Jail is too tough - I want the current presidential candidates to chime in on this.

Yahoo News has a story that everyone should be concerned about. The story speaks to the deplorable conditions in our jails as apparently the jails are starving the inmates.

The story (from the AP) is entitled "300-pound inmate complains Ark. jail doesn't feed him well"

An inmate awaiting trial on a murder charge is suing the county, complaining he has lost more than 100 pounds because of the jailhouse menu.

Broderick Lloyd Laswell says he isn't happy that he's down to 308 pounds after eight months in the Benton County jail. He has filed a federal lawsuit complaining the jail doesn't provide inmates with enough food.

So note that the inmate (in jail on a murder charge) is complaining that he has lost weight in jail while stating that he is not participating in "little vigorous activity". How cruel can this country be that we do not supply our inmates with enough food to keep their 400+ body weight? I for one can't bear the thought of this criminal (note I did not use the term inmate - how judgmental of me). The criminal's complaint continues:

"On several occasions I have started to do some exercising and my vision went blurry and I felt like I was going to pass out," ... "About an hour after each meal my stomach starts to hurt and growl. I feel hungry again."

Note that the prison in question is in Arkansas. Obama should jump on this and show feigned outrage that the Clinton's (first family of Arkansas in 1978 and again in 1982) discriminate against heavy inmates! We need to change this - Obama - man of the people (including heavy criminals). If only Chris Wallace had asked Obama about this on yesterday's Fox News Sunday. A missed opportunity to be sure.

One more thing - prison is supposed to be tough. That is why it is assigned as punishment.

OS

A Rant about Patriots Day

Happy Patriots Day to you and yours coming from a scribe living in the heart of America's fight for Independence and of course (in my opinion) the cradle of liberty (aka Boston). I guess that is also why things are so screwed up around here as the residents of this fine state may have gotten a little sloppy when it comes to what the Constitution actually says and permits that Government to do.

As a transplanted New Yorker I had no idea what Patriots Day was but in researching it on Wikipedia I learned that it "is a civic holiday commemorating the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the first battles of the American Revolutionary War". It is also the day that the Boston Marathon is run so it has that going for it as well.

So I attended a parade and watched the Regulars and the Colonists and the Marching Bands and the Shriner's clowns and all that and of course there was a large military contingent on hand to march in the parade. Active Duty as well as Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) for short.

How appropriate that a day such as Patriots Day would also honor those men and women that gave their sacred honor in pursuit of a cause no less worthy and no less costly than our own Revolution. So now for the rant - WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND STAND AND SHOW THESE ANCIENT WARRIORS A LITTLE RESPECT AS THEY PASS YOU BY.

I was amazed that I was only one of the few people that actually stood to honor these men and women who had seen so much and done so much and heeded the call of their country. I was actually ashamed by the people I was with not realizing the honor that they had in seeing these men and women in the flesh and missing their chance to stand and be counted as people who appreciate those that sacrificed so much for us, the living and the dead.

What are we teaching our young these days? Parents, you should be encouraging your kids to appreciate and honor as best they can those Soldiers, Airman, Sailors, Marines that have done so much for this country and asked for little in return. We owe them a lot and the least we can do is to show them the proper respect when they come walking by in a parade honoring our Patriots. We may not be able to shake Paul Revere's hand, or tell George Washington what a great commander and 1st President he was. But we can reach out to the Veteran and thank them for their service and demonstrate a little (yes a little) gratitude for their past endeavors.

OS

Current tax system is unfair - according to Barack.

I did not watch the debate last night. I am not really sure what was going to be covered except some of the more media driven stories such as Barack's slam on people who are religious and believe in the 2nd Amendment and of course Hillary's harrowing landing in Bosnia under non-existent sniper fire.

But in listening to the radio again, Barack did it again bringing up the need to have a fairer tax system, in this case talking about capital gains taxes. Quoting from Real Clear Politics the moderator Charles Gibson asked Obama after demonstrating that lowering capital gains in the past has raised Government revenues why he would raise capital taxes Obama replied:

"Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair."

I have already blogged on this idea of a fair tax system. In one of my posts Hillary actually called for a "fair and progressive tax system" which struck me as a odd as the two ideas are at odds with each other. So now I see Barack calling for fairness as well. Nice to see the Dems have a common theme at least (along with inserting their respective foots in their mouths every so often). So like everyone else I was waiting for Barack to give us some details as to what a fair system would entail. Well, we didn't really get there, instead he took a swipe at George Bush (again from Real Clear Politics).

"I think the biggest problem that we've got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we've got a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right."

What? Senator Obama - why not say what you mean? You are for hitting the richest with some "progressive tax" that basically taxes people who invest more (and probably make more) in the market than those who don't. That would in fact drive less investment in the market (why try and make more money if you are going to turn a larger portion over the Government) and probably do nothing to address the housing crisis that Barack feels President Bush should be doing more about. Maybe the Government should give houses away free? Maybe we can tie that into the "promoting the general welfare clause" in the US Constitution?

