Bail-Out? More Like FAIL-Out!

Have you heard of what Bernanke and Paulsen want to do? These morons want to spend $700 billion of taxpayer money to bail out suffering banks. Out of context, this might get the impression, “Oh, well, that’s expensive, but it’ll fix–” No, shut up. You are the reason we have idiots like this in our government.

These banks are suffering from their own predatory practices! They mislead customers to believe that they could afford loans that they couldn’t really afford, so that they’d get more money. And now they’re suffering because customers can’t pay them back? Too bad! Why should we reward them for being greedy and misleading?! It’s their own fault. This is, though it may not be clear to you, an example of the government FLIP-FLOPPING.

Banks were only able to mislead customers like this because of decreased government involvement in financial matters. Now, when the banks started suffering because of the greedy, misleading things they did, the government flip flops to increased government involvement in financial matters.

If we have to change to a fiscally liberal perspective, fine. But why are we bailing out the banks?! This is just about the stupidest kind of bail-out imaginable. It’s like this…

Bobby the Fifth Grader offers Elmer the Second Grader $20, on the condition that Elmer gives it back to him in a week. Elmer says he doesn’t have $20 to give Bobby later. Bobby bullies Elmer into taking the $20. Elmer spends it on something for the entire family, like a potted plant or something. Then Bobby demands his money back. Elmer says he doesn’t have it, so that nasty little kid Bobby keeps charging Elmer more and more until Elmer owes Bobby $100. Elmer says that he still doesn’t have it and Bobby screams and runs off, wishing he hadn’t forced Elmer to take that $20. Bobby then cries to his mother that Elmer owes him $100 and won’t give it to him. His mother then gives Bobby his 5-year-old triplet siblings’ allowances for that month, and some extra, amounting to $100.

The result of all this? Bobby has the money that Elmer owed him (at the expense of others), but Elmer still owes him money.

This is exactly what would come of the retarded plan proposed by those idiots Bernanke and Paulson. The banks would have the money that their customers owe them, but the customers would still owe them money. How in the name of the FSM is this fair at all? The banks shouldn’t be rewarded for predatory practices like this, especially at the expense of the taxpayers!

If we’re going to bail out anyone, it should be the customers of the lenders, not the lenders themselves!

These lenders need to learn a hard lesson about fiscal responsibility… Lying and bullying are not acceptable from giant corporations and if we give the lenders this bail-out, capitalism will not work in America. End of story.

The RNC

Is it just me, or did the Republicans put on a pretty lame convention compared to the Democrats? Have you seen the speeches that the Republicans made? Have you seen how bad all of their points are? Seriously, guys, you can do better.

Some of the noteable moments in the speeches during the convention were as follows:
George W. Bush calling Democrats “the angry left”.
Mitt Romney talking about “right and wrong” (Jihad).
Mike Huckabee’s lame joke about desks.
Sarah Palin lying about pretty much everything.
John McCain speaking about education and the energy crisis.

First, Mr. Bush’s comment… The “angry left”?! What?! You’re calling the Democrats angry when the GOP candidate, John McCain, has a notorious anger problem, while Barack Obama rarely even raises his voice? I think Mr. Bush is confused here… More so than usual.

Then Mitt Romney goes off talking about how the Democrats don’t have a sense of “right and wrong,” because they neglected to talk about the Jihad. Let me get this straight (because Mitt Romney would be horrified if I got it gay)… you’re calling the Democrats immoral, while the Republicans are inflating the budget with illegal wars and trying to get rid of the first amendment? Seriously? Mitt Romney is also a gun control freak, so he essentially wants to get rid of the first two amendments. Thank God he didn’t get the nomination.

Then Mike Huckabee made a really lame joke about desks that was so lame I’m not even going to post it here. How lame was it? It was even lamer than Hillary Clinton’s “No Way, No How, No McCain” thing. Yeah, it was that bad, so I’ll just post the punchline: “I think the one in the oval office would fit him quite nicely.” (How does one get “fitted” to a desk anyway?)

But, wait, we’re nowhere near done yet! No convention would be complete without a lie-filled speech from the potential Vice President (except maybe the DNC). Sarah Palin lied so much, it’s impossible to debunk everything she said here. But I can debunk a few of her more prominent points:

-She claimed she would lower taxes on “the American people,” whereas Obama would raise them.

