Sunday Funnies 2012.05.06

I am done grading all my final exams, and am basically finished for the semester. Life is good!

For the final exam, our university's creative writing class was asked to write a concise essay containing these four elements: religion, royalty, sex and mystery.

One student received an A+. Her read, "My God," said the Queen, "I'm pregnant. I wonder whose it is?"

I'm pretty strict with my students regarding their attendance for the final exam. This semester I told them "Now class, I won't tolerate any excuses for you not being here tomorrow. I might consider a nuclear attack or a serious personal injury, illness, or a death in your immediate family, but that's it, no other excuses whatsoever!"

A smart-ass student in the back of the room raised his hand and asked, "What would you say if tomorrow I said I was suffering from complete and utter sexual exhaustion?"

The entire class started laughing and snickering. When silence was restored, I looked at the kid and said, "Well, I guess you'd have to answer the exam with your other hand."

A pretty young coed came to my office the day before the final. She looke up and down the hall, closed my office door, and knelt on the floor.”I would do anything to pass this exam,” she said.

Leaning closer,she whispered seductively, “I mean, anything.”

I looked down at her and said,”Anything?”

“Anything” she replied again.

I spoke softly to her, “Would….you…..study???”

What The Hell Is Going On Down There?

In a comment to an earlier post, Jeff from A Nod to the Gods asked "What the hell is going on down there? 23 Bodies...again?"

He was referring to a recent outbreak of violence in the Texas-Mexico border town of Nuevo Laredo. Twenty-three bodies were found there yesterday, and fourteen more a short while before that.

Well...

As regular visitors here know, I live in Central Texas but work in Laredo several days a week. I have an office and apartment down there less than 10 miles from where the bodies are piling up. As with most large-scale problems, there is not one simple cause or easy solution. But here's my Reader's Digest version.

Mexico was ruled by one political party (The Institutional Revolutionary Party, or Partido Revolucionario Institucional, commonly referred to as the PRI) for many decades. The PRI and the drug cartels reached an informal agreement among themselves. The cartels each got control over certain territories and smuggling routes. They would keep violence at a minimum, wouldn't go against the PRI, and generally would refrain from rocking the boat. In return, the PRI would turn a blind eye towards the cartels' activities. That arrangement worked well for all parties for a long time.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, however, the PRI suffered a series of political reversals. The Mexican government under the PRI had become so corrupt and ineffectual that people finally said "Enough is enough" and voted in a more conservative right-wing party - the National Action Party (Partido Acción Nacional, or PAN). In 2006 PAN candidate Felipe Calderón was elected president of Mexico. Calderón quickly initiated a major federal campaign against the cartels, utilizing both the federal police and the military (Mexico's local and regional law enforcement agencies are hopelessly corrupt and riddled with cartel employees and informants).

While all this political upheaval was going on, the cartels were becoming increasingly restless. Violence grew as the cartels intensified their struggles over territory. (In an interesting example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, the Mexican cartels gained power and stature as U.S. and Colombian efforts to dismantle the Colombian cartels became more successful.) As the cartels' internecine conflicts became more frequent, a new group came into existence - Los Zetas.

The Zetas were originally a small band of Mexican Army deserters and former special forces operatives. They began as hired guns - mercenaries who would commit acts of violence for the highest bidder. As they grew in size and power they began to compete with the more established cartels. In other words, they were the new kids on the block trying to muscle in on existing rackets.

So we have a perfect storm of sorts. A new federal government waging war on the cartels, the cartels fighting amongst themselves, and a new group trying to claim a place at the table. Which leads us to yesterday's bodies.

Gangland killers hanged nine people side-by-side from an overpass at a busy interchange in Nuevo Laredo on Friday, and stuffed 14 decapitated bodies into a minivan left in the heart of the busiest trade route on the U.S.-Mexico border ... Some of those hanged were bloodied and battered, and appeared to have been tortured.

"This is how I am going to finish off all the fools you send to heat up the plaza," read a banner on the overpass addressed to the Gulf Cartel, which is waging war with the Zetas gang that controls the city. "We'll see you around, you bunch of parasites."

... the latest slaughter came barely three weeks after 14 other brutalized bodies were found, also in a van, behind Nuevo Laredo's city hall. The heads of the 14 bodies found Friday were left in ice chests at basically the same place.

The banner left with the bodies on April 18, purportedly signed by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, vowed that the gangster - considered Mexico's most powerful crime boss - was taking back Nuevo Laredo from the Zetas, and was now aligned with their Gulf Cartel enemies.

"They're fighting for it again," Peter Hanna, a retired FBI agent who spent much of his career investigating the Gulf Cartel, said of the new Nuevo Laredo violence. "It is a huge drug corridor, they have tons of methods of crossing it into the United States in Laredo."

Hanna speculates that Guzman may be hoping to gain control of Nuevo Laredo before the July 1 presidential elections in Mexico, which seem poised to return the former ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, to power.

The PRI, which enjoyed single party rule in Mexico for most of the past century, governs Tamaulipas state, bordering Texas from Nuevo Laredo to the Gulf of Mexico, as well as neighboring Nuevo Leon and Coahuila states.

President Felipe Calderon's militarized campaign against organized crime shattered tacit agreements between officials and gang bosses across Mexico, Hanna said. In moving now, Guzman may be trying to establish firm control before Calderon's successor takes office Dec. 1, in hopes of reaching similar deals.

Beheading, dismemberment and other brutality has become commonplace in Mexico's drug wars.

"They are trying to intimidate their rivals and the local population," Hanna said of gruesome displays such as Friday's.

"The whole idea is that if you cooperate with the wrong side you can be killed. People are scared to death to do anything but try to avoid these people and avoid getting involved in one way or another."

On a personal note, the paragraph above is frightfully true. The sister of a friend of mine lives in Nuevo Laredo. She was visiting her priest, who runs a charity for the handicapped, when several masked gunmen burst into the church. They tied up the priest and the other people there, then began beating the priest while questioning him regarding the whereabouts of another man they suspected of informing on them. Fortunately that was the extent of it, although needless to say the people involved were terrified.

It's gotten so bad that ordinary people with no connection get drawn into the conflict. The family of one of my students had a small painting business across the border. They did a job for someone affiliated with one of the cartels. The next day they were visited by gunmen who threatened them with death if they worked for that person again. When he called them back the following week with another job, the father said "no, thanks." The next day - you guessed it - another visit from gunmen, this time from the other side. The day after that the entire family fled across the river, where they are now living here illegally. That's one reason I have a little sympathy for immigrants who come here with a sincere desire to make things better for their families. If I was in their situation I'd do the same thing. But that's a topic for another day.

