Posts
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Deficit Spending? No Thank You.
-----
I think this graph speaks for itself.
Obama claims he will cut the deficit. According to this graph, even the White House estimate shows a cut in the deficit by 2012 whose remaining deficit is still higher than the deficit Bush left us with. Increased spending combined with cutting your own addition to the deficit is not lowering our current deficit.
Thank you, but no thank you President Obama
I think this graph speaks for itself.
Obama claims he will cut the deficit. According to this graph, even the White House estimate shows a cut in the deficit by 2012 whose remaining deficit is still higher than the deficit Bush left us with. Increased spending combined with cutting your own addition to the deficit is not lowering our current deficit.
Thank you, but no thank you President Obama
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Open Thread
Let me here what thoughts are going on in your head these days. Soon I'll start blogging again, I promise.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Distraction of Life: Open Thread
Life (school and work) has become such a distraction, I haven't been able to keep up with my blog roll. So what is going on out there in the land of politics and law?
Hopefully, one day soon I will be able to write up some new entries.
Hopefully, one day soon I will be able to write up some new entries.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Open Thread
-----
Due to the fact that I will be having oral surgery in very short order, I will not be likely to make any posts today. Please feel free to have a laugh:
And leave a comment or two.
Due to the fact that I will be having oral surgery in very short order, I will not be likely to make any posts today. Please feel free to have a laugh:
And leave a comment or two.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Seriously?
-----
This is a really bad idea.
The 2010 census is right around the corner and Obama wants ACORN help out with count.
"It's a concern, especially when you look at all the different charges of voter fraud. And it's not just the lawmakers' concern. It should be the concern of every citizen in the country," Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, R-Ga., vice ranking member of the subcommittee for the U.S. Census, told FOXNews.com. "We want an enumeration. We don't want to have any false numbers."
The blatant power play by Obama in allowing ACORN to "help" with the census is dumbfounding.
ACORN, which claims to be a non-partisan grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people, came under fire in 2007 when Washington State filed felony charges against several paid ACORN employees and supervisors for more than 1,700 fraudulent voter registrations. In March 2008, an ACORN worker in Pennsylvania was sentenced for making 29 phony voter registration forms. The group's activities were frequently questioned in the 2008 presidential election.
Just in case you weren't aware, the census is what is used to apportion the House of Representative's 435 seats. If Obama follows through, don't be surprised if future representation is lacking in current republican districts.
This is a really bad idea.
The 2010 census is right around the corner and Obama wants ACORN help out with count.
"It's a concern, especially when you look at all the different charges of voter fraud. And it's not just the lawmakers' concern. It should be the concern of every citizen in the country," Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, R-Ga., vice ranking member of the subcommittee for the U.S. Census, told FOXNews.com. "We want an enumeration. We don't want to have any false numbers."
The blatant power play by Obama in allowing ACORN to "help" with the census is dumbfounding.
ACORN, which claims to be a non-partisan grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people, came under fire in 2007 when Washington State filed felony charges against several paid ACORN employees and supervisors for more than 1,700 fraudulent voter registrations. In March 2008, an ACORN worker in Pennsylvania was sentenced for making 29 phony voter registration forms. The group's activities were frequently questioned in the 2008 presidential election.
Just in case you weren't aware, the census is what is used to apportion the House of Representative's 435 seats. If Obama follows through, don't be surprised if future representation is lacking in current republican districts.
Thank you for your service...
-----
Now, Pay up!
Obama has presented a new health care plan for soldiers and veterans wounded during active duty. Pay for it yourself. Rather than the government bearing the weight of its wounded soldiers, Obama is proposing that the VA look to a soldier's private insurance for reimbursement.
In the process of attempting to recoup $540 million dollars, Obama is quickly losing what little face he had with the military.
The LA Times has an article that is quite critical of Obama's plan and quotes two Democrat Senators that have vowed that any such proposal will be dead on arrival.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a senior member of the Veterans Affairs and Budget committees, warned Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki last week that the idea would be "dead on arrival," and she vowed Tuesday that any budget containing the VA provision was "not going to pass."
"The VA has an obligation to pay for service-related care, and they should not be nickel-and-diming vets in the process," she said in an interview. "This proposal means that family members will be hurt because, if a vet meets the maximum [benefit amount] for their insurance, their wife and kids would not be able to get insurance [benefits] any more. . . . God forbid a wounded vet from Iraq has a wife who gets breast cancer."