WRONG. Palin would only lower taxes on the upper 1%, the wealthiest people of America, and she probably wouldn’t back down from this. Given her history of grotesque budget inflation, she’s going to need to raise taxes at some point, and she’d probably raise taxes on the middle class, while leaving the rich alone. Last time I checked, raising taxes on over 50% of the American population didn’t count as “lowering taxes on the American people”.

On the other hand, if Obama needed money (which he might not, since, unlike Palin, he’s not notoriously wasteful) he would go to the upper 1%–the very richest–while leaving the middle class alone (and maybe even lowering taxes on them a bit). So, tell me, who REALLY has the better tax strategy?

-She claimed that Obama has insufficient experience to be president, even when compared to her.

WRONG AGAIN. Obama has more experience in politics than George W. Bush did when he first took office, and I’m pretty sure Sarah Palin has supported Dubya from the beginning.  Now, Sarah, you claim you have more experience than Obama? Huh… You know, I don’t think your one-and-a-half years of experience of governing Alaska (a state nobody lives in), outweighs even Obama’s seven years of state legislation, let alone four years of Senate experience on top of that. For such a religious person, she seems to have forgotten, “Remove the beam from thine own eye and thou shalt see clearly to remove the mote from thy brother’s eye.“

So, no, Sarah, you’re not qualified at all, and Barack Obama is. Mrs. Palin, you’ve just been owned.

-She claimed that prisoners in GITMO don’t have the right to free trials.

Have you even read the Constitution? They’re on American soil, they’re adults, they have the right to free trials. Boom, you’re wrong, I’m right. We’re done.

Finally, John McCain’s speech. I’m not going to cover the war because his stance on Iraq is probably just his PTSD talking. Anyway, McCain is so close to getting everything right… Yet he slips up in some places. Here are two examples from his speech last night:

The Voucher System
You want to offer parents more choices directly, as opposed to forcing them to go off and research private schools independently, if that is what they want for their child? Well, sure! You want the government to pay for private and religious schools, pulling money away from public education? Uhhhh… No. That’s retarded. Private schools don’t need funding, whereas public schools do. Your policy would totally ruin the education of every poor and lower middle class child on the face of the earth.

The Energy Crisis
I agree that we should fund alternative energy sources, such as water, wind, solar and nuclear (yes, even nuclear). Offshore drilling? Uhhhh… No. That’s retarded. This would just increase air and water pollution, and we really wouldn’t get much out of it. Let’s just stick to encouraging alternative energy sources.

Then he also said some stupid things about negotiations being a bad idea, but this blog entry has gone on much too long, so I’m going to end it here. In summary, I didn’t much care for the RNC, as you’ve probably guessed by now, and I’m going to try very hard to forget it ever happened. The best way to do this is to watch the entire second season of Home Movies in one sitting. (If it can make me forget Adam Sandler’s buttcrack from “Zohan” it can make me forget anything.)

Taking Sides

In case you’ve been living in a box for the past couple weeks, I’ll explain the situation: Russia was stupid and invaded Georgia (the country, not the state) and now the US government is complaining, saying that unprovoked invasions of other countries are unethical. I agree wholeheartedly. ‘Cause it’s not like the US government has ever done anything like that.

Oh, wait.

Whenever I criticize the Bush administration on message boards or the like, Republicans always give me this response: “What have the hero Democrats done?!” The answer: Nothing. But that doesn’t change what the Republicans are hypocrites.

Speaking of hypocrites, Al Gore, if you want me to conserve energy, you need to move out of that huge mansion and into an apartment with no air conditioning. Seriously.

I Would Fix Everything

All the recent campaigning has gotten me to thinking… How would I improve America if I were president? Well, first I would bribe everyone in Congress to suggest and pass a bill that would allow the president to make laws. Then I would disband Congress and make the following laws:

Riding the public bus when you have severe body odor problems that cause you to smell like a giant, walking armpit will result in your bus pass being revoked.

Bringing your six year old son to a crowded restaurant and not doing anything when he starts yelling “barf” and “fart” over and over again and blowing bubbles in his glass of water for twenty minutes will result in your child being sent to a foster family that will teach him proper manners.