The cartels routinely spray bullets into crowded restaurants, nightclubs, even shopping malls, when they are after one target. The could care less about 'collateral damage' - innocent men, women, and children who are gunned down in the crossfire. They even shoot up drug rehab clinics.

Another favorite target is reporters (I know, I know, there's a bunch of 'journalists' here in the U.S. that many people would like to see made targets of as well, but IMO that's a little extreme. We should just ship them off to California and build a fence around it.) 

More Journalists Killed in Mexico

Police found four tortured and dismembered bodies in Veracruz, including those of two working photojournalists and one former one Thursday, days after a correspondent for a national Mexican magazine was murdered in that same Gulf Coast state.

... The drug-cartel violence has led many journalists to stop covering news related to drugs and crime.

Mexico's broken down and corrupt judicial system means that almost all such crimes go unpunished.

..."A large part of Mexico's population is getting its news, written or broadcast, by people who are afraid of telling the truth for fear of their lives. If the public is getting only information that has been approved by crime cartels, what does this tell you about the future of democracy in Mexico?"

So that's what's going on down there. It's a mess. There's so much more that factors into the situation, but at this point you're probably tired of reading about it. So I'll just add one more comment.

IMO some of the blame falls on the U.S. If you believe in the law of supply and demand, then our national demand for drugs plays a major role in making the supply profitable. I've got no problem with people smoking, snorting, or injecting whatever they want. After all, it's their body. But I do have a problem with people who use illegal drugs without acknowledging that they are at least partially responsible for what's happening south of the border.

I left Laredo on Thursday for the summer. I don't have to go back there until the start of the Fall semester, sometime around the end of August. I'm fortunate, in that I can leave the violence behind. But I feel for the folks who have to live there full-time. There are decent, honest, hard-working people in Mexico.

Sadly, they are fast becoming an endangered species...

Obvious To Everyone Except Politicians

The Whited Sepulchre has a post explaining why his company built its new west coast warehouse in Arizona rather than California. His two-word summary: "regulatory hell."

He provides more detail than that, of course, but those two words serve as well as any to explain the Golden State's plight. Here's more.

In Chief Executive’s eighth annual survey of CEO opinion of Best and Worst States in which to do business, Texas easily clinched the No. 1 rank, the eighth successive time it has done so. California earns the dubious honor of being ranked dead last for the eighth consecutive year.

Say what you will about Texas governor Rick Perry's dismal performance during his presidential campaign, but give him credit for one thing: he may not be responsible for all the good things Texas has going for it, but he didn't screw it up. That's more than most politicians can claim.

It may be no accident that most of the states in the top 20 are also right-to-work states, as labor force flexibility is highly sought after when a business seeks a location. Several economists, most notably Ohio State’s Richard Vedder and Harvard’s Robert Barro, have found that the economies in R-to-W areas grow faster than other states, have higher employment and attract more inward migration.

Yet another argument that unions are counterproductive to employment and business growth.

California’s enduring place of perpetual decline continues in this year’s ranking. Once the most attractive business environment, the Golden State appears to slip deeper into the ninth circle of business hell. The economy, which used to outperform the rest of the country, now substantially underperforms. And its status as the most ruinously contentious place to operate remains undisturbed in eight years. Its unemployment rate, at 10.9 percent, is higher than every other state except Nevada and Rhode Island. With 12 percent of America’s population, California has one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients. Each year, the evidence that businesses are leaving California or avoid locating there because of the high cost of doing business due to excessive state taxes and stringent regulations, grows. According to Spectrum Locations Consultants, 254 California companies moved some or all of their work and jobs out of state in 2011, an increase of 26 percent over the previous year and five times as many as in 2009.

Unions. Excessive regulation. People vote with their feet, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that they are voting for right-to-work states and freedom from regulatory hell. Why don't our national 'leaders' see that?

That's a rhetorical question, of course. The answer is special interests and entrenched bureaucratic self-interest.

Sigh...

 

Friday Follies Happy Hour 2012.05.04

I like a little jazz every now and then. Having spent some time in Southeast Texas, with it's Louisiana influence, I am particularly fond of Dixieland. Turns out cows are too.



Jazz and cows. Who woulda thunk?

(H/T Bots)

It's Time To Ask The Question...

... What has America become?

Ken Huber of Tawas City, Michigan, puts it this way:

(Source)

 Ken, buddy, I'm afraid I don't have an answer for you...

Fun With Numbers

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 -- Mark Twain

The type of research I do often involves statistical analysis of data collected as part of the research project. While I don't claim to be an expert (the true stats folks are really nerdy) I consider myself reasonably well-versed in the ins and outs of what we academics refer to as data-diddling.

For the most part we are scrupulous about collecting the data, but anything goes when it comes to analyzing it. For example, I can make a pretty good case either for or against global warming (or cooling) using the same data set and simply varying the time frame being analyzed.

Which is why I'm somewhat ticked at myself. I should know better than to take anything this administration and its media lackeys say at face value. But when Eric Holder and the DOJ filed suit to block voter ID laws in various states, citing the fact that minorities would be disproportionally affected, I read the reported numbers (minorities lack the required identification somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% more than whites), shook my head, wondered how they functioned in today's society, and went on about my business. I was mildly curious about why there was such a great discrepancy between the two groups, but figured that the states would explain that when the cases came to trial.

I should have known better.

From an article about a recent House Judiciary Committee report on whether or not the Department of Justice is pursuing a partisan agenda in place of neutrally enforcing the law:

“The Justice Department claims that in South Carolina minorities are 20 percent more likely than whites to lack photo ID,” the report states. “This sounds significant until you examine the original data. 90% of minorities have photo IDs compared with 91.6% of whites. The Department’s presentation is mathematically true (because 10% is technically 20 percent more than 8.4%) but it masks that in reality, the Department is battling over a difference of less than 2%.”

So Holder and his media lackeys are getting their panties in a wad about 90% compared to 91.6% - a difference of 1.6 percentage points. But through the magic of statistics that gets reported as a difference of 20%.

Mathematically valid. Ethically invalid. A perfect example of a lie enabled through statistics.

What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate

Want a good laugh? Go here.

H/T this guy.

Guns And Votes

Brownells is a third-generation supplier of firearms tools, parts, and service. They are located smack dab in the middle of flyover country - Des Moines, Iowa. But, like many of the people between the coasts that are mocked by the cultural elite in New York and California, they posses an abundance of ingenuity and common sense.

Brownells publishes a monthly newsletter that discusses trends and events in the firearms industry, and occasionally ventures into political commentary as well. The April newsletter makes some particularly salient points.

