Escape from the People's Republic of Maryland

I was a resident of the People's Republic of Maryland (motto: if you can imagine it, we can tax it) for 26 years - longer than I lived in my birth state of Idaho by 18 years, longer than I lived in my adopted home state of California by 8 years...bottom line, a long time. I like Maryland. It's quirky, like me.

But Maryland has......issues.

In the 26 years I lived in Maryland, I worked inside of the state for barely 3 years. The rest of that time I worked in DC (1.5 years) and Virginia.

See, the PRM isn't a business-friendly kind of place. Hell, even the federal government prefers to expand further and further into Virginia rather than attempt to expand in that tax-gouging "workers paradise".

So I've spent the better part of 26 years enduring commutes of 1-2 hours each direction - simply because that's where the work was. I put up with it as long as I did because I liked where I lived.

But then insult began to be heaped on top of injury. As I posted one year ago, Governor O'Malley and the state legislature decided that those of us in the state still actually working needed to pay still more in taxes (or, as Iowahawk put it, "Maryland raises taxes on $100k+ earners stupid enough to live in Maryland").

I'd had enough, but, more importantly, Deadeye had had enough of me getting home late, exhausted from a hell commute. She pushed for us to sell the house and move to Virginia, and, after a six month adventure, we have done so. We're now residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Bottom line, we love it here. My commute now is under 20 minutes each way. And we're not subject to punitive taxes for the crime of being successful.

Blue states like Maryland view people as static actors who won't change their behavior or circumstances regardless of how much their tax policies punish them and drive away employers. They think wrong. As much as I loved living in Maryland, it wasn't enough to justify a perpetual hell commute and punitive taxation.

I'm a Virginian now, and I'm thrilled about it.

Stupid enough, indeed

I don't follow all that many people on Twitter, mostly friends and my favorite bloggers. One of the people I follow is IowaHawk, a blogger I heard about from Toes.

David Burge is hilarious. Mostly, he's hilarious because he's got a sniper's talent for hitting at the very essence of an issue. A great example is this tweet from yesterday.

As one of those falling into that category, I must say: guilty as charged.

For years I've said that the official motto of the state of Maryland should be, "If you can imagine it, we can tax it". Maryland has been a one-party state practically non-stop since Reconstruction. And it shows. Maryland Donkeys put the "tard" in "libtard".

Not content with chasing off most of the state's millionaires by raising their taxes in 2008, Governor Martin O'Malley (known as "owe Malley" around these parts) and the one-party drones in the legislature apparently want to chase off the rest of the tax base as well.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Maryland is nuts.

Expect to hear that I've moved to Virginia sometime in the near future.

Response to friendly taunting

A little over a week ago I noticed that The Modern Pharisee had resumed blogging. In his post The Lesser of Three Evils, he essentially laid out the case that Ron Paul supporters owed it to themselves and their country to choke back their bile and disgust and vote for "the best conservative candidate on the ballot" this Fall, citing the experience of King David.

In The Pharisee's view, David chose "the lesser of three evils" when given a choice.

While I was reading the post, a paraphrase of Carly Simon's 1970s hit song You're So Vain kept running through my head. "You're so vain. You probably think this post is about you, don't you, don't you, don't you?"

Well, uh, yeah. I did think that post was about me. Hugh and I have had that particular discussion before. But whether or not it was vanity became irrelevant when I received this Google message from Hugh.

Hugh: I'm back to blogging, and this is for you (and a few others)

http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com/2012/04/lesser-of-three-evils.html.

That got a smile out of me. Okay, taunt accepted. Now it's my turn.

I like your analogy. But it's a bit flawed (sorry, Hugh). David was forced to choose between three horrible punishments, while we may choose between three options that, while not pleasant, are certainly NOT horrible punishments. David's three choices were (a) seven years of famine, (b) fleeing his enemies for three months, or (c) three days of pestilence. Our three choices are (a) vote for the incumbent Corporatist thug, Il Duce, (b) vote for the winner of the Republican primaries Corporatist dilettante hand-chosen by the Team Elephant elites, or (c) stay home and flip 'em both the bird. In our case, choice (c) is not only no punishment, but satisfying, in a juvenile sort of way.

Hugh's analogy further breaks down. David did NOT choose the punishment that befell his people. He chose one of the three options that he absolutely did not want to occur. He left the final decision up to the Lord.

I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.

One way or another, in our situation, we have to choose (a), (b), or (c).

We know that choice (a) is out of the question. Il Duce incorporates all of the worst traits of horrendous presidents of the past, including thug Woodrow Wilson, messianic Franklin Roosevelt, "Great Society" Lyndon Johnson, and bumbling Jimmy Carter. But is choice (b) really that much better? Sure, Il Dilettante has great, presidential hair. But he's flip-flopped on every major issue over the past 20 years. If he's a conservative, then I'm Conrad Hilton. The elites moved heaven and earth -- including turning Fox News into the official Romney for President communications organ -- to push Romney through. Why so much effort? It's because...wait for it...NOBODY (and I mean NOBODY) wants him. Okay, Ann Coulter wants him. She can have him.