Finally, carrying out a loud, profane conversation on your cellphone in a public place will be a federal offense. As much as we all want to know about how your neighbor Bob keeps f~~~ing up your f~~~ing toaster every time he f~~~ing borrows it, it is not a public matter.

That should just about do it. I have a vision of a kinder, gentler America. Share it with me, won’t you? Vote Wycoff, 2008.

My Limited Understanding of Politics

Apparently, I’m a Libertarian.

A couple weeks ago, I took a political persuasion test on the internet. Once I was finished it tabulated my results and happily declared that I was a Libertarian. I thought this was weird, since I’ve always seen myself as liberal socially and economically. But since the test was on a sketchy sort of online personality test website (another test determined that I had “severe PMS”) I didn’t really think about it too much. About a week later, however, I took a test on another website and it also determined that I was a Libertarian. It also placed me on a political spectrum.

Well, there you have it.

I’ve also begun to understand the ideas of the far left and far right a bit more. On the far left, you have complete social freedom, but no economic freedom. (Hence the name “Socialism”.) On the far right, you have complete economic freedom, but no social freedom. (I don’t really understand why this is called the “Constitution Party.”) The Libertarians believe in complete social and economic freedom. Essentially, Libertarianism is the closest a society can get to anarchy while still having organized government.

I’m sure everyone reading this post already knew everything in the previous paragraph, so you can just ignore it. Anyway, the Libertarians seem to promote themselves as the “personal responsibility” party. Meanwhile, the Republicans promote themselves as the “moral values” party. This got me to thinking: The Democrats don’t have a stupid, self-aggrandizing title like that. Why are they missing out?

I think I’ve figured it out: Democrats don’t like themselves. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, the Democrats have only voted for their candidate while viewing him as the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, I think the Democrats should be known as the “low self-esteem” party. It makes perfect sense.

Ruining Music

Liking dead musicians has certain advantages. My personal favorite is that I can ruin any song by explaining what the now-dead artist was going through around the time that they wrote that song. It generally goes like this:

ME: (plugs iPod into speakers) Ah, I love this song.
PERSON: Yeah, this is really good. It’s very sad.
ME: Yeah. It sort of hints at the deep depression that prompted the artist to commit suicide.
PERSON: Oh… (skips to next song) Hey, this is really catchy.
ME: Yes, it is. I think this is the first thing he wrote after he got diagnosed with brain cancer.
PERSON:  Oh… (skips to next song) This is good, too.
ME: Yup, she’s dead.

The only downside I can think of for liking dead musicians is that corpses can’t do concerts. So my glass is half full.

Insomnia

Recently, I’ve been having trouble falling asleep. Sometimes I’m up tossing and turning as late as four in the morning. And I have no idea why. For some reason, when I’m trying to sleep, my mind decides that it is the perfect time to start humming Tom’s Diner. And before long I can’t sleep because I’m hearing, “Doot doot doo-doot, doot doot doo-doot…”

Sometimes I worry about the economy when I’m trying to fall asleep. God knows it’s hard enough to get to sleep when I’m humming Tom’s Diner in my head, but no, I have to worry about inflation and hum Tom’s Diner at the same time. Once Tom’s Diner is over, another song starts in, and before long I’m worrying about the rising price of corn to the tune of The Entertainer. It’s an illness.

Eventually I get to sleep and when I wake up I can’t remember what tactic I used to get to sleep! I hate that! I remember I used some sort of trick, but I couldn’t remember what it was if someone held a loaded gun to my head and demanded that I either give him change for a dollar or tell him how I got to sleep last night. I would hand him four quarters. He would say, “I need dimes.” I would reply, “I don’t have any.” BLAM. Brains on the floor. And nobody wants that to happen. Except for maybe the guy with the gun.

Oh, God, It’s Summer Again

For approximately 85% of the year in Seattle, the weather is as cold and dark as Ann Coulter’s soul, and that’s fine. Everyone in Seattle has some sort of heating system preinstalled in their home. And for 85% of the year, the entire town lives in peace. Then, near the end of June, the other 15% rolls around…

In Seattle, summer lasts about a month and a half. During that time, it’s like living in Hell during a thousand barbecues. As I write this, it is 92˚F outside. But since this only happens one a year for about a month, almost nobody has A/C installed. It’s too hot to cook (just the thought of turning on the stove gives me heatstroke) and out of the nearly two dozen restaurants in my neighborhood, only one has air conditioning.