First, this year is the most successful start of a year for the industry, ever. From all accords, it beats the 2008 build-up to Obama’s election. Frankly, we believe the possibility of a second Obama term is driving a large portion of this bump; however, we have observed the largest entrance of new shooters through the conceal carry market we have ever seen. So this increase is really much more than a political bubble, it is what we are calling a “conceal carry surge”.

This surge is driven in part by the success of the NRA and other pro-firearms organizations in getting concealed-carry legislation passed in many states. The affirmation by the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment is an individual right (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008) also plays a key role.

There are some very significant nuances of this – some pretty far reaching. For instance, people are realizing with the ever-tightening restrictions of law enforcement funding, they are even more responsible for protecting themselves and their families.

This is supported not just by skyrocketing sales, but by jumps in both first-time gun owners and large enrollment increases for concealed-carry and self-defense classes.

Also, note the stock prices of the publicly-traded firearm companies are up significantly. Smith and Wesson has surged 83.5% since January, and Ruger stock has increased 60%.

Firearms companies as investment opportunities - at least obama has stimulated that sector of the economy.

One of the really big happenings in our industry right now is that the ammo for the very popular calibers − .223, .40, 9mm, .38 and .380 – is becoming more and more scarce. Lead times from the factories are extending out to 3rd and 4th quarter, even into 1st quarter 2013, and the “pipeline” from the factory to the retail store is drying up. What this means is every person who is interested in having these calibers to shoot over the summer appears to be buying as much as possible right now, when they can find it, for fear it will not be available or prices will increase to the point of being ludicrous. Our guys who attended the recent Tulsa Gun Show told us pallets of .223 ammo were disappearing within a day. This bump looks like it will be just like, if not greater than, the 2008 ammunition bump. We also get reports that it is very hard to have AR-15 rifles in stock and the smaller conceal carry firearms are moving in huge volumes this first quarter. We expect that pattern to continue throughout the summer if not all the way to the end of the year.

If you've bought ammo lately you've probably noticed both the scarcity and the price. I can still usually get the ammo I want, but the price has definitely gotten my attention.

The second take-away from the NRA Show and one that is more political in nature than the industry performance is how close the election is going to be this year between President Obama and Governor Romney. There will not be a clear front-runner in the presidential race; it is going to be right down to the very last state ... It is going to come down to voter turnout this year and the candidate who turns out the most voters will win – as it always has been. What we find disturbing is what appears to be a trend of significant numbers of pro-gun citizens who do not vote. We don't know why and we don't understand it.

I don't get it either, but this is definitely not the year to sit out the election. The other side is going to vote early and often, and enlist the aid of illegal immigrants and dead people ("When I die, bury me in Chicago, because I want to remain politically active"). The best way to counter that is to not only vote yourself, but to get friends and family registered and motivated to vote as well.

Many of the past presidential and local political races have been determined by 1 -2% of the voting population. Now more than any other time in history, a single vote can have a larger impact in determining the winner of these races on Election Day, Tuesday, November 6, 2012.

A couple of key points there. First is the razor-thin margins of recent elections - not just national, but state and local. Every vote literally counts. Second is the critical nature of state and local races. Remember 2010, when conservatives lead the republican surge that took back the House. If conservatives can maintain their clout in the House, and maybe even influence a few Senate races, that will accomplish a couple of things. If obama wins it will provide a more meaningful counterweight to his 'rule by executive fiat and regulatory mandate' tyranny. If Romney wins, a sizable conservative presence in congress will serve as a constant reminder of who is responsible for getting him elected. It will help nudge him right of center, which is where he needs to be.

I get that Romney doesn't excite many conservatives. But the alternative is unthinkable. If we elect enough conservatives at the state and local levels then we'll start to turn this ship around, get the train back on the tracks, and hit the road towards recovery.

I realize that's a terribly mixed metaphor, but you get the idea, right...?

Bounce Like The Wind

obamamaniacs can now purchase bank checks with their hero's image on them.

Why anyone would want to do so, I have no idea. But for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

(It's a Flash app, so it may not work on mobile devices.)




H/T here via here.

Back To The Future

Okay, everyone's mocking obama's new campaign slogan (Forward!).

Personally, I think it makes sense. He for damn sure doesn't want people looking back at his performance or track record.

Anyway, here's my contribution.

Election 2012

From the "a picture's worth 1000 words" department we have this gem, which does a pretty good job of summarizing the 2012 presidential election.

(H/T Mostly Cajun)

Product Endorsement - NOT!!!

I just tried to update my anti-virus software. Should be a pretty simple process, right? They sent me an e-mail saying my coverage was expiring. Merely enter my credit card info and click "Renew." What could go wrong?

Well...

A few hours later and several trips to tech support hell and the problem is still not resolved. Tomorrow I think I'll just uninstall this crap and download another company's product. At this I'm just going to write off the $40 renewal fee. It's already cost me more than that in aggravation and beer.

But I will get my revenge. Step One is to let everyone I know to avoid like the plague anything even remotely connected to Trend Micro. If they get close, run for your life!

Their version of customer support is a joke - a sick, twisted, evil joke. If it was a politician it would be barack obama.

'Nuff said...

FOD 2012.04.30

It's been a hectic few weeks. I've been busier than:

• Michael Jackson in a day care center.
• A cucumber in a woman's prison.
• A Colombian prostitute at a Secret Service convention.

But there's light at the end of the tunnel. The semester ends this week, which will help a lot. I've also got a major project wrapping up this Friday. Between those two events, I should free up a bunch of time. Unitl then, I'll just have to get by with material recycled from other sources. Like this: (H/T JammieWearingFools)

Obama has held more re-election fundraisers than previous five Presidents combined

Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.

The figures, contained a in a new book called The Rise of the President’s Permanent Campaign by Brendan J. Doherty, due to be published by University Press of Kansas in July, give statistical backing to the notion that Obama is more preoccupied with being re-elected than any other commander-in-chief of modern times.

Doherty, who has compiled statistics about presidential travel and fundraising going back to President Jimmy Carter in 1977, found that Obama had held 104 fundraisers by March 6th this year, compared to 94 held by Presidents Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush combined.

Since then, Obama has held another 20 fundraisers, bringing his total to 124. Carter held four re-election fundraisers in the 1980 campaign, Reagan zero in 1984, Bush Snr 19 in 1992, Clinton 14 in 1996 and Bush Jnr 57 in 2004.

Sounds like someone who knows he's in trouble. Let's hope he's right.

Other items of note:

• at last count the first family has taken at least 17 lavish vacations around the world

• as of April 4, 2012, the president had taken in 93 golf outings

Let's just hope the voters make sure the obama chickens come home to roost this November.