Choice (c) looks better and better to me all the time. I've already stated that this country is too far gone for any single individual operating as President to fix it.

Four years ago I reacted angrily when The Hausfraurer said that he would no longer vote, because, by voting, he was lending legitimacy to this phony, Corporatist system. Four years later, I completely agree with him.

The game is rigged. There isn't a dime's bit of difference between the "two" candidates. They both love big government; they only disagree when it comes to how big and who pays.

Sign me up for choice (c).

I hate being right

In my last post, I wrote about my dread about bad law resulting from a knee-jerk reaction to the Casey Anthony verdict. I hate being right.

Michelle Crowder of Durant, Oklahoma is calling for Caylee's Law, a piece of legislation that would make it a felony for a parent to fail to report a missing child to law enforcement. And people are listening. Important people.
[...]
This won't help Caylee directly. But it will help America's kids.

It will help the quarter of gay teens who are kicked out of their homes by their parents simply for admitting they love someone of the same gender, kids whose parents leave them to rot on the sidewalks. As it stands, parents CAN kick their kids out, and with rules that don't require they report them missing, abdicating their duties to love and protect their children isn't a felony.
[...]
Caylee's Law, or whatever you call it, would help us make sense of how a system will punish a parent with child abuse charges for leaving children unattended for a long period of time (and rightly so!) but let a parent skate for not reporting a child missing. It can't be one but not the other, America. That's why we need a law.

Did I not tell you? Yet another law "for the children". Ye gods!

But the law of unintended consequences always rides shotgun with these kind of emotion-laded knee-jerk laws. Exhibit A: your 16-year-old daughter runs away with a musician after trying to poison you for the insurance money. You want this back in your life? You figure, "Eh, goodbye and good riddance." But if you don't report your daughter missing and take her back with open arms when she is returned by the cops, you're guilty of child abuse. Of course, if you do take her back, you'd better sleep with one eye open.....but I digress.

And where did this statistic about one quarter of gay teens being kicked out of their homes come from? Sounds fishy to me. I'd wager they're including "boy toys" who ran off with an older man who promised them goodies in exchange for butt sex in that obviously embellished tally. But that "leaving them to rot on the sidewalks" line? Priceless.

Emotions and law make bad bedfellows. But politicians pandering for your vote don't care. They'll pass whatever ridiculous law you tell them you want.

And you wonder why you are less free every day.....

Like I couldn't have guessed it

I was shocked -- SHOCKED -- to find out that Leftists are behind the big push for Net Neutrality. [/sarcasm]

Documents made public yesterday by Judicial Watch describe extensive collusion by Federal Communications Commission officials with a left-wing advocacy group in a campaign to expand government regulation of the Internet.

The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch in a December 2010 Freedom of Information Act request, were created after Democrat appointees solidified their 3-2 control of the agency in March 2009.

The coordination between FCC officials and Free Press, the advocacy group, supported a proposal for the agency to regulate access to the Internet as if it were a public utility, in the interest of ensuring "Net Neutrality."

Proponents said doing so would assure equal access for all Internet users by barring companies from offering preferred rates for higher delivery speeds. Other users, especially in communities with limited Internet access, would be forced to accept poorer service.

But critics said the proposal would actually give the FCC a tool to regulate content, and they argued that the FCC has no authority over the medium in the first place. It would be akin to forcing FedEx and UPS to treat all packages the same way the U.S. Postal Service does.

Anyone with half a brain knows that (1) any effort to regulate the interwebs, regardless of stated purpose, is an attempt to regulate content, and (2) Leftists are the primary movers and shakers behind any effort to restrict speech.

Next thing you know someone will report that Leftists are behind efforts to ban handguns, or some other piece of obvious information.

From each according to his ability...

Welcome to Amerika!

Americans break into two roughly evenly matched camps on the question of whether the government should enact heavy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth in the U.S. Forty-seven percent believe the government should redistribute wealth in this way, while 49% disagree, similar to views Gallup found four years ago.

Republicans and Democrats have sharply different reactions to the government's taking such an active role in equalizing economic outcomes. Seven in 10 Democrats believe the government should levy taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth, while an equal proportion of Republicans believe it should not. The slight majority of independents oppose this policy.

I'm not at all surprised that 70% of Donkeys support wealth redistribution. I wish I could say that I'm surprised that 30% of Elephants support wealth redistribution...but I'm not. See McCain, John.