In addition, Veteran groups are not taking this without a fight, and Obama would show some semblance of intelligence if he took the time to actually listen to our men and women in uniform.
Veterans groups said the change would abrogate the government's responsibility to care for the war-wounded. And they expressed concern that the new policy would make employers less willing to hire veterans for fear of the cost of insuring them, and that insurance benefits for veterans' families would also be jeopardized.
What in the world is Obama thinking? I've heard numerous theories, ranging from, "He is an idiot," to, "He is attempting to disassemble our current military in order to replace it with a military loyal to him alone (The 'he is the next Hitler' theory)."
I tend to think reality lies somewhere between these theories. One of Obama's plans is to create socialized medicine. The only way he is going to make this happen is if private insurance becomes so unaffordable, that there is nowhere for the middle class to turn, but to the federal government. By throwing a $540 million debit on the private insurance companies, Obama is ensuring the rise in premiums. In addition, private insurance companies may refuse to cover the pre-existing conditions received during active duty. In this case, military men and women (and their families) may be the first group forced to accept coverage under Obama's health care system to be.
-----
Now, Pay up!
Obama has presented a new health care plan for soldiers and veterans wounded during active duty. Pay for it yourself. Rather than the government bearing the weight of its wounded soldiers, Obama is proposing that the VA look to a soldier's private insurance for reimbursement.
In the process of attempting to recoup $540 million dollars, Obama is quickly losing what little face he had with the military.
The LA Times has an article that is quite critical of Obama's plan and quotes two Democrat Senators that have vowed that any such proposal will be dead on arrival.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a senior member of the Veterans Affairs and Budget committees, warned Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki last week that the idea would be "dead on arrival," and she vowed Tuesday that any budget containing the VA provision was "not going to pass."
"The VA has an obligation to pay for service-related care, and they should not be nickel-and-diming vets in the process," she said in an interview. "This proposal means that family members will be hurt because, if a vet meets the maximum [benefit amount] for their insurance, their wife and kids would not be able to get insurance [benefits] any more. . . . God forbid a wounded vet from Iraq has a wife who gets breast cancer."
In addition, Veteran groups are not taking this without a fight, and Obama would show some semblance of intelligence if he took the time to actually listen to our men and women in uniform.
Veterans groups said the change would abrogate the government's responsibility to care for the war-wounded. And they expressed concern that the new policy would make employers less willing to hire veterans for fear of the cost of insuring them, and that insurance benefits for veterans' families would also be jeopardized.
What in the world is Obama thinking? I've heard numerous theories, ranging from, "He is an idiot," to, "He is attempting to disassemble our current military in order to replace it with a military loyal to him alone (The 'he is the next Hitler' theory)."
I tend to think reality lies somewhere between these theories. One of Obama's plans is to create socialized medicine. The only way he is going to make this happen is if private insurance becomes so unaffordable, that there is nowhere for the middle class to turn, but to the federal government. By throwing a $540 million debit on the private insurance companies, Obama is ensuring the rise in premiums. In addition, private insurance companies may refuse to cover the pre-existing conditions received during active duty. In this case, military men and women (and their families) may be the first group forced to accept coverage under Obama's health care system to be.
-----
Monday, March 16, 2009
Stem Cells
Obama made it clear that he was lifting the ban on the use of federal funds for stem cell research, well, Clear as Mud.
Maybe this will act as a wake-up call to Obama. Try reading the bills before signing them. Congress, take note, Obama will sign anything you send to him.
Maybe this will act as a wake-up call to Obama. Try reading the bills before signing them. Congress, take note, Obama will sign anything you send to him.
Rule of Law
-----
Professor Nicholas Capaldi visited the University of Tulsa last Wednesday and presented a lecture on the Rule of Law. In law school, the Rule of Law is ingrained in each and every student as one of the most important aspects of practicing law. However, there is overwhelming failure to actually define Rule of Law. Professor Capaldi offered an interesting and very succinct definition.
Rule of Law is defined as "categorical (non-instrumental) procedural norms in a civil association."
If this makes absolutely no sense to you, no worries. As Professor Capaldi pointed out, most succinct definitions don't make sense, unless you understand the research that went into determining this definition. Each portion of this definition refers to the work of well known legal thinkers. (Problem is, law school doesn't teach about the works of legal thinkers anymore, so they may not be as well known as they should be.)