Sunday Funnies 2012.04.29

Our son went to his first high school prom last night. Tux, corsage, limo ... the whole works. He even spent the night at his date's house (along with several other couples, all under the watchful eye of her parents.) But we had to explain a few things to him before he went.

First, tinting the windows of his mother's minivan doesn't make it a limo.

Second, we live in the country, so there are a few rednecks in his school. Consequently, the prom has child care facilities.

Finally, when he told me how much he was spending on renting his tux, hiring a limo, and buying his date's corsage, I was flabbergasted. I told him "That's more than I spent on the wedding when your mother and I got married."

His reply: "Yeah, but you've been married three times. A prom is a once in a lifetime experience."

Is There No End To This Nonsense? Apparently Not.

I really hadn't planned to beat this horse to death, but it just won't die. Here's another in a recent series of baffling obama administration regulatory rulings. (H/T for this one to Curmudgeonly & Skeptical .)

U.S. Puts Limits On Employee Background Checks To Protect Minorities

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's updated policy on criminal background checks is part of an effort to rein in practices that can limit job opportunities for minorities that have higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.

"The ability of African-Americans and Hispanics to gain employment after prison is one of the paramount civil justice issues of our time," said Stuart Ishimaru, one of three Democrats on the five-member commission.

But some employers say the new policy -- approved in a 4-1 vote -- could make it more cumbersome and expensive to conduct background checks. Companies see the checks as a way to keep workers and customers safe, weed out unsavory workers and prevent negligent hiring claims.

The new standard urges employers to give applicants a chance to explain a report of past criminal misconduct before they are rejected outright. An applicant might say the report is inaccurate or point out that the conviction was expunged. It may be completely unrelated to the job, or an ex-con may show he's been fully rehabilitated.

Sounds reasonable, right? But the government always finds a way to screw things up. For example:

The EEOC also recommends that employers stop asking about past convictions on job applications...

And the first time an employee with an uninvestigated violent criminal record attacks another employee or customer, guess who's going to get sued? Not the EEOC, that's for damn sure.

The guidelines are the first attempt since 1990 to update the commission's policy on criminal background checks. Current standards already require employers to consider the age and seriousness of an applicant's conviction and its relationship to specific job openings. And it is generally illegal for employers to have a blanket ban based on criminal history.

So why fix what ain't broken?

EEOC commissioners said the growing practice (of using online databases for background checks) has grave implications for blacks and Hispanics, who are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system and face high rates of unemployment.

"You thought prison was hard, try finding a decent job when you get out," EEOC member Chai Feldblum said. She cited Justice Department statistics showing that 1 in 3 black men and 1 in 6 Hispanic men will be incarcerated during their lifetime. That compares with 1 in 17 white men who will serve time.

Ah, I'm beginning to see the light. And speaking of the government making a mess of things, consider this:

Nurses, teachers and day care providers, for example, are required by some state laws to have background checks. The new guidelines say a company is not shielded from liability under federal discrimination laws just because it complies with state laws.

Comply with state laws, get screwed by the feds. Comply with federal law, get screwed by the state. It's a no-win situation.

Friday Follies Happy Hour 2012.04.27

Our teenage son is going to his first prom tomorrow night. This one's for him.

OMG!!!

The last few weeks have been crazy. The semester is nearing an end, which requires an inordinate amount of faculty time. Our kids have been busy with school projects, banquets, athletic districts/regionals (a decidedly mixed blessing), proms, and all that good stuff. I've been running back and forth dealing with problems at our lake house - a 2 hour drive from our Central Texas home, which is a 3 hour drive from where I work, which is ... well, you do the math.

The bottom line is that I haven't been able to devote as much time to this blog as I would like. For example, today's post is stolen borrowed from BMEWS:

I've always been a strong supporter of ABO (Anyone But Obama). Now I'm an equally ardent fan of OMG!

Road Trip

We have a small place on a lake about two hours north of where we live. Nothing fancy - just a little cabin. I had to go up there today to take care of a few chores in order to get it ready for the summer.

The trip is fun - mostly winding back country roads, dotted here and there with produce stands, BBQ joints, and roadhouses. The traffic is usually light. In addition to the natives and their pickups (I was driving my 1995 Ford F-150) you'll see all sorts of bikers, sports cars, convertibles, and 'big-boy' trucks.

I wish I could have taken pictures of  a few of my fellow travelers, but I was too busy texting and drinking (just kidding...). My two favorites were:

(1) the biker who was wearing a t-shirt that said "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em;" and

(2) the harried-looking woman driving a minivan with the personalized license plate that said "But Mom!"

Is There No End To This Nonsense?

It's funny how once a theme appears, relevant articles seem to pop up everywhere. Here's the latest example.

Recently I've put up a couple of posts about regulatory nonsense oozing out of the obama administration's numerous and varied orifices (here and here). Now we have this latest piece of cow manure (literally).

A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.

The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.

Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”

You've got to be kidding me! Kids can no longer work on the family farm? What genius came up with that idea? Oh yeah - Hilda Solis ("A former four-term California congresswoman, Solis is President Obama's Labor secretary. An opponent of free trade, she is a pro-union voice in the cabinet...).

The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course.

Oh my aching back. Groups that have been around for decades composed of people who actually work on farms can no longer train farm workers? But the government - the friggin' government, which can't find its asshole with two hands, a roadmap, and a flashlight - is going to require a training course that takes more than two weeks? Words fail me.

Rossie Blinson, a 21-year-old college student from Buis Creek, N.C., told The Daily Caller that the federal government’s plan will do far more harm than good.

“The main concern I have is that it would prevent kids from doing 4-H and FFA projects if they’re not at their parents’ house,” said Blinson.

“I started showing sheep when I was four years old. I started with cattle around 8. It’s been very important. I learned a lot of responsibility being a farm kid.”

My grandkids both showed sheep via the FFA for the first time this year. I heartily second Mr. Blinson's comment about learning responsibility. They definitely improved their skills in that area, along with several others. It was a great educational experience for them, as well as being personally fulfilling (Well, up until the sheep got auctioned off. The granddaughter shed a few tears then.)

In Kansas, Cherokee County Farm Bureau president Jeff Clark was out in the field — literally on a tractor — when TheDC reached him. He said if Solis’s regulations are implemented, farming families’ labor losses from their children will only be part of the problem.

“What would be more of a blow,” he said, “is not teaching our kids the values of working on a farm.”

Or just the values of working.

Which seems to be what obama's Department of Labor is trying to prevent

Working, that is...

Now contrast the above chart ("During the Obama Administration") with the one below ("During the Reagan Administration". Which one gives us the greater Hope?