Of particular interest is the way men and women view wealth redistribution. Only 42% of men, regardless of political party, approve of it, while 52% of women think it's just ducky.

That any American citizen finds wealth redistribution acceptable saddens me. It is yet another example of how the public schools have failed us. Stealing from the productive does NOT end poverty. It just spreads it.

A thought for today

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

— C. S. Lewis

Couldn't have said it any better.

Science scare tactics

I for one am sick and tired of science and its over-hyped, overblown, overly dramatic "findings". At the heart of each of those "findings" is the need for a "solution" that will require massive amounts of funding for more "science" or bigger government.

Here's a recent sampling.

World is 'one poor harvest' from chaos, new book warns
Summary: overpopulation and global warming are going to wipe us out if we don't do something. "Something" isn't defined exactly, but more science funding is the implied "solution".

If Quakes Weren’t Enough, Enter the ‘Superstorm’
Summary: a superstorm could hit California, dumping up to 10 feet of rain on the state in a short span of time. This would result in the Sacramento valley becoming an inland sea. Considering that this "study" was funded by FEMA and CEMA, I'll leave it to you to figure out if there was any ulterior agenda in the "findings".

Smoking Damages DNA Within Minutes, Research Shows
Summary: Okay, setting aside the utter absurdity of the premise, that you're doing life-threatening damage to your body the instant you smoke your first cigarette, the study aims to scare smokers and those who might consider starting to smoke by claiming that your DNA is damaged and your risk of short-term cancers increased within minutes of your first puff. Chemicals called PAHs are to blame. Obviously, more money must be spent in researching these all-powerful and lethal carcinogens.

Is it any wonder that no one outside of the collectivists who wish to herd us all together into sheeplehood believes in AGW any more? All of science's "solutions" involve increased taxation and more power to the almighty Staat. Science is coming dangerously close to losing its credibility.

Hmm. Maybe that's not such a bad thing.

We're #1! We're #1!

States, cities, and regions are known to promote things for which they are predominant. Idaho potatoes. Maryland crabs. New Orleans' Bourbon St. attractions. Chicago Style pizza. Memphis blues. New England chowders.

Notwithstanding that trend, there's a very low likelihood that the greater DC region will be proclaiming their number one status in this area.

Bad, but perhaps unsurprising news for area commuters: A new report indicates drivers in the Washington region lead the country in time, money and gas wasted in traffic.

D.C. drivers spend about 70 hours every year in road congestion, according to the 2010 Urban Mobility Report, considered the authority on traffic rankings.

This is the worst delay in the country.

We're #1! We're #1! Ah, crap!

By the way, this is the second time in the past three years DC has achieved #1 status.

As someone who has endured this hell on Earth for over 23 years, I have say that Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia are absolutely guilty of economic malfeasance in their inattention to regional highway construction.

"Vulture! Highways are expensive!" So is gridlock. How many billions of dollars are lost to this region every year because of our grossly inadequate highway system?

"You should take mass transit!" Really? Mass transit in this reason is designed under the paradigm of traffic filtering into the District in the morning and out to Maryland and Virginia in the evening. So how, exactly, does that help someone like me, who lives in Maryland but works in Virginia? I'll tell you how: not at all!

This is NOT a region where mass transit can be the only solution to the problem. There are too may consultants, contractors, and other non-traditional employment types for that to work.

But it's not going to the change. Highways will never be a high priority in People's Republics like Maryland and the District of Columbia. And Richmond absolutely HATES Northern Virginia, considering its citizens to be yankees. Getting money out of Richmond for NoVa is like getting child support from a rapper. It COULD happen. It's just not likely.

But hey! It's nice for DC to be famous for something besides government waste and corruption, right?

The Looter Czar

Il Duce, the Amerikan President, likes czars.  He's appointed so may of them that I honestly can't even hazard an estimate as to how many there actually are.  While Chairmanship of the President's Council on Jobs and Competiveness doesn't technically qualify as a "czarship", the new Chairman of that Council certainly merits some sort of Czar-like title.  Ladies and gentlemen, I give you - Jeffery Immelt.

President Obama today will name General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt chairman of the new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, the White House announced overnight.

Why is this any more noteworthy than any other Il Duce appointment?  Because General Electric is the #1 looter corporation, and GE Chairman Jeffery Imelt is The King of Looters.

When Democrats said President Obama was “pro-business,” we didn’t know they meant one business in particular.

There are a few companies on the Obama corporate A List – Democratic patrons Google and Goldman Sachs both turn up again and again at White House functions and for special recognition – but no company seems to get the VIP treatment that General Electric receives.
[...]

Whether it is pushing the president’s plan for global warming fees in order to create demand for his “Ecomagination” line of windmills, solar panels, etc., boosting the president’s national health-care law as part of an effort to sell more medical equipment, or enthusing over the Obama strategy of making loans available for industrial exporters, Immelt has been an Obama stalwart all along. Immelt has also consistently argued to shareholders that there is big money to be made in advancing the Democratic agenda.