These guys are socialists pure and simple and the issue is that the Republicans have many of the same ideas but are banking on the fact that they are not as extreme (read not as anti-capitalist and anti-free market and anti-liberty as the Dems). What happened to real debate in this country and the concept of people not relying on Government to take care of them? The Dems continue offer a longer and more frightening road to servitude. The Repubs offer less (slightly) but the end destination is the same. If McCain starts talking about tax fairness which equates to punishing the rich, I am going to be more bothered than I currently am.

BTW - check out the posts at the Democratic Underground. Most of what I read is someone waiting to really soak the rich...that is a great idea. Soak the success in this country...soak the folks who supply jobs to people. Soak the people who invest in this country...great idea.

Better idea (to borrow from Tom Swift's Modest Proposal) is to tax the poor. The less you make the more taxes you should pay. Encourage people to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and get out and earn!!!

OS

Update on post about AIDS and Elton John

Update#2 - WND has a story that the swanky Clinton Fundraiser that Elton John attended and performed may have violated Federal Election Laws. Judicial Watch has urged the FEC to investigate as "it is illegal for any foreign national to 'make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value … in connection with the Federal, State or local election" and reading the Judicial Watch website there is this note:

Press reports also show that Sir Elton John, on March 17, 2008, through the Clinton campaign, sent out a mass email announcing the concert and soliciting support. The Elton John concert took place on April 9, 2008 and raised more than $2.5 million (from the sale of 5,000 tickets) for Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton for President.

This is great! I doubt this will go anywhere (hey this is the Clinton's) but it is still nice to see that someone is keeping an eye on these affairs (no pun intended).

The NY Times Blog is covering this story and has a Clinton press release basically saying that foreign nationals can volunteer their time as long as they are not compensated. I wonder what sort of compensation Elton would have wanted? I bet there is still a story here but moreover why would Clinton give a forum to Elton to bash America and our apparently "misogynistic attitudes".

You got me.

OS

Update #1 - A friend of mine pointed out something I had missed in my previous post on the subject of Reagan and AIDS. Most lefties want to blame Reagan for the spread of AIDS (if they didn't have Reagan they would actually have to blame the individuals who engaged in the risky (or should it be risque'?) behavior.

So to all you libs who love to hate Reagan and blame him for all the AIDS deaths and state that he didn't do enough, rememeber you are looking at it through 2008 glasses, not 1980 glasses and of course we all have the benefit of hindsight.

Or you can continue with your non-tolerant beliefs that Reagan is to blame. I thought Liberals were the tolerant ones?

OS

Reagan and AIDS - or the moronic rantings of Elton John

I know everyone is clamoring for my note to American Airlines. It is coming - rest assured. But this story slipped into my email inbox and I felt the need to respond.

The excellent "Left Coast Report" is a weekly email that I get and it is (as described by its author James Hirsen) as a "Political Look at Hollywood". It is great reading albeit sad when the reader realizes how loony Hollywood and major actors really are. There are some times when actors are cited that actually stand out from the crowd of leftist sheep but these are few and far between.

In the most recent email post entitled "Elton John Plays Oprah for Hillary", Hirsen notes that:

John expressed his fondness for the New York Senator and gushed, “There is no one more qualified to lead America.”...

John apparently felt compelled to invoke the name of the late great Ronald Reagan, telling the audience that his next song, “The Ballad of the Boy in the Red Shoes,” was about a child who was dying from AIDS.

“The Reagan administration did nothing to help people with AIDS, and that is a disgrace,” John said.

So I had to research this a little as the idea that Reagan didn't care about AIDS is a leftist fantasy. Thankfully National Review comes to the rescue again. Deroy Murdock writing in 2003 in National Review quotes Ed Meese (Reagan's Attorney General) as saying:

"I can remember numerous sessions of the domestic-policy council where the surgeon general provided information to us, and the questions were not whether the federal government would get involved, but what would be the best way. There was support for research through the NIH. There also were questions about the extent to which public warnings should be sent out. It was a question of how the public would respond to fairly explicit warnings about fairly explicit things. Ultimately, warnings were sent out."

Further in the article Murdock quotes a former speech writer of Reagan's, Peter Robinson regarding AIDS funding with this remark: "... every Reagan budget contained a large sum of money specifically earmarked for AIDS,". Murdock actually has a chart that shows the growth of Government Spending on AIDS from $8 Million in 1982 to $2,322 Million in 1989 for a total of $5,727 Million. How can someone say that the Government turned its back on AIDS? I meant for intellectually honest people that is.

The article also addresses the myth that Reagan didn't talk about AIDS in public until 1987 (not true) and the myth that Reagan was a homophobe (in Hollywood?). I will not quote Murdock's work in total here. Instead offer the reader to go to National Review and read the article for themselves.

Elton John should stop lecturing us about our country and just shut up and sing. I think the "Rocket Man" has had too many "Candles in the Wind" - if you know what I mean.

Actually - I don't either. Maybe I should blame Reagan.

OS

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Raising taxes in a recession

Yep - I was one of the 150000 stranded by American Airlines this week. My next blog post will be entitled "Open letter to American Airlines" where I will list all the stupid things that happened to me on my flight home to Boston and how American Airlines can do better (a whole lot better) but I digress.