Categorical
It is believed that Dicey was the first utilize the term, Rule of Law. His understanding of the Rule of Law was a system of rules created by people to limit themselves. There is no overall power that dictates what must be done. The people dictate the system and live by the system.
(Non-Instrumental)
Hayek is associated with the explanation that the Rule of Law is not and may not be an instrument of social reform. If it becomes a tool for social reform, it is no longer the Rule of Law.
Procedural Norms
In order for a Rule of Law to exist, there must be set forth procedural norms. These norms, according to Fuller, guide individuals in their decision making and it is required that these norms be general, clear, publicly promulgated, and they may not be retroactive. There are other necessary aspects of these procedural norms, but I failed to write fast enough to get them all written down, but you should get the idea. It is also very important to note that procedural norms change with the progression of time. But, these procedural norms must change as a reaction to the change of the people. It is improper to force a change in the procedural norms in order to force a change in the people.
Civil Association
This may be the most important aspect of this definition. Generally speaking there are two types of associations: Enterprise Associations and Civil Associations. According to Oakshott, a Civil Association is a grouping of individuals with no overall collective goal. Individuals are allowed to have and attain their own goals. The interesting aspect of Civil Associations, is the allowance of Enterprise Associations within them. An Enterprise association is group created with a collective goal. Within the group there is no room for individual goals, only the goals of the group. (Examples include the military, religion, and corporations.)
-----
In an attempt at clarity over succinctness, the Rule of Law is a system of norms created publicly by the people to govern themselves in their never-ending attempts to attain their individual and enterprise goals.
The United States is about as close as civilization has come to having a society based upon the Rule of Law. It is the mixture of a representative government with checks and balances and a legal system ruled by legislation and common law that has created and defined our Civil Association.
However, based upon this understanding of the Rule of Law, our civil association may be in peril. It is interesting and scary to see how the Supreme Court has become a tool to achieving enterprise goals (both from the left and the right), rather than a branch of protection for our procedural norms. Rather than dictating the Rule of Law based upon the principles set forth by the people, the Supreme Court has generally become a tool of politics, an attempt to force "alien norms" on the people. The Supreme Court was meant to be the non-political checks and balance of our government, and yet, it appears to have become uncontrollable.
What is the difference between God and a Supreme Court Justice?
God knows he is not a Supreme Court Justice.
-----
Professor Nicholas Capaldi visited the University of Tulsa last Wednesday and presented a lecture on the Rule of Law. In law school, the Rule of Law is ingrained in each and every student as one of the most important aspects of practicing law. However, there is overwhelming failure to actually define Rule of Law. Professor Capaldi offered an interesting and very succinct definition.
Rule of Law is defined as "categorical (non-instrumental) procedural norms in a civil association."
If this makes absolutely no sense to you, no worries. As Professor Capaldi pointed out, most succinct definitions don't make sense, unless you understand the research that went into determining this definition. Each portion of this definition refers to the work of well known legal thinkers. (Problem is, law school doesn't teach about the works of legal thinkers anymore, so they may not be as well known as they should be.)
Categorical
It is believed that Dicey was the first utilize the term, Rule of Law. His understanding of the Rule of Law was a system of rules created by people to limit themselves. There is no overall power that dictates what must be done. The people dictate the system and live by the system.
(Non-Instrumental)
Hayek is associated with the explanation that the Rule of Law is not and may not be an instrument of social reform. If it becomes a tool for social reform, it is no longer the Rule of Law.
Procedural Norms
In order for a Rule of Law to exist, there must be set forth procedural norms. These norms, according to Fuller, guide individuals in their decision making and it is required that these norms be general, clear, publicly promulgated, and they may not be retroactive. There are other necessary aspects of these procedural norms, but I failed to write fast enough to get them all written down, but you should get the idea. It is also very important to note that procedural norms change with the progression of time. But, these procedural norms must change as a reaction to the change of the people. It is improper to force a change in the procedural norms in order to force a change in the people.