The fact is that no company has more riding on AGW than GE, and no company is more involved in lobbying for crap legislation to lock out its competition than GE. The bill that outlawed incandescent light bulbs? GE was behind that. All the crap legislation making our nation's "energy policy" completely reliant on wind, sun, and unicorn farts? GE was behind that.  GE is crony capitalism at its worst.

Il Duce is all about rewarding his supporters and punishing those who oppose him.  This is a bald-faced example of unmerited political payback.

But then, "unmerited" is a looter's middle name.

Message to the looter class

How can you tell when your society is destined for ruin?  Easy.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion -- when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing -- when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors -- when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you -- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice -- you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are.

An excerpt from Atlas Shrugged by Ain Rand.

How valid is Rand's assessment.  Pretty spot on, if you ask me.  Pretty spot on.

A hearty welcome to the 112th Congress of the United States.  Loot on!

Vulture Droppings: "Check your bag, sir?"

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

Not content to merely annoy and harass, the TSSA (you can't spell Schutzstaffel without the double S) has moved on to actual assault.  Their new policy - submit to the nudie ray or get groped - has a lot of people in high dudgeon.

The Germans staged an innovative protest of the scanners -- you wanna see me naked?  I'll come to the airport naked!

Vox Day has opined.  So have Will Grigg and Ye Olde Journalist.

Now it's my turn.  This edition of Vulture Droppings is brought to you by the letter "G", as in "grope"

---

"What's the big deal?", I hear some so-called "conservatives" ask.  We NEED the government to keep us safe in the airports.  Even if that WERE true (I believe wholeheartedly that it isn't), how is groping 13-year-old girls for sport keeping us safe?  Yeah, you read that right - only children over the age of 12 get groped. Bet that makes all of you fathers with hot 15-year-old daughters happy.

"You don't HAVE to get groped!  You can go through the scanner, you know!"  Yeah.  Not any better.  The scanner shows everything God gave you in graphic detail.  Think I'm kidding?  Check this out - not only can you see dude's junk, you can tell that he's not circumcised.  Again, the question to all of you fathers with hot 15-year-old daughters -- you want your little girl leered at by Tommy TSSA like she's some sort of common whore just because she's flying to see grandma?

---

"But the pictures are purged after they've been viewed! The embarrassment is only temporary!"  No, no they're not - at least not all of them.  Body scan pictures are starting to crop up in various places; one courthouse in Florida (figures!) has over 35,000 saved images!  Now, fathers, ask yourself this: how would you feel about scanned images of your hot 15-year-old daughter showing up on the internet?  Are you STILL a supporter of the scanners?  I can't see how.

---

TSSA, naturally, stands by the scanners and their new grope-down procedures.  They deny that any groping is going on, notwithstanding the growing number of complaints from the molested (see here, here, and here also).  Nor are they too happy with those who protest against being scanned or groped - this guy faces possible criminal charges.

---

The issue is apparent. So is the solution, IMO. Abolish the TSSA. Let the airlines handle their own security. You may not feel safer, but you'll feel less violated.  And you'll get back the freedom you once had to enter an airport without being molested.

Of course, if you like that sort of thing....in which case, I say - TO THE AIRPORT WITH YOU!

---

Vulture Droppings: Most Importantist Election Ever Edition

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

There's an election tomorrow.  Hey, how 'bout that? [/sarcasm]

"Shame on you, Vulture!  It's the most importantist election ever!"  Uh huh.

"Vulture!  It's all different this year!  The Tea Party is gonna change everything!"  Really?  How so?  The Tea Parties have been completely co-opted by Team Elephant.  Why would I say that?  What evidence do I have of such a thing?  A sampling:

Some traditional Republican consultants are advising — with a straight face — that newly elected Republican members of Congress "reach across the aisle…and "work with the Democrats."

John Boehner "rallies the troops" with empty (and limp) words "backing" Tea Party principles.  He swears spending will be rolled back to "pre-bailouts levels".  Seriously?  Going from $1.5 trillion deficits to $1 trillion deficits?  Oooooh!  I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO impressed!

And worst of all, the Queen of Inside the Beltway faux conservatism "celebrates" the Tea Party as having "saved" Team Elephant from King George the Dim.  Ms. Noonan, for those of you who weren't paying attention, was one of King George's biggest apologists during his 8 year reign of error.

---

"Vulture! Even YOU have to admit that we're better off with Republican-co-opted Tea Party candidates than with the Dhimmi-crats who have rammed a 50-year wish-list of Progressivism down our throats the past 4 years!"