This is a campaign season and of course one of the things on the table for discussion is the economy where it seems the "R" word is being bandied about a lot more than usual (that would be "recession") and I am seeing the effects of a slowing economy in housing prices and food prices (also raised due to higher oil prices). By the way speaking of higher oil prices, I thought one of the criticisms of the Iraq war was that it was about oil. Well - I am not seeing any relief at the pump so count that as a failure as well.

So President Bush's response to the slowing economy is tax rebates (the "stimulus package"). Various stories (such as this one at MSNBC) note that the tax rebates are a way to give the economy a "shot in the arm". Well this hope is actually tied to a belief that assumes Americans will continue their self destructive ways and take this pittance from the Government (CNN has a story that states "Single filers with AGI below $75,000 will get rebates of as much as $600. Couples with AGI below $150,000 will receive rebates of up to $1,200." Hate to burst the bubble here but I am not going to get a check from the Government and then go out and but a new big screen TV just so the economy turns around. I am going to bank the money in case I need something really important, like food! Sure most Americans will go out and buy "stuff" but this will be short term gain if all.

So what else does the government want to do in a recession. Well here in Boston the House wants to raise taxes but on cigarettes those nasty little coffin nails. Reading the story in the Globe the reader learns:

The cigarette tax would generate an estimated $175 million and would go into effect in July if the bill becomes law. It sparked some of the sharpest exchanges during the hours-long debate on the floor of the House.

Backers said the cigarette tax would not only bring in needed revenue with the state facing a $1.3 billion budget gap, but would also sway some young people against taking up the habit -- and encourage older smokers to quit.

"Smoking kills you. It compromises your health and it kills you. It's something we have to be mindful of," said Rep. Rachel Kaprielian, D-Watertown, a supporter of the bill.

So just so we are clear - Smoking kills. We got it. But what I find really insidious is that the local (or Federal) Government does not ban this "product" instead it taxes it at an astronomical rate and hopes that younger folks won't start and older smokers will quit. Well if that happens, the expected effect of this tax (closing the $1.3 Billion budget gap) won't occur. Listen up folks, the Government wants you to smoke and they know cigarettes are addictive and that you smokers will pay through the nose to get a nicotine fix. They don't want to ban these things that "kill you". They need you to keep on puffing away to pay for their mismanagement of state and federal budgets. Remember that next time the Surgeon General or some other official is decrying the horrors of tobacco. This is a cash cow to government because non-smokers have no problem assigning higher taxes to someone else. Similar to libs like Al Gore who want you to conserve energy while he lives in a 10000 Sq Ft mansion. Don't believe me dear readers and think this is an urban legend - Check out the story on SNOPES.com.

So we have Boston raising taxes on cigarettes - I think my point on that is clear. But looking in California (story was linked on Drudge) I see that an Assemblyman in Sacramento is looking to raise taxes on beer. The online story on mercurynews.com states:

Joe Six-pack will have to pay a lot more to get his buzz on if Assemblyman Jim Beall has his way.

The San Jose Democrat on Thursday proposed raising the beer tax by $1.80 per six-pack, or 30 cents per can or bottle. The current tax is 2 cents per can. That's an increase of about 1,500 percent.

Beall said the tax would generate $2 billion a year to fund health care services, crime prevention and programs to prevent underage drinking and addiction.

"The people who use alcohol should pay for part of the cost to society, just like we've accepted that concept with tobacco," Beall said.

Here again we see someone in the government deciding to stick it to the users of this legal product (beer) to fund health care services and crime prevention. In a slowing economy here is a good idea - raise prices on something that you hope to sell more of. Does that make sense? This seems to be rather circular logic as the expectation is to prevent underage drinking and addiction. Let's be honest with the folks Assemblyman - you really want them to drink more and get addicted so the State of California gets more revenue - that is the end goal right?

Slowing economy so the Government tries to grab more money from the folks who are feeling the effects of the same slowing economy. I always thought if you wanted to sell something in an economy like this you lower the price to make it attractive to buyers. I guess that only occurs in the real world that I live in, not the one fantasized by these politicians.

Let's all have a beer and smoke to help out this economy!!!

OS

Hawks at Fenway

It has been awhile since I posted and have had a lot of work to do which keeps me from posting all sorts of rants about Obama's preacher or Hillary's landing in Bosnia under sniper fire (yeah right) but regardless I want neither of them in the White House but to be honest McCain isn't that much different in many ways. So, what to do, what to do.

Obviously, we should all be excited about the Red Sox kicking off a new season although it seems that a red-tailed hawk had taken up residence behind home plate at Fenway Park and caused quite a disturbance.

Boston.com reports that:

A red-tailed hawk lost its choice seat behind home plate at Fenway Park today after the raptor scratched a middle school girl on a tour, drawing blood from her scalp.

The girl was in the upper deck behind home plate, some 40 feet from the hawk’s nest, where a single egg lay in an overhang near the press booth. The hawk had been perched on a railing and swooped at the girl with its talons extended. She was taken by ambulance to a local hospital.

The girl is ok but I hope this is not foreboding for the Sox this season coming off a World Series win last year.

OS

Blogged with the Flock Browser