Civil Association
This may be the most important aspect of this definition. Generally speaking there are two types of associations: Enterprise Associations and Civil Associations. According to Oakshott, a Civil Association is a grouping of individuals with no overall collective goal. Individuals are allowed to have and attain their own goals. The interesting aspect of Civil Associations, is the allowance of Enterprise Associations within them. An Enterprise association is group created with a collective goal. Within the group there is no room for individual goals, only the goals of the group. (Examples include the military, religion, and corporations.)
-----
In an attempt at clarity over succinctness, the Rule of Law is a system of norms created publicly by the people to govern themselves in their never-ending attempts to attain their individual and enterprise goals.
The United States is about as close as civilization has come to having a society based upon the Rule of Law. It is the mixture of a representative government with checks and balances and a legal system ruled by legislation and common law that has created and defined our Civil Association.
However, based upon this understanding of the Rule of Law, our civil association may be in peril. It is interesting and scary to see how the Supreme Court has become a tool to achieving enterprise goals (both from the left and the right), rather than a branch of protection for our procedural norms. Rather than dictating the Rule of Law based upon the principles set forth by the people, the Supreme Court has generally become a tool of politics, an attempt to force "alien norms" on the people. The Supreme Court was meant to be the non-political checks and balance of our government, and yet, it appears to have become uncontrollable.
What is the difference between God and a Supreme Court Justice?
God knows he is not a Supreme Court Justice.
-----
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Quick Question
I attended a lecture yesterday regarding the definition of the rule of law. I look forward to making a post about it, but I need to finish up some homework before blogging.
What are you thoughts as to what the Rule of Law is?
What are you thoughts as to what the Rule of Law is?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Excuses, Excuses.
-----
Obama denies being a socialist, claiming that the actions being described as socialist started under someone else's watch!
"I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement -– the prescription drug plan -- without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word 'socialist' around can’t say the same."
-President Obama
Just because Bush had socialisttendencies, does not mean that you do not.
"I readily concede I chucked aside my free-market principles when I was told ... the situation we were facing could be worse than the Great Depression"
-President Bush
I'm sorry President Obama, but blaming your continuation and expansion of Bush's socialist push at the end of his administration, does not expunge your socialist agenda of its socialism.
"But he acknowledged that, as he told Joe the Plumber, he plans to try to spread the wealth around." -The Washington Times
Obama denies being a socialist, claiming that the actions being described as socialist started under someone else's watch!
"I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement -– the prescription drug plan -- without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word 'socialist' around can’t say the same."
-President Obama
Just because Bush had socialisttendencies, does not mean that you do not.
"I readily concede I chucked aside my free-market principles when I was told ... the situation we were facing could be worse than the Great Depression"
-President Bush
I'm sorry President Obama, but blaming your continuation and expansion of Bush's socialist push at the end of his administration, does not expunge your socialist agenda of its socialism.
"But he acknowledged that, as he told Joe the Plumber, he plans to try to spread the wealth around." -The Washington Times
Monday, March 9, 2009
Change of Heart
-----
How quickly the mind races as new ideas are presented from all sides of an issue. I'm still struggling with the quandary of the Constitution's protection of persons versus citizens, but a very good point was made to me by hohotread.
The founding fathers made no distinction between "people" and "citizens" in regards to rights. The 14th amendment was the first to even make a distinction between "citizens" and "people." The ones before extended all rights and privileges to "the people." Only general practice made a distinction between "citizens" and "others" such as slaves, women, and children. I feel the need as a historian to point out that "democracy" means "rule by the citizen body," which in ancient Greece meant specific males. Even in ancient Greece, though, laws extended to everyone, it was "rule"--the right to vote--that was restricted. So it is in the U.S.
I think the distinction is pretty clear. Rights specifically granted to citizens (like voting) are for citizens, rights granted to "the people" are for everyone. While one could argue that some laws need to make a distinction, the thrust of the linked article seems to be an attempt to remove legal protection from non-citizens. If the protections in the Bill of Rights did NOT extend to non-citizens, any new immigrant would have been prey for the government and legal system to harass mercilessly. Since the U.S. was entirely dependent on immigrants to expand, this would have crippled the nation in its most vulnerable years.
This has provoked further thought on my part and I am still working to put those thoughts into a cohesive mass, but let it be known that I am a man willing to reason through conflicting ideas, in hopes of finding a reasonable answer.