Better?  Better HOW?  BETTER would have been for the Tea Parties to have come together as a third party or under the umbrella of one of the existing third parties (Libertarian or Constitution, for example).  BETTER would be for those candidates to be able to enter Mordor on the Potomac (hat tip: Mike Church) with a clean slate and a fresh canvas than to walk into the clutches of Mitch McCommie and John BaneTurd.

---

Here's the big reason I'm so unenthusiastic.  I'll lay it out in a single sentence.  The co-opting of the Tea Parties by Team Elephant guarantees the failure of the principles that brought those people together.  Guaran.  Effing.  Tees it.

There is no principle that Republicans will not run from, no compromise they will not accept, no stand crucial enough for them to make.

What happens to the Tea Parties after their "champions" are relegated to the Congressional equivalent of the Back Bench, and the John Boehner Business-as-Usual express continues propping up Crony Capitalism?  What happens after Mitch McConnell compromises for the umpteenth time on a point of principle that just SCREAMS for men of courage and conviction to just say "NO!"?

You kill this once-in-a-political lifetime awakening of the sheeple, and you kill any chance we ever have of wresting power away from the looters.

But that's the idea really, isn't it?  That's why the GOP has co-opted the Tea Parties.  They like the gravy train that is "public service" in Washington every bit as much as Team Donkey does.

---

Vulture Droppings: Obamacare begins

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

As modern politics dictates, bad news is always released just prior to the weekend.  This is done to assure that most of the sheeple aren't paying attention.  I mean, it's not like the sycophantic lickspittles of Big Media (the BM for short) are going to go out of their way to embarrass their lord and savior.  They'll report the bad news.  They just won't make much noise in the process of said reportage.

As one would expect, this was the treatment given to the sudden torrent of details regarding Obamacare that spewed out on Friday.  The Drudge Report was the source for these links.  What?  You expected maybe CBS news?  HAHAHAHAHA!

This edition of Vulture Droppings will address those details.

---

With one breath, with one flow
You will know Synchronicity

The first detail of note is a dramatic change of semantics regarding the requirement for every American to have health insurance.

When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

It's not a tax...until it's challenged...and THEN it's a tax.  Give credit where credit is due.  This is shear genius.  They rammed through the legislation all the while claiming it wasn't a tax (which would have increased opposition to it) but will defend its patently unconstitutional dictates by claiming it IS a tax, which takes a major bite out of the States' challenges to its unconstitutionality.  Can you say "evil genius"?

Don't be surprised as more of these changes in semantics start to creep out, not just in response to challenges, but also as regards policy.  We won't appreciate fully the enslaving power of this POS until much, much later.

---

Many miles away something crawls from the slime at the bottom of a dark Scottish lake

The next item deals with physician choice, something we were assured that the Obamacare legislation would not change.

As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.

The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.

But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.

The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.

We're shocked -- SHOCKED -- to find out that our choice of providers would be impacted by Obamacare. SHOCKED! [/sarcasm]

---

Many miles away something crawls to the surface of a dark Scottish lake

Next comes news that Taxachusetts is finding that employers are *shock* looking out for their own interests and dumping the responsibility for health care on the state.

The relentlessly rising cost of health insurance is prompting some small Massachusetts companies to drop coverage for their workers and encourage them to sign up for state-subsidized care instead, a trend that, some analysts say, could eventually weigh heavily on the state’s already-stressed budget.

If this is a surprise to anyone, they're an idiot.  Because, as night follows day, employers are going to dump their health insurance responsibilities on the State as a matter of self-preservation.  This is, not surprisingly to those of us who truly understand what der Staat is, exactly what the administration wants to happen!  There'll be single-payer health care on the British/Canadian model before you know it, administration "promises" to the contrary notwithstanding.

---

Many miles away there's a shadow on the door of a cottage on the shore of a dark Scottish lake

Now for the money shot - the taxman cometh!

If it seems as if the tax code was conceived by graphic artist M.C. Escher, wait until you meet the new and not improved Internal Revenue Service created by ObamaCare. What, you're not already on a first-name basis with your local IRS agent?

National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, who operates inside the IRS, highlighted the agency's new mission in her annual report to Congress last week. Look out below. She notes that the IRS is already "greatly taxed"—pun intended?—"by the additional role it is playing in delivering social benefits and programs to the American public," like tax credits for first-time homebuyers or purchasing electric cars. Yet with ObamaCare, the agency is now responsible for "the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history." And without "sufficient funding" it won't be able to discharge these new duties.

That wouldn't be tragic, given that those new duties include audits to determine who has the insurance "as required by law" and collecting penalties from Americans who don't. Companies that don't sponsor health plans will also be punished. This crackdown will "involve nearly every division and function of the IRS," Ms. Olson reports.