May Cause Drowsiness ... Or Worse

A few days ago I posted about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) being used to require around 300,000 swimming pools to install hydraulic lifts -- at a cost of over $1 billion -- to help disabled swimmers enter and exit the pools. That's a prime example of regulatory overkill.

Now we have this example of regulatory nonsense trumping common sense. From the Cato Institute:

…Common sense dictates that any medication that carries with it a warning that it “may cause drowsiness” or that the patient should “use caution” if operating machinery may pose a risk in the workplace. It is for this reason that many employers adopt a policy requiring employees to self report the use of prescription pain killers. This is especially important in potentially dangerous workplaces such as manufacturing and construction.

In a recent action that defies common sense, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken the position that such policies are unlawful under the Americans With Disabilities Act. The ADA prohibits an employer from conducting “medical inquiries” without a business reason to do so. In EEOC v. Product Fabricators, Inc., an action in federal court in Minnesota, the EEOC required a manufacturing employer to abandon its policy of encouraging employees to inform supervisors if they are under the influence of narcotic pain killers such as Vicodin. The EEOC took the position that an employer cannot ask about prescription pain killer usage unless it has “objective” evidence that an employee is impaired on the job.

This places employers in a very difficult position….

That last line is a candidate for Understatement of the Year. The employer can either wait until someone is maimed or killed by an employee operating heavy or lethal machinery under the influence of a narcotic...

... guaranteeing an attack by a bevy of ambulance-chasing shysters, or else press the issue with its employees and face an EEOC action, most likely coupled with an individual lawsuit from the 'wronged' employee.

Pick your poison.

These two cases are excellent illustrations of how the obama administration is using its administrative powers to hamstring American businesses. We have got to get that walking disaster out of office before this country is irredeemably ruined.

Why Johnny Can't Write

Over the past four days I graded 100+ student essays. As might be expected, I experienced my this-happens-every-semester disappointment. Students who can write a complete sentence, much less a coherent paragraph, have become an endangered species. Two examples: (there were more, but somehow they disappeared in the midst of Blogger's 'upgrade.')

the english is not my first lenguage.

Microsoft is launching a new tool that is going to revolt the market.

(One might argue that the above is in fact a complete and coherent statement, but trust me, the student who wrote it is incapable of sarcasm and nuance.)

I am so tired of teaching 13th and 14th grade, instead of college. I also harbor great concerns over the future of commerce, politics, and even basic communication in this country if we keep going down this same track.

I'm not alone. One of my favorite commentators, T.R. Fehrenbach, wrote the following column last week.

T.R. is a Texas boy who was educated at Princeton. He's a Korean War combat vet, historian, book author, and social commentator. He's one of my favorite commentators because (1) he's curmudgeonly, (2) he makes me think, and (3) he usually takes the same position on issues that I do.

... human beings think in language. If you haven't mastered words you'll never be able to impart your ideas to other people. If they aren't educated, they won't understand them. This is why I believe the U.S. is taking a great risk by downplaying the mastery of language in grade school. This is what the argument concerning K-12 is all about.

Educated people think in terms of concepts, or at least know how to handle them ... The Ionian Greeks of Miletus could not have invented philosophy (circa 585 B.C.) without the marvelous Greek language; rational thought developed hand-in-hand with writing, which is the life blood of serious thought and science. Illiterate people can speak well, learn skills, and acquire wisdom — but they cannot create a continuous civilization.

I believe, strongly, that we should never let our young emerge effectively illiterate from the first six grades as we now do. I think that every kid should be forced to read — and write. I don't mean novels or essays upon philosophy, but ordinary communication: memos, letters, instruction books, etc. This is not impossible; the rising Asian nations all do it. They concentrate on the first six grades and assure that every child is capable of holding a job for which literacy is required.

This fact is just beginning to be understood publicly as a problem damaging a splendid university system. Any honest educator will tell you that today the first two years of college tends to be remedial work — teaching what students once learned in school.

Boy howdy, he's speaking the truth! Not just writing skills, but basic understanding of math and civics as well. Not to mention reading comprehension.

Even the Ivy League (for policy reasons) admits a significant number of freshmen who cannot write a comprehensible line. When I was in seventh grade, I had to diagram 40 sentences as homework, and in school, write an essay in English class every week. I rarely saw a true-false or multiple-choice test. Today students can arrive at college without writing a sentence, meaning their thinking is probably undeveloped.

This has led to a Sahara of the intellect that has made the august New York Times dumb down regularly since 1941, and the adoption of texting in lieu of written communication. To me, this is like substituting Irish limericks for Shakespeare.

I couldn't have said it better.

Blogger Ate This Blog

I don't know what the people at Google have done, but this sucks!!!

FOD 2012.04.23

The dog days of summer are still quite a way off, but the presidential campaign dogfight is in full swing.

Much has been made about Mitt Romney, in 1983, putting his family dog Seamus in a kennel on top of his roof and driving from Boston to Canada...

Democrats have signaled they have every intention of making sure the American people — especially dog-lovers — know the tale. In January, senior Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod tweeted a photo of the president and Bo in a car, with the snide observation: “@davidaxelrod: How loving owners transport their dogs.”

The Romney campaign signaled tonight that they are not about to cede any ground when it comes to a candidate’s odd past with man’s best friend.

The Daily Caller noted that in President Obama’s best-selling memoir, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” the president recalls being fed dog meat as a young boy in Indonesia with his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.

“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy)”

Needless to say, the cartoons and jokes began immediately.

"So, Mr. President, where shall we go to eat?"
"I know a great Spot."

Happiness is a warm puppy ... with a side of fries.

Q: What does Obama call Mitt Romney riding with his dog on top of his car?
A: Meal on wheels.

Random Humor

Lots to do + not much time = recycled jokes.

 * * * * * * 

A six-years-old asked his father, “Daddy, what is a transvestite?”

“Go ask your mother. He’ll tell you.”

 * * * * * * 

How many democrats does it take to screw in a light bulb?

None. They’ll just let their children take care of it.

 * * * * * * 

A man went to his optometrist to have his eyes examined. The doctor told him, “Listen, you’ve got to stop masturbating.”

“Why, Doc?” the man asked. “Am I going blind?”

“No,” said the optometrist. “But you’re upsetting my other patients.”

 * * * * * * 

A Congressman was once asked about his attitude toward whiskey.

"If you mean the demon drink that poisons the mind, pollutes the body, desecrates family life, and inflames sinners, then I'm against it."

"But if you mean the elixir of Christmas cheer, the shield against winter chill, the taxable potion that puts needed funds into public coffers to comfort little crippled children, then I'm for it."

