reminder that nothing lasts forever, and that creator Matt Groening should have quit a couple years ago while he was ahead.

I just don't see the necessity in portraying Bart in the nude, no matter how the critics try to rationalize it away. It sets down a dangerous precedent and, I think, leads our society in the wrong direction.

Judge Orders Shoplifters to Wear 'I Am A Thief' Signs
City Judge Kenneth Robertson Jr. in Atalla, Alabama has ordered that two people wear signs reading, "I am a thief; I stole from Wal-Mart," outside the store from which they have been accused of stealing. The individuals were given the sentence as an alternative to a 60-day jail sentence.

I am surprised that the courts would pass down such a sentence and that it would go unchallenged or unappealed. I am not sure that the punishment is particularly cruel or unusual, albeit embarrassing. And, really, spending four hours of embarrassment in order to avoid 60 days in jail may be a reasonable bargain for some people with thick skin. The issue of course is the stigma that will be attached to the shoplifters after they have served their sentence. That to me is the only thing that calls this type of punishment into question. It reminded me of the Scarlet Letter, where people would wear letters on their clothes publicly noting their sins. Or, the days when people would be put into the stockades in the center of town. While, I don't think that today's example is to that extreme, the concept is the same: deter crime through public display of punishment. Either way, people will think twice before stealing from that Wal-Mart anytime in the near future.

And Another Thing... Democrats Surrender, Giuliani Attacks and Alec Baldwin Insults

4 of 8 Democrat Presidential Candidates: No "Global War on Terror"
That's right. During the 2008 Democrat Presidential Debate, Brian Williams asked the following question:

"A second show of hands question: do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"


Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Chris Dodd and Gov. Bill Richardson all raised their hands.

Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Joe Biden, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Former Sen. Mike Gravel all did NOT raise their hands.

You can read the transcript, watch the video, or look at the photos. No matter which way you slice it, these four men did not believe there was a Global War on Terror. This, despite the fact that terrorists have carried out bombings in America, Britain, Spain, Iraq, Afghanistan, and made attempts in numerous other countries. This despite the terrorists' own call to war against us. And, this despite the fact that both Sen. Biden and Sen. Edwards both voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, which specifically mentions the "War on Terrorism" 3 times. Well, Senators, if there is no Global War on Terror then why did you vote for the resolution? Do you believe the terrorist war has gone away? Or are you and your fellow Democrats simply demagoguing the issue again?

Congress Passes Bill Surrendering in Iraq, Veto Awaits
Your Democrat controlled Senate passed the measure yesterday along party lines, 51-46. The bill sends $124.2 billion to fund the war, but requires troops to withdraw from Iraq by Oct. 1 or sooner. A similar bill passed along party lines in the House on Wednesday, 218-208.

A couple thoughts. I got a bunch of comments when I called Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi a traitor. Well, every single Senator and Representative that voted for this bill is a traitor as well. Here you have a political party actively and joyfully seeking the military defeat of the United States of America. How will our withdrawing from Iraq magically make the terrorists there stop bombing innocent civilians? How will our withdrawal from Iraq keep the terrorists in the Middle East? Won't our withdrawal instead embarrass us worldwide, and send the signal that we are not willing to defend ourselves in the face of threats to our freedom? How does that serve the best interests of the United States? There's no way around it: This bill is treason.

Secondly, this bill is undoubtedly unconstitutional. Congress has the power to declare war and to fund war. It does NOT have the power to determine troop movements. With this bill, the Democrats are seeking to illegally seize power from the executive branch. And the liberals say that the President is the one acting like a King... Well, it seems to me that these Democrat legislators are the ones attempting to amass power.

You know, I often wonder if liberal politicians even stop to think about the oath they took when they were sworn in:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

Do they really think about it... about the meaning? Or are they so drunk with power at that moment that they just mouth the words. If they had really stopped to take in the implications of their oath, to "support and defend the Constitution... against ALL enemies... " and to "bear allegiance" to the United States, they would have never voted as they did this week.


Giuliani Assails Democrats' Health Plans
Mayor Rudy Giuliani stayed on the offensive today against the Democrats. He was speaking at the North Carolina Conservative Leadership Conference. Among other things, he criticized the Democrat plans for "mandatory" universal health care, saying that it would only raise costs and put control of health care into the hands of bureaucrats. Said Mayor Giuliani:

"[The Democrats are] moving toward socialized medicine so fast, it'll make your head spin..."

Thank you Mayor Giuliani. He is on a roll folks, calling it like it is. The Democrat plans are just that, socialized medicine. It will be run by the government. As we all know the government does not produce, it takes wealth from its citizens and then doles out the spoils. The same will happen for universal health care. America's most productive members will be forced to pay for government rationing of health care. This is wasteful and socialistic at its core. The poor will over-consume health resources, leading to shortages, waiting lists, and poor quality health care. Instead of waiting for months to see a second rate doctor, the rich will instead pay for their own private health care in addition to the confiscatory taxes they will already be paying. Like I say (with great sarcasm), the government does such a great job running the schools and the DMV, lets put them in charge of the hospitals. The alternative is clear, as Mayor Giuliani pointed out, use the power of the free market to reduce costs.