Well, well. Republicans argued during the health debate that the IRS would have to hire hundreds of new agents and staff to enforce ObamaCare. They were brushed off by Democrats and the press corps as if they believed the President was born on the moon. The IRS says it hasn't figured out how much extra money and manpower it will need but admits that both numbers are greater than zero.

Big Brother just got "bigger". "Do you haff the required insurance, Herr Vulture? Vee haff vays of finding out!"

If you think Das Überwachenden has its nose in your business now, just wait.  It'll only get worse.

---

So what does it all mean?  It means that we've barely scratched the surface of the real impact of Obamacare.  The enslaving nature of this POS has yet to be fully revealed.  When it is, don't come crying to me.  I fully understood what it was really about from day one.

* Section captions from Synchronicity I and Synchronicity II by The Police.  What it is that's crawling from the bottom of that lake, I'll leave to the imagination of the reader.

I'm not the only one

Il Duce (the President) got that nickname from me because his policies reflect those of Il Duce (Benito Mussolini), the thuggish ruler of Italy during the 20's, 30's, and early 40's.

For a time I feared that I was the only one making the connection.  The blathering heads on the radio and on TV keep calling him a Socialist or a Communist.  He may be, ideologically.  But his governing style is all Corporatist.

But now I'm not the only one to make the connection. I've finally found someone else who correctly identifies the applied governmental style of Il Duce.

Today’s leaders of the Democratic Party are not at all progressive. In fact, their ideology is regressive – a throwback to an ideology popular in the 1920s and 30s and 40s. Their vision is that people they consider the “ignorant many” should be governed by people who see themselves as the “enlightened few.”
[...]
Nowadays, “fascism” is just an all-purpose insult. Few of those who call people they don’t like “fascists” know what fascism is. Fascism is an economic system. The name comes from an ancient Roman symbol, the “fasces,” a bundle of sticks – referring to how all sectors of society would be tied together by the government.

Back in the day, many intellectuals and other so-called progressives hailed fascism as a “third way” between communism and capitalism. Under fascism, private property does exist, but it is concentrated into big businesses, controlled by the government. Workers are also concentrated, into huge unions, again, controlled by the government.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”

“All within the state. Nothing outside the state. Nothing against the state.”

– Benito Mussolini

I couldn't have said it any better myself...except that I already said it better myself.  Corporatism is Oligarchy-friendly Socialism.

I'm currently reading a book called God of the Machine.  It was written 70 years ago, in 1940.  It reads like it was written today. I'll be reviewing it in the next week or two.  It boggles the mind to learn that the bailouts of 2008 dovetail perfectly with the bailouts of The Great Depression: the first recipient of Great Depression "relief" was none other than J.P. Morgan & Co.!

I would recommend that you get a head start on reading that book.  It's an eye-opener to the methods and madness of the collectivist.  Such as, well......pretty much our entire government.

Feeling like a jackass

Once upon a time a community of wild mules, donkeys, burros, and jackasses roamed free.  They lived in complete freedom.  But there were problems.  They were susceptible to predator attack.  There were no rules preventing mules from abusing donkeys (or vice-versa).  There were no protections against feeding ground encroachment.

So they formed a Pact.  This Pact established common defense against predators and rules to protect against abuses and feeding grounds violations.  Most importantly, the Pact gave assurances to each and every one of the assembled that their freedoms would never be violated.

The Pact established leaders who would represent the animals.  These leaders would have a special wagon to be pulled by the other animals from place to place so that the leaders could perform their duties.

At first, because the wagon was small and the leaders and wagon workers few, it took but a few of the beasts to pull the wagon.  This responsibility was shared by all.  The burden was light, and the demands few.

But over time the leaders started to feel that the Pact restricted them too much.  They became convinced that they could do "amazing things" if those limits were, well, limited.  They were engulfed in an awful hubris.  The "amazing things" they wanted to do were more important to them than the freedoms promised by the Pact.

The leaders were shrewd.  They knew that any overt attempt to break the Pact would result in rebellion.  So over time, bit by bit, the leaders chipped away at the Pact.  By making rules that bordered on violating the Pact without actually doing so, the leaders set precedents that made other rules that DID violate the Pact seem okay.  It was an incrementalist approach.  It was brilliant.

The leaders engaged in a "divide and conquer" strategy.  A number of the new rules were designed to create "favored" classes.  Mules had been greatly wronged in the early days of the Pact.  The leaders used this fact to make rules that allowed many of the mules to ride in the wagon with them.

Then animals without sufficient grazing lands were deemed a "favored" class and were beneficiaries of rules that allowed them to ride on the wagon as well.

The new rules required making the wagon bigger - a whole lot bigger.  Now there were large numbers of animals on the wagon - leaders, wagon workers, and "favored" classes - and many animals were required to pull the wagon.  No, required is too nice of a word.  They were compelled to do so.