I think this is a genuinely appropriate time to mention that I am not a fan of the word, "hypocrite". Reason: A man's paradigm shifts as he learns more, and I expect that every man should continually strive for knowledge and the paradigm shifts that accompany that information. Ignorance, rather than hypocrisy, is the problem. I define ignorance as a lack of knowledge combined with an unwillingness to learn.
How quickly the mind races as new ideas are presented from all sides of an issue. I'm still struggling with the quandary of the Constitution's protection of persons versus citizens, but a very good point was made to me by hohotread.
The founding fathers made no distinction between "people" and "citizens" in regards to rights. The 14th amendment was the first to even make a distinction between "citizens" and "people." The ones before extended all rights and privileges to "the people." Only general practice made a distinction between "citizens" and "others" such as slaves, women, and children. I feel the need as a historian to point out that "democracy" means "rule by the citizen body," which in ancient Greece meant specific males. Even in ancient Greece, though, laws extended to everyone, it was "rule"--the right to vote--that was restricted. So it is in the U.S.
I think the distinction is pretty clear. Rights specifically granted to citizens (like voting) are for citizens, rights granted to "the people" are for everyone. While one could argue that some laws need to make a distinction, the thrust of the linked article seems to be an attempt to remove legal protection from non-citizens. If the protections in the Bill of Rights did NOT extend to non-citizens, any new immigrant would have been prey for the government and legal system to harass mercilessly. Since the U.S. was entirely dependent on immigrants to expand, this would have crippled the nation in its most vulnerable years.
This has provoked further thought on my part and I am still working to put those thoughts into a cohesive mass, but let it be known that I am a man willing to reason through conflicting ideas, in hopes of finding a reasonable answer.
I think this is a genuinely appropriate time to mention that I am not a fan of the word, "hypocrite". Reason: A man's paradigm shifts as he learns more, and I expect that every man should continually strive for knowledge and the paradigm shifts that accompany that information. Ignorance, rather than hypocrisy, is the problem. I define ignorance as a lack of knowledge combined with an unwillingness to learn.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Cup o' Tea?
-----
Mrs. Legal-Right has recently introduced me to the pleasure of drinking tea. I've never been a fan, but my tastes are expanding. And now I have a tea company I can be happy to support as they support the tax payers of America in their message to Congress.
Speaking of the recent rash of "Tea Parties", it had been suggested that I would be interested in the cause. Problem is, the current cause is the misuse and misappropriation of funds, not taxation without representation. Our current representation may not be fabulous or even good, but that is our fault for choosing them. Harking back to the days of the Boston Tea Party creates great imagery, but I'd prefer a coherent message and a new form of protest that voices that message clearly.
Mrs. Legal-Right has recently introduced me to the pleasure of drinking tea. I've never been a fan, but my tastes are expanding. And now I have a tea company I can be happy to support as they support the tax payers of America in their message to Congress.
Speaking of the recent rash of "Tea Parties", it had been suggested that I would be interested in the cause. Problem is, the current cause is the misuse and misappropriation of funds, not taxation without representation. Our current representation may not be fabulous or even good, but that is our fault for choosing them. Harking back to the days of the Boston Tea Party creates great imagery, but I'd prefer a coherent message and a new form of protest that voices that message clearly.
A Quandary
-----
The Constitution of the United States uses two words which are in dire need of concrete definitions: Person and Citizen.
There has been a strong move to push constitutional rights onto non-citizens of the United States, whether they be illegal aliens or unlawful combatants captured by the United States during a time of war. The basic argument for providing constitutional rights to these person is the Constitution's use of the word "person" rather than "citizen" when conferring its protection of individual and state rights.
Was this a purposeful intention of the founding fathers, to extend the protection of the United States Constitution to "citizens of the world" as "persons"? Were the founding fathers so concerned with the treatment of non-citizens by the federal government, that they purposefully extend the Constitution's protection?
It seems to me that if you are going to provide all persons the protection of your Constitution, there would be no need for immigration and naturalization. I was born a citizen of the United States and I am protected by the Constitution. Somewhere along the line my ancestors were immigrants to the United States and they were naturalized to become citizens of the United States because they wanted the protection offered by the Constitution and they wanted their children and their children's children to grow up in a society where citizens are allowed to live their lives free from the intervention of the federal government. Why would they desire naturalization if there is no difference between an alien within the borders of the United States and a natural born citizen of the United States?