"When we want to cover poor people, as we should, we give them vouchers."

Mayor Giuliani also stood by his comments from earlier this week (Yes!), adding this:

"When, in the history of war, has a nation that decides to retreat, printed up a schedule of that retreat and handed it to its enemies?"

If Mayor Giuliani continues to take such a hard line with the Democrats, exposing their ideological weaknesses, then I believe he will be the next President of the United States.


Alec Bladwin Leaves A Threatening Message to His Daughter
Some of you may be aware of the message Alec Baldwin left on his 12 year old daughter's voice mail. My mouth dropped open the first time I heard it. I could not believe a father could be so rude, insensitive and all around "mean spirited" to his own child! Not that his daughter is any saint, but this kind of screaming, insulting and poor behavior is simply uncalled for. And, when I listened to what he was actually saying, I was doubly shocked. It was all about him. He had been made an ass of, she insulted him, he called her and she didn't talk to him, etc... The fact that this girl is related to him seems to have been crowded out of his brain by his ego. All this from a champion of Democrats... Makes you think, doesn't it?

And Another Thing... Dictators, Hillary Clinton, and Environmental Whackos

Chavez says Capitalism is the "Road to Hell"
If that's true, then bring on the brimstone, baby!

Hillary Says She is the JFK of 2008
Well, if she wants to follow in John F. Kerry's footsteps... so be it.

But seriously... she means that the same way John F. Kennedy broke barriers by being the first Catholic president, she would break barriers by being the first woman president. A couple thoughts. First, I think it is a little disingenuous for Sen. Clinton to equate herself with JFK. JFK cut taxes, had a confrontational foreign policy, and led America into the Space Age. Sen. Clinton would raise taxes, allow Iraq to descend into sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing, and let her environmentalist friends lead us back to the Stone Age. Secondly, how is being a woman a qualification to be president? Should we vote for her just because she is female? Isn't that a bit sexist?

But, I do have to ask the question: Would she really be the first female president? I guess technically. But between Edwards and Clinton, who would make a better female president? I know, I know, cheap political pot-shots...

Return of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Sen. Clinton asserted that the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" was "alive and well." She cited the guilty pleas and conviction of three Republican operatives in New Hampshire for jamming phones during the 2002 election.

Said Sen. Clinton in 1998, amid the Monica Lewinsky Scandal:

"The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast, right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

Clearly Sen. Clinton is correct. She is being unfairly maligned by a radical organized faction bent on conspiring against her and her husband. This faction has unjustly tainted her reputation by exaggerating little things like Cattle Futures Contracts, Rose Law Firm-Gennifer Flowers Impropriety, the Travelgate Scandal, the Health Care debacle of the 90's, the Whitewater Scandal, etc... I mean the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy has blown everything out of proportion in attempt to destroy her and her husband. And there's nothing she can do to stop them! I should know, since I'm a member of the conspiracy. Bwa-ha-ha-ha...

We Vast Right-Wing Conspirators suggest that the great story consists of the vast resources, the fine tuned organization, and the dirty politics of the Clinton War Room. Now there's a conspiracy!

"Rell's Choice Hastily Made" for new State Supreme Court Chief Justice
I guess Governor Rell was too busy handing out state dollars to care much about who she was nominating to one of the most powerful positions in the state. She might have also figured that it didn't matter, given the veto proof majorities in the State General Assembly.

Gore Wants to Hold an "Earth Concert" Live from the Capitol
Is this an inappropriate use of the capitol grounds? If held outside, probably not. Although according to the story:

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have introduced a resolution to use the Capitol grounds as a site for the huge, multi-venue global-warming concert on July 7."

Sounds like it will be a rockin' time with Bon Jovi, Snoop Dog, and the other usual suspects. I wonder what the carbon footprint of this concert will be and whether Al Gore will offset it by buying carbon credits from his company.

Conservationist Uses Wine Bottles to Build Energy-Saving House
An Australian man is building a house out of 13,500 recycled wine bottles. The owner, Peter Little, claims that when the bottles are filled with water, the building will entirely insulated.

"Water is probably, I think one of the miracle building materials of this century which nobody is using," he said.

What do they say about people who live in glass houses? Thank God for the Capitalist System where people like this can use their own money however want to, even if it is ridiculous.

State Legislators Propose Ban on Incandescent Bulbs
Come on guys! You don't have enough to do up there in Hartford between the Budget, Education Spending, Universal Health Care, the Gov. Rell's Railway Initiative, etc... I guess not. Apparently they are going to waste their time and our tax dollars discussing a bill on whether the state should fine retailers selling light bulbs that the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection deems as "inefficient incandescent lamps." Check out this quote from Representative Diana Urban, D-North Stonington, who was one of the sponsors of Bill No. 1432, "An Act Concerning Global Warming.":

"I don't see it as frivolous. People are not educated about energy use... We proposed the ban fully knowing we'd be looking at a phase-in. ... In order to get people's attention, you start with a ban."