Some of the animals - particularly the donkeys and jackasses - began to resent the leaders and the demands placed upon them.  They were branded as uncaring, bigoted, and evil by the leaders.  Those on the wagon certainly agreed.  And, unfortunately, there were enough donkeys, burros, and jackasses who believed the leaders were simply trying to help the "less fortunate" to prevent the donkeys and jackasses from pressuring the leaders to rescind the new rules.

More rules were created.  Some rules limited the amount of feeding ground a beast could have.  Others forced animals to cede some of their feeding ground to animals on the wagon.  The amount of time animals spent pulling the wagon was then linked to the amount of feeding ground they controlled.  More and more animals began to climb aboard the wagon, some as wagon workers, but most as "favored" classes.

Large numbers of burros began to enter the area.  Some pulled the wagon, as had the burros who had been there at the start of the Pact.  But some cried for "favored" status, and were granted seats on the wagon.  Many - WAY too many - simply took over feeding grounds and avoided pulling the wagon.

Over time the situation worsened to the point that there were nearly as many animals on the wagon as there were pulling the wagon. 

Most of those pulling the wagon were jackasses.

What prompted this little parable?  This.

Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

Wait, it gets better.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Feel like a jackass yet? If you don't, you're probably part of the problem.

Thin-skinned crybaby

The picture you see at the left is at the center of a huge "controversy". It seems that the man who HAD TO BE ELECTED as President in 2008 or it would be the end of the world has his panties in a bunch because of.......wait for it.......a picture of himself in blue-face.

A campaign attack ad that depicts Sen. John McCain as an "Avatar" has the Arizona Republican crying foul over what he sees as a slap to Native Americans. But his primary opponent, J.D. Hayworth, may well be wondering what planet he's on.

This much we know for sure: J.D. Hayworth thinks John McCain is not really, truly a conservative. He makes that clear in an online campaign ad that depicts the Arizona senator as "Nominee for Best Conservative Actor."

The ad [click the picture to see it full-size], clearly an Academy Awards sendoff, portrays McCain bursting out of a gold Hollywood star, with a statuette and an envelope ...

And blue warpaint splashed across his face.

That's the part that has riled McCain, who is accusing his Republican primary opponent of insulting Native Americans.

An insult to Native Americans? You thin-skinned loser! I haven't even seen the stupid movie and I got the reference! What's really got your panties in a wad is that you got called out for campaigning as a conservative but voting like a collectivist.

I warned y'all about this guy in 2008. I told you he wouldn't be a lick better than Il Duce if elected. I hate to say I told you so, but....

I TOLD YOU SO!

Maryland, my Maryland

What is it about my adopted home state that it attracts so many.....odd.....people? Or is it just that they're of a collectivist mentality? After all, Maryland has two of the ten most liberal Senators according to the National Journal. I mean, it's not like we got that pair by accident -- they were elected by people who, apparently, like collectivist policies and the loss of personal freedoms they precipitate.

But this is a new low, even for the People's Republic of Maryland.

How far out of touch with reality are women legislators anyway? That’s exactly the question being asked by citizens (women and men) regarding a proposed bill in the Maryland General Assembly, that would restrict men’s rights to use dating sites to meet foreign women and will likely spur copycat legislation in other states.

Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio, Vice President of the women’s caucus is leading 35 other delegates (all women) on a campaign for passage of HB 65, that would shockingly require Maryland men to submit their fingerprints and other background information before they can initiate communication with a foreign woman if they use an “International Marriage Broker”.

Yeah. It seems that the Cougar population isn't happy that men have options apart from their bitter, sagging asses. And, as is sadly the inborn inclination of women, they want to take away those options, by force of law if necessary.

Vox Day had a field day with this.

Frankly, I don't see why they're starting with what can't even reasonably be described as half-measures. This is pathetically insufficient! What is the point of only making it vaguely difficult for Maryland men to talk to foreign women? Obviously the law should forbid men to date or even talk to any woman without a license specifying what strata of women is permissible for them to have contact. These strata would be set on an annual basis by a panel of women and each community would have its own panel of judges who would interview every male individual over the age of 16 decide what license would be assigned to him. Licenses would require renewal every five years, they would be color coded, and the licensed man would be required to produce it upon the request of any adult woman. And no contact of any kind with foreign women will be permitted at any time; a first violation will result in a fine, the second in the loss of a man's license.*

The insane thing is that at least half the women who will read this will find themselves thinking, "you know, a system like that really would make society a much better place." But they're not fascists. No, not even a little bit. They're just strong, independent, beautiful, intelligent snowflakes who care too much about the planet to permit those bestial American men to oppress and abuse foreign women too.

I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO embarrassed.

Of course, it could be worse. I could live in Kahleefornia and have to live down the moonbattery perpetuated by the legislature there...