I believe it is common sense to believe that the Founding Fathers wanted to protect Citizens and States from an over-reaching federal government. It appears beyond reason that the Constitution should be considered so "over-inclusive". By extending the protection of the United States Constitution to "citizens of the world", we are destroying the sovereignty of the United States and diminishing my status as a citizen.
But then we have the problem of the 14th Amendment which has been the crux of millions of law suits. Even if the Founding Fathers did not intend to extend the protection of the Constitution of the United States to protect everyone, did the 1968 Congress intend to do so? Is there a legitimate need to review the 14th Amendment and redefine the protections of the Constitution, yet again?
I'm beginning to think we have to, in order to protect the sovereignty of our nation.
What are your thoughts?
The Constitution of the United States uses two words which are in dire need of concrete definitions: Person and Citizen.
There has been a strong move to push constitutional rights onto non-citizens of the United States, whether they be illegal aliens or unlawful combatants captured by the United States during a time of war. The basic argument for providing constitutional rights to these person is the Constitution's use of the word "person" rather than "citizen" when conferring its protection of individual and state rights.
Was this a purposeful intention of the founding fathers, to extend the protection of the United States Constitution to "citizens of the world" as "persons"? Were the founding fathers so concerned with the treatment of non-citizens by the federal government, that they purposefully extend the Constitution's protection?
It seems to me that if you are going to provide all persons the protection of your Constitution, there would be no need for immigration and naturalization. I was born a citizen of the United States and I am protected by the Constitution. Somewhere along the line my ancestors were immigrants to the United States and they were naturalized to become citizens of the United States because they wanted the protection offered by the Constitution and they wanted their children and their children's children to grow up in a society where citizens are allowed to live their lives free from the intervention of the federal government. Why would they desire naturalization if there is no difference between an alien within the borders of the United States and a natural born citizen of the United States?
I believe it is common sense to believe that the Founding Fathers wanted to protect Citizens and States from an over-reaching federal government. It appears beyond reason that the Constitution should be considered so "over-inclusive". By extending the protection of the United States Constitution to "citizens of the world", we are destroying the sovereignty of the United States and diminishing my status as a citizen.
But then we have the problem of the 14th Amendment which has been the crux of millions of law suits. Even if the Founding Fathers did not intend to extend the protection of the Constitution of the United States to protect everyone, did the 1968 Congress intend to do so? Is there a legitimate need to review the 14th Amendment and redefine the protections of the Constitution, yet again?
I'm beginning to think we have to, in order to protect the sovereignty of our nation.
What are your thoughts?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Cap 'n' Trade: Bringing Hopelessness
-----
Neo-Neocon discusses a scary proposition. Obama's plan to place a cap and trade tax on coal companies is meant to bankrupt those companies and until alternative sources of energy are available, we will all be paying the price (higher utility bills) for Obama's environmental pleasure. Well, everyone except those making less than $75,000.
Once I graduate from law school, I will begin paying off my massive student loan debt which will easily top $100,000. To even keep my head above water I have to make more than $75,000 a year. How does this make me rich? Am I automatically an evil individual, suppressing the working man because I dedicated my life to education in order to become the best damn attorney (which is work, btw) I can be?
I can't afford my utilities to skyrocket. Thanks for the hope Obama.
blarg...
Neo-Neocon discusses a scary proposition. Obama's plan to place a cap and trade tax on coal companies is meant to bankrupt those companies and until alternative sources of energy are available, we will all be paying the price (higher utility bills) for Obama's environmental pleasure. Well, everyone except those making less than $75,000.
Once I graduate from law school, I will begin paying off my massive student loan debt which will easily top $100,000. To even keep my head above water I have to make more than $75,000 a year. How does this make me rich? Am I automatically an evil individual, suppressing the working man because I dedicated my life to education in order to become the best damn attorney (which is work, btw) I can be?
I can't afford my utilities to skyrocket. Thanks for the hope Obama.
blarg...
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Open Thread
-----
Life and School are interfering with may ability to discuss politics today.
What do you have to say about recent events?
Leave a comment.
Life and School are interfering with may ability to discuss politics today.
What do you have to say about recent events?
Leave a comment.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Paul Harvey
-----
RIP
His wonderful radio voice will be missed, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is "the rest of [his] story."
God's blessings on his family and friends.
RIP
His wonderful radio voice will be missed, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is "the rest of [his] story."
God's blessings on his family and friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)