"This is my position, and I will not compromise."

 * * * * * *

For once I find myself agreeing with a congresscritter...

Friday Follies Happy Hour 2012.04.20

I don't have the faintest idea what this is all about, but it is über mega-cool!



Shamelessly stolen from Jimbo at Parkway Rest Stop.

Regulatory Overkill

Death by a thousand cuts has nothing on death by regulatory overkill, as mastered by our government overlords. In this case, the government is beating swimming pool owners over the head with the Americans with Disabilities Act, a typical liberal law that is noble in intent but much-abused in practice.

The latest example: requiring fixed-in-place hydraulic lifts to help disabled swimmers into and out of swimming pools.

Owners and managers of swimming pools at hotels, city recreation centers and public parks are scrambling to install mechanical chair lifts to comply with new federal requirements that all public pools be accessible to disabled swimmers.

Some hotels fear the cost of the equipment or fines for noncompliance could put them out of business, and an industry lobbyist says others may close their pools this summer if they can't upgrade in time, though the government can offer more time to those having trouble paying for it. Swimmers with disabilities say the changes are overdue.

Adding to the problem is a backlog of orders created by the rush to meet a May deadline. Harry Spirides ordered lifts last month for the hotel he owns on Georgia's largest public beach and was told they should arrive in late April. He expects to pay $12,000 for the lifts at the Ocean Plaza Beach Resort on Tybee Island.

"Our supplier is backed up with orders," said Spirides. "Everybody's rushing to comply; everybody wants to comply. But when you have tens of thousands of swimming pools that have to be retrofitted with these lifts, it takes time."

Changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act in 2010 say pools must be upgraded with chair lifts, essentially mini cranes that move wheelchair users into the water. The initial deadline was March 16, but confusion over the details and pool owners' insistence for more time caused the Justice Department to give them until May 21.

The law doesn't affect private clubs or pools owned by neighborhood associations that aren't open to the public.

It's a massive and expensive undertaking. The Association of Pool and Spa Professionals says its research shows that between 235,000 and 310,000 pools require the upgrade. Manufacturers estimate the lifts run $3,500 to $6,500, and installation can double those costs. Altogether, owners could face combined costs exceeding $1 billion.

obama, no doubt, will tout this as 'creating new jobs.'

After a car crash left Beth Kolbe unable to walk 12 years ago, she took up swimming and went on to compete in college and on the U.S. Paralympic team in 2008. Despite her athleticism, she needs a person's help or a lift to access a pool.

Kolbe says when she visits pools, she usually takes a friend to avoid asking for help from lifeguards, who often seem uncomfortable lifting her.

Once the requirements take effect, the Justice Department will investigate complaints and can fine businesses up to $55,000 for the first offense and double that for further violations. Pools operated by local governments don't face monetary penalties but are subject to federal oversight.

Pool owners say they're not opposed to making accessibility upgrades, but argue they need more time - especially after a clarification to the requirements in January.

Look, I sympathize with the disabled. But this approach is swatting flies with a sledgehammer. Why not just train the lifeguards on how to assist disabled swimmers into and out of the water? Or use ramps? Many newer pools have them instead of steps. If lifts are deemed necessary, in spite of less expensive and more common-sense solutions, what's wrong with mobile or portable lifts, as discussed below?

The Justice Department now says chair lifts must be bolted down. That declaration came as most hotels were buying portable lifts that don't require expensive installation and can be wheeled into storage until a guest needs them, said Kevin Maher of the American Hotels and Lodging Association.

The group argues that fixed chair lifts pose a risk to children who are tempted to play on them. Maher, the association's vice president for government relations, said hoteliers fear their insurance rates could increase.

The association is urging the Justice Department to reconsider portable lifts and extend the deadline. Without more time, Maher said, some hotels may close their pools this summer rather than risk lawsuits or fines.

In Desert Hot Springs, Calif., the requirements have created an uproar among owners of boutique inns built around mineral hot springs. Some retreats have only six or 10 rooms, but have multiple pools at varying temperatures to give guests a sampling of the waters.

"If you have three pools that's $18,000 plus tax" to attach a chair lift to each, said Bruce Abney, owner of the 12-room El Morocco Inn & Spa. "That's just huge for us and would put some of us under, I'm afraid."

If the 20 hotels there could share portable lifts, it would satisfy the requirements and protect their bottom line, said Judy Bowman, owner of Living Waters Spa.

"I've never had a request for a pool lift in eight and a half years. It seems excessive," said Bowman, who has nine rooms and six condos.

Twenty-four senators sided with the hoteliers in a March letter urging Attorney General Eric Holder to postpone the deadline and essentially start over with a comment and rulemaking process.

Asking Holder for anything that remotely resembles a common-sense or balanced approach is a total waste of time.

In the Atlanta suburbs, Bob McCallister is in charge of getting Cobb County's pools ready for summer. He's got six indoor pools that already have accessibility upgrades, but two of them are big enough to require a second lift - at about $3,500 each.

McCallister said he's lucky the county has a penny sales tax that pays for upkeep of its parks and recreation centers. Otherwise he might have a hard time finding money.

"When mandates come up like this without appropriations, it's a hardship for a lot of agencies," McCallister said. "It seems like an overkill to me."

Me too...

A Woman After My Own Heart

Every once in a while a story like this pops up in the press. It illustrates the other side of the battle over the Second Amendment - the side where a firearm equalizes the playing field between an 89-year-old grandmother and a younger, stronger, cowardly thug.

Gun-toting granny sends burglar running

A burglary suspect on the city's east side learned that even little old ladies may be packing heat.

San Antonio police said an 89-year-old woman woke early Thursday morning to somebody attempting to break through the front door of her home in the 400 block of Como. Startled, she quickly fetched her .38 caliber.

She saw the burglar's flashlight inside the house and fired one shot toward the light, police said, which sent the suspect running off into the night.

The woman told police she did not get a good description of the suspect because it was too dark inside the house.

Police said they don't believe the suspect was hit because there was no blood and the bullet was found lodged in a wall inside the home.

I just wish she was a better shot.

I Agree With Michelle Obama

It's not often that I find myself agreeing with anything that any obama says, but as I read these remarks by michelle obama I found myself nodding in agreement. Not often, and not quite as she intended, but nodding nonetheless.

First Lady Michelle Obama on Tuesday put the Supreme Court at the core of President Barack Obama's argument for reelection, telling supporters that the vote in November could affect Americans' security, freedoms and whether they can "love whomever we choose" -- a reference to the fight over gay and lesbian rights.

The vote in November will damn well affect our security and freedom. If her hubby weasels his way back into office we will have less of both.