It's politicians like this that make me sick. Rep. Urban is being predictably arrogant, dictating how others should live their lives based on flimsy claims of Global Warming. And what really annoys me is that she thinks we are all so gullible that we will just accept a state ban on light bulbs if they introduce the bill enough times.

Now I must admit that I was originally in favor of the compact fluorescent light bulbs that the bill seeks to encourage. I liked the soft white light, and the funny shape. That is until I found out that they contain mercury, and in many cases must be disposed of through hazardous waste materials collections. Not to mention that they are more expensive. And, the whole idea that changing a light bulb will save the planet seems utterly ridiculous to me, and frankly I am a bit insulted as a Connecticut citizen that my legislature is taking time to debate this inanity.

And Another Thing... Libby Trial, Phony Liberals and the Internets

Lewis "Scooter" Libby is Convicted of Lying Under Oath
I'm going to be repeating what all the conservative pundits have been saying, but:

1. Unfortunately, Libby got caught up in an investigation run-amok, whose ultimate target was Bush and Cheney.
2. The Libby Trial Verdict says nothing about the War on Iraq, WMD Intellegence or Uranium from Africa. It was not about any of that. It was whether Lewis Libby lied under oath.
3. Hmm, the liberals didn't seem to mind when Bill Clinton lied under oath...
4. In order to lie, you have to intentionally tell untrue statements. That means you must know that what you are saying is false. Regarding his "lying," Libby said his statements were based on conversations he couldn't remember or about which he was confused. That means there was no intent behind his untrue statements. He did NOT lie under oath, even though a liberal DC jury convicted him. (Nor did Bush "lie" about WMDs. There were in fact WMDs found in Iraq, hundreds of them, and even if there weren't it wouldn't have been a lie, since Bush did not intentionally make untrue statements about the existence of WMDs).
   
5. The whole investigation was sham anyway, based on actual, documented lies by Joe Wilson. Valerie Plame was not covert at the time she was "outted;" Wilson has said so himself, as have others. No crime was committed, and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew it before he charged Libby. It was all just an attempt to get at Rove, Cheney and Bush.
   
6. Libby was not even allowed to adequately defend himself against the false charges, as key evidence and testimony were kept out of the trial by the judge.
   

This whole case is a travesty of the American justice system. Hopefully the verdict will be overturned upon appeal.

Libby Juror: "Pardon Him"
Two jurors from the Lewis Libby trial have now confessed that they would like to see Libby pardoned. Okay... THEN WHY DID YOU CONVICT HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Unbelievable.

Edwards: Jesus Would Be "Appalled"
It's not so much the actual phrasing of Edwards' remark, but the context in which he is invoking the name of Jesus. It's another guilt trip for American liberals, who will willingly open their wallets and give the government more money. Why don't you lead by example, sir, and give up one of your mansions to some of the suffering? I guess, based on the reaction to Edwards' statement, that he was not content to alienate just the Jews with his Israel remark. He had to find a way to alientate Christians too. Who's next, Hindus?

Hillary Adopts Southern Accent
Just more of the same from her. What saddens me is that the people at this church do not seem to recognize that she is pandering to them. I guess when Sen. Clinton says what people want to hear, they don't care if she's being genuine (or that she is a power hungry socialist extremist).

Republican House Leader Has to Smoke With Democrats
This may be one of the reasons that Republicans become weak-kneed liberals once they get to Washington.

Mother Brings "Wrongful Birth" Lawsuit
A woman in Boston is suing two doctors and Planned Parenthood after she gave birth following a failed abortion. My thoughts: this is a woman who may never be able to love her daughter. And, the child (if she finds out she was almost aborted) will have to deal with a lot of emotional baggage. Maybe the daughter will become a leader in the Pro-Life movement now... you never know.

Comedy Central Comic Has Sex with "God" in TV Show
Come on... like Comedy Central had any taste to begin with. Who's suprised at this? Have they watched any of the other garbage on Comedy Central (ahem... Reno 911). It's one of the reasons why I don't have cable.

Connecticut Bill Seeks to Regulate MySpace and other Internet Sites
Well, here's another crusade for State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and social conservatives. Okay, while I understand the importance of safe internet usage, I am also wary of government control of this medium. Right now we are free to discuss ideas, buy and sell, and connect with people around the world. So because of a few jerks we should all be restricted? Slippery Slope... Will we then see government restrictions on what bloggers can post? An eCampaign Finance Reform? Why not fine the kids who use internet sites inappropriately? Why does everyone have to pick on MySpace? Personally, I think it's bunch of adults who have forgotten what it's like to be a teenage or even a college student. The state's solution to internet security is the same as stopping gun crimes by putting locks on guns. It doesn't solve the problem, it just burdens the people making the guns/running the websites. It's typical government action: blame the producers, tell people there are no consequences to their choices, and promise that the state will make everything better. Parents need to take responsibility and monitor their childrens' internet usage, instead of demanding that the government do it. Let's keep the internet free.