The pecking order

Vox Day had a post today in which he commented on Roissy in DC's theories regarding male/female interactions. Vox quite correctly identified Roissy's world of Alpha men and Beta men as an invalid binary construct. He posited that there are a much larger number of categories into which men can be grouped. The categories, as laid out by Vox, are these (I'm paraphrasing his descriptions in the interest of space).

• Alpha. Leaders of men. Women want them. Men want to be them.
  


• Beta. The 'almost Alpha' men. Similar to Alphas in many ways, usually successful, attractive to women, etc. But Betas lack the character and confidence of Alphas.
  


• Delta. The ordinary man. Most men are Deltas. They have no "game", hence women aren't particularly attracted to them if attracted to them at all. Yet Deltas CAN succeed in life if they recognize who they are and make appropriate behavioral changes.
  


• Gamma. The obsequious ass-kisser. Mr. Nice Guy. Like Deltas, not attractive to the ladies. Distinct from Deltas in that they think they're doing things the right way.
  


• Lamda. Gay men.
  


• Sigma. The lone wolf. Very much an Alpha in every way except that they are not leaders and go to great lengths to avoid being thrust into leadership roles. The Sigma views interaction with other people as pure torture. Or, as Vox put it, "Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell."
  


• Omega. Losers. With a capital 'L'. Even Gammas despise them. They are social rejects. Women are creeped out by them.
  

Now, far be it for me to dispute the opinion of an Internet Superintelligence and someone who's writings have had a major influence on my views in life. But my view of the male hierarchy goes something like this.

• Alpha. These are the leaders, the achievers. Women want them. Men want to be them. On this one, Vox and I are in complete agreement.
  


• Beta. Pain in the ass wannabe Alphas. Their lives are a constant cycle of aggression and butting heads with any Alpha they come in contact with. When they come up against a real Alpha, a humiliating beatdown is in store.
  
  They tend to be bullies. They tend to be extraordinarily bad leaders. Women are attracted to their faux-Alphaness...and end up eventually divorcing them.
  
  No one likes them, not even other Betas. They can only be described as tools.
  
  Betas tend to work as salesmen, lawyers, or politicians.
  


• Gamma. Intellectual Alphas lacking the confidence and mojo to be a real Alpha. Gammas know who they are and behave accordingly. They are the true lieutenants - Vox's Betas - who work with, admire, and support Alphas in every way.
  
  Gammas have a natural enmity with Betas; they see through their phony BS right away. They will actively subvert Betas by any means necessary, including passive-aggressive subversion.
  
  A Gamma thrust into a position of leadership will either founder or do just well enough to get the job done. In either case, Gammas HATE being in leadership positions. It's just not in their personality to be a leader.
  
  Gammas won't score any 10's, but they'll do well with the ladies if they don't set their sights too high. They are great relationship material.
  


• Epsilon. The faux Gamma. These men are either ass kissers extraordinaire or total Mr. Nice Guy types. Unlike the Gamma, they do NOT support the Alpha, but seek to subvert him with passive-aggressive tactics. They will support a Beta if it serves their purposes; otherwise, they are as repelled by the Beta as everyone else. Women are definitely NOT attracted to the Epsilon.
  
  Epsilon men tend to believe in Global Warming and to support collectivist politicians.
  


• Omegas. The clueless losers. Not bright. Not talented. Not attractive to the ladies. God help them.

Now, I'll admit that my definitions are incomplete, and Vox has done a better job of filling in the missing types I've sort of glossed over. I particularly like the Lamda and Sigma definitions. They were not types I had considered before.

In my spectrum there are overlaps. Every Gamma will occasionally exhibit Epsilon-like behavior. It's a personality trait they have to actively watch for and nip in the bud. Every Alpha will occasionally exhibit Beta-like behavior. It's inevitable that their combination of intelligence, leadership, and confidence will sometimes give them the opportunity to be a jerk.

So, what do you think? Are you more in line with Vox's taxonomy, mine, or do have have one of your own that you like better? Comment on my friend!

Freedom is overrated?

It's a little bit mind-blowing to consider that ANYONE would say such a thing...but such a thing was said. In a segment of The McLaughlin Group in which the panel opined on what they consider "most overrated", Mr. McLaughlin chose freedom.

"The most overrated is freedom," McLaughlin said. "When faced with economic uncertainty, people don't want freedom. When they can't see their economic future, they want the nanny state."

And you wonder why the media holds the Tea Party protesters in such low esteem. It is unthinkable to the John McLaughlin's of this world that anyone would choose freedom (including the freedom to fail) over cradle-to-grave socialist utopia.

The mind of a smug, elitist, self-important tool is an ugly, ugly thing. But at least this rare ray of honesty from our talking class is instructive of what exactly we're up against in our uphill struggle to regain our Constitutional freedoms.