"This President has brought us out of the dark and into the light," she said in a speech at a rally in Nashville. "I hope you all are fired up and ready to go."

That light, as the old saying goes, is from an onrushing train. And I am definitely fired up and ready to go - for ABO (Anyone But Obama).

Her comments came as Washington awaited a ruling from the nine justices on whether her husband's landmark health care law is constitutional.

Oh, delicious irony.

"We cannot forget the impact the Court's decisions will have on our lives for decades to come — on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and love whomever we choose," she said in a ringing defense of the president's record.

Obama press secretary Jay Carney, asked about similar comments from the First Lady in March, said she was specifically referring to the president's decision to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bars recognition of same-sex marriage.

Regardless of how you feel about same-sex marriage (for the record, I agree with Kinky Friedman: "I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us."), this is a perfect example of what awaits us if obama gets reelected: ignoring laws he doesn't agree with and ruling by executive fiat.

With the presidential contest heating up, both sides are expected to warn their supporters that the stakes reach far beyond control of the White House for the next four years because the next president may be able to nominate at least one new justice to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

"Let's not forget how my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices," Michelle Obama said, referring to Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Brilliant?!? GMAFB. They're typical liberal affirmative action appointees whose qualifications are that they're of politically correct ethnicity and gender.

The American Bar Association, the largest law and voluntary professional association in the world, has declared a number of President Obama’s potential judicial nominees “not qualified.” The New York Times reports that the rejection rate for Obama’s judicial suggestions “is more than three and a half times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies,“ and called the number ”significant:”

Michelle went on to say: "Let's not forget how, for the first time in history, our daughters and our sons watched three women take their seat on our nation's highest court," she said.

And let's not forget, as the dems and libs conveniently do, who put the first woman on the Supreme Court.

Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Conner in 1981.

Win-Win

A perfect compromise for the controversy over forcing insurance companies to pay for women's contraceptives...

(H/T Curmudgeonly & Skeptical)

More Fallout From Tax Day

obama is prancing around touting his 'Buffett Rule,' which does little to reduce the budget deficit. In fact, it turns out that the Buffett Rule, as currently written, would actually INCREASE the federal budget deficit by $800 billion.

The case for the Buffett tax keeps eroding. When President Obama announced the idea, he said it would help "stabilize our debt and deficits over the next decade." Then came the inconvenient revelation that the new 30% millionaire's tax would raise only $46.7 billion over 10 years, and would leave about 99.5% of the deficit intact in 2013. It was a far cry from "stabilizing the debt."

Now we learn that the Buffett tax the Senate is expected to vote on early next week will make the deficit worse. That's because both Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats have made it clear that their new "fairness" tax is to offset the revenue loss from another provision related to the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The Joint Tax Committee—the official scoring referee on tax bills—calculates that the combination of AMT repeal for the middle class and the Buffett tax would add $793.3 billion to the debt over the next decade. As Mr. Obama has said, "This isn't politics, this is math."

It now seems that obama flunked not only economics, but also math.

There is, however, an alternative solution. As John Hinderaker of PowerLine suggests: "Instead of the Buffett Rule, How About the Geithner Rule?"

President Obama has now admitted that the “Buffett Rule,” formerly the centerpiece of his re-election campaign, is a silly gimmick that will raise hardly any money for the treasury. (Actually, it might cost the federal government money, as increases in the capital gains rate have been known to do.) So how about if, instead, we start talking about the Geithner Rule, which is: everyone pays what he owes under existing laws?

... The IRS estimates that year in and year out, around 15% of what Americans owe in taxes isn’t paid. This is mostly due to under-reporting of income. For FY 2011, the IRS collected around $2.3 trillion in tax revenue. Fifteen percent of that amount is $345 billion. Here, unlike the Buffett Rule, we are talking about real money.

Most tax evaders don’t wind up in prison. In fact, some wind up working for the government. Take Tim Geithner. Geithner, Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, is a tax cheat.

Strong words, perhaps? Here's why I, and many other Americans, consider him a tax cheat. It's not just that he underpaid his taxes. To say the tax code is complex and complicated is a huge understatement. While one might reasonably expect the Secretary of the Treasury to understand its ins and outs, it is also understandable that such a person, plus his accountants, tax advisers, and lawyers, might become confused. After all, "the tax code is so complex that, according to a government study, even IRS employees answer tax questions correctly and completely less than half the time."

But here's where the 'tax cheat' part comes into play.

When the IRS audited Geithner, he paid what he owed for 2003 and 2004. But he didn’t pay what he owed for 2001 and 2002. Why? Because the statute of limitations had run on those years, so the IRS couldn’t sue him to collect the money or charge him criminally for failing to pay it. Only when he was nominated as Secretary of the Treasury did Geithner go back and pay what he owed for 2001 and 2002.

In other words, Geithner only paid up when it became public knowledge as part of the confirmation process. If he hadn't been nominated, he never would have paid. What a fine, upstanding paragon of virtue and integrity.

And what better example of the type of people obama associates himself with. But I digress.

So instead of wasting time on the Buffett Rule, how about if we promote the Geithner Rule, i.e., everyone pays what he owes under existing law. This will certainly promote fairness; is anyone in favor of tax evasion? And, unlike the Buffett Rule, if Tim Geithner, Berkshire Hathaway, Obama’s White House, and everyone else pays what they owe, it will go a long way toward solving the nation’s fiscal crisis.

Gee, what a novel idea...

Latest News From South Texas

Less than 5 miles from my office and 10 miles from my home away from home: (source)

The dismembered remains of 14 men were found on Tuesday stuffed inside a minivan left near the town hall of a Mexican city on the U.S. border that is often a flashpoint for the country's drug war, officials said.

The remains were found in downtown Nuevo Laredo just after sunrise packed inside 10 black plastic bags found in the vehicle, the officials said.

A threatening message was found with the bodies.

Nuevo Laredo, adjacent to the south Texas city of Laredo, is a stronghold for the Mexican drug cartel the Zetas.

Duck and Cover my ass. I'm coming out shooting and ain't stopping until I run out of ammo...

FUMBLE!!!

Okay, I try to be open-minded. I really, really try. But then I come across something like this, and it's so far outside my sphere of comprehension that my mind just boggles.

No, more than that. It mega-boggles.

As he celebrates his 28th birthday today New York Jets cornerback, Antonio Cromartie, has another reason to raise a glass – he now fathers 10 children.

The football star recently had his second child with his wife to add to his brood of nine children from a total of eight women across the country.

TEN kids!?!

EIGHT different mothers?!?

By age 28???

Hasn't he figured out what causes children by now?

Cromartie, who signed a four-year, $32 million contract with the Jets last fall, has to pay more than $3,500 in child maintenance each month to six of the women he has fathered children with.

Last March the Jets had to pay the player an $500,000 advance so that he could pay outstanding child support.

And what happens after he's not playing football any longer? How is he going to pay for all this off-the-field activity?

And now the ex-girlfriends who Cromartie has fathered children with are hoping to cash in with a new reality TV programme about their extensive brood.

Ahhh ... reality TV ... the answer to a bunch of ignorant rednecks' prayers (rednecks come in all colors - it's a mindset, not a skin tone).

Ryan Ross, who works in a hotel in Los Angeles, is the mother of Cromartie’s fifth child, son Tyler Jae, 4.  They dated for about six months after meeting in a nightclub.

Ross is keen for the show to go ahead: ‘Our kids need to know who their siblings are. It’s bigger than our past with Antonio. It’s about our children,’ she told the New York Post.  

And she described the relationship between the other mothers as a ‘close tight-knit friendship’ where they understand exactly what each is going through and can 'vent' to one another.

Former beauty queen Rhonda Patterson, who has a three-year-old daughter called London with Cromartie, wrote a book about her relationship with the footballer.

In the memoir, "Love, Intercepted", Patterson described how Cromartie cancelled their wedding a week before it was scheduled and ended their relationship when she was six-months pregnant.

"Love, Intercepted" - really? That's the best the ghostwriter could come up with? How about "Unsportsmanlike Conduct?" Or "It's a Loose Ball?" Or something incorporating the terms "tight end" and "wide receiver?"

Shortly after dumping Patterson the footballer wed his current wife, Terricka Cason, who starred in Candy Girls – a reality TV show about scouting models. Cromartie is step-father to her child from a former relationship.

The Jets cornerback also has custody of his first child, Alonzo, now 7, who he had with Rosemita Pierre.

Pierre told the New York Post that the footballer star defies a court order that allows her to speak to her son three times a week.

'He’s supposedly a role model, but he’s not doing what he should be doing as a father, or as a man,' she told the paper.

Really...?

I could get all serious and social-sciencey here, and talk about all the research that indicates how children that grow up without fathers are much more likely to be "at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality".

But it's late and I'm tired, so I'm just going to shake my head disgustedly, go "tsk-tsk," and wobble over to the fridge for another frosty bottle of God's elixir.

Tax Day Food For Thought

Depending on the time of day when you read this, you may want to refill your coffee cup or grab a fresh adult beverage, because this post is on the lengthy side. It may also tend to increase your blood pressure, or alternatively depress you. Either way, make sure you have the appropriate medication on hand.

When it comes to paying taxes, the obama White House sets a sterling example [/sarcasm].

41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes

That does not include obama cabinet members and appointees, most notably tax cheats Timothy Geitner (Sec. of the Treasury), Hilda Solis (Sec. of Labor), and Tom Daschle (nominated as Sec. of Health and Human Services who withdrew after his tax cheating came to light).

Following the example set by top administration officials and other government executives, thousands of federal employees owe $1 billion in back taxes. It's gotten so bad that U.S. Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) has introduced legislation to force them to pay up.

U.S. Sen. Scott Brown is pushing a new bill that he said would make it easier to collect back taxes from federal workers and members of Congress.

The Massachusetts Republican said that a recent report by the Internal Revenue Service showed that in 2010, 98,000 federal employees owed a combined $1 billion in back taxes.

Brown said members and employees of the U.S. Senate alone owed over $2 million.

The Senate isn't alone.

• In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe a total $6,524,892.
• In the IRS' parent department, Treasury, 1,204 owe $7,670,814.
• At the Labor Department, 463 owe $7,481,463.
• Eighty-one workers for the Federal Reserve System's board of governors owe $1,076,733.
• Over at the Justice Department ... 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in overdue taxes.

Tax cheats should be in jail, not working for the federal government.

And don't forget the hypocrisy displayed by obama and his buddy Warren Buffett.

Who's the bigger hypocrite?

Barack Obama, who schmoozes the wealthy for campaign contributions while waging a phony class war against "millionaires and billionaires."

-- or --

Warren Buffett, who publicly complains that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does while his company privately battles the IRS over $1 billion in unpaid taxes.

Personally, I think it's a tie.

In the Perception vs. Reality department, a recent poll reveals that most Americans think the current tax system favors the wealthy.

As procrastinators rush to file their 2011 tax returns by the Tuesday deadline, a new poll shows more than two-thirds of Americans believe the revenue system benefits the wealthy while being unfair to average workers.

Contrast that with who pays how much in taxes.

Americans making over $50,000 paid most of the federal taxes that were paid in the U.S. in 2010.

According to statistics compiled from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the Tax Foundation, those people making above $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent, and carried 93.3 percent of the total tax burden.

In contrast, Americans making less than $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 3.5 percent and their total share of the tax burden was just 6.7 percent.

Americans making more than $250,000 had an effective tax rate of 23.4 percent and their total share of the tax burden was 45.7 percent.

Out of the 143 million tax returns that were filed with the IRS in 2010, 58 million – or 41 percent – of those filers were non-payers.

But Tax Foundation data also shows that people who didn’t pay any income tax received $105 billion in refundable tax credits from the IRS.

So a large chunk of people who don't pay taxes -- who in fact received over $100 billion in 'refunds' -- think the tax system is unfair. I guess they want those of us who do pay taxes to pay more so that they can get a larger handout.

For any liberals that might wander here by mistake and have trouble understanding words and numbers, here's a picture that might help you understand.

Notice how the top 40%, beginning with a household income of only $ 69K, pay proportionally more in taxes than they earn? And how the bottom 60% pay less? Now talk to me again about who is and is not paying their fair share.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like paying taxes. I think the current system is overly burdensome and complex, and riddled with loopholes that favor a wide assortment of special interests, not just 'the rich.'

... statistics from the Tax Foundation shows that the federal tax code is 3.8 million words long – 3.5 times longer than all seven books of J.K. Rowling’s famous Harry Potter series combined.

... the federal tax code is 3.8 million words, almost a tripling of its size since 2001 when the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the tax code to be 1,395,000, and almost doubling its size since the Tax Foundation's estimates in 2001.

If it was up to me, we'd throw out the whole damn tax code and start over - preferably with a national sales tax or a flat tax. Either one would be better than the mess we've got now.

In fact, it's so bad that even obama is doing worse under obama:

"President Obama released his tax returns. It turns out he made $900,000 less in 2011 than he did in 2010. You know what that means? Even Obama is doing worse under President Obama."

 -- Jay Leno

Always leave 'em laughing...