The high temperatures are made even worse by the fact that I live on the top floor of a four story building, so the heat is incredible. It’s like living in Hell during a thousand barbecues, and wearing a formal outfit made entirely out of wool. To make things worse, the way my home is designed, it is impossible to get a cross breeze. Needless to say, I have seven fans (I would have eight, but one of them burned out) going constantly.

Well, summer can’t be too much longer.

The Best Member of the Graduating Class

At a recent graduation at a high school in Saratoga Springs, a man, who had graduated the previous year, disrupted the ceremony by running in wearing a penis costume. (Yes, there is a picture.)

I feel greatly underpriveleged. Nothing like that ever happens at any of the formal events or parties I attend. It’s really depressing. Graduations, birthdays, potlucks… No six foot tall inflatable penis costume. Maybe I’m hanging out with the wrong crowd. As far as I know, none of my friends have ever bought, considered buying or tried on a penis costume. Many of my friends probably didn’t even know costume companies made them before I emailed them this article.

Something else that comes to mind when I read this article is, “Why a penis?” A six foot tall inflatable dog turd would do just as well. And the news article “Man Dressed as Dog Turd Disrupts Graduation” rolls off the tongue better. But I suppose the penis costume does lend itself to more lame jokes on the internet than the turd costume (see title).

The next time I go shopping for Halloween, I’m looking for six foot tall inflatable penis and dog turd costumes.

Please note: The word “penis” is a medical term and should not be considered offensive.

Creationism vs. Evolution

I’m surprised there’s any debate surrounding this. It’s a pretty open and shut case if you just do a little research. And that’s precisely how much research I did. A little. So, let me explain why I’m in favor of evolution (cunningly dubbed “evilution” by many incredibly clever Christians) with some a very simple observation:

Evolution, unlike Creationism, is actually backed by scientific evidence.

Boom, we’re done. Right off the bat, evolution is more credible than Creationism. So let’s go on to debunk some of the common defenses of Creationism and attacks on Evolution, shall we?

Evolution is only a theory. Well, you got us there. However, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is “only a theory,” too. And guess what this mere theory proves? Gravity. So, one could make the argument that gravity is “only a theory” and therefore should not be considered even slightly true by any scientist whatsoever. A lot of Christians seem to think that you can think of a theory for anything. “Beef is a vegetable. There’s a theory right there.” No, it’s not. Until you have some sort of solid scientific evidence that beef is, in fact, a vegetable, it’s a myth. Creationism is only a myth, since there is no scientific evidence supporting it. I think “only a myth” is a more solid reason not to believe something than “only a theory,” don’t you?

Evolution is vague and full of holes. Creationism is solid. Clearly, these people have never read the Bible. In the first chapter of Genesis, God creates man and woman at the same time (Genesis 1:27). In the second chapter, however, he creates Adam first (Genesis 2:7), shows Adam around, makes him name all 10 billion species (Genesis 2:19-20), and then anesthetizes Adam and makes Eve out of his rib (Genesis 2:21-22). Call me crazy, but that seems like a contradiction to me. A hole, if you will. Now, many will make the explanation that the creation of man in Genesis chapter 1 was just a brief overview. Well, fine, but wouldn’t that make that part of Creationism vague? Just wondering.

Evolution is a religion. No, it’s not. Would you call Creationism a religion? No, you wouldn’t, because it’s part of Christianity, and Christianity is the religion. Evolution isn’t a religion because it is a part of Science, so Science must be the religion. Except for one little thing: You can’t have a religion without faith, and Science is belief in what is proven, so there is no faith in Science. Thus, Science is not a religion, either, and I can stop capitalizing it like an idiot.

Creationism should be taught in science classes alongside evolution to give both ideas equal weight. No, it shouldn’t. Creationism is not science and therefore should not be taught in science classes. Saying Creationism should be taught in science classes is like saying reverends, priests and pastors should preach evolution in their sermons. And I’m not even covering the separation of Church and State, or the fact that no Muslims are demanding that science teachers teach their origin myth. Creationism simply shouldn’t be taught in science classes because it’s not science.

Please note that this is not a smear on Christianity by any means. I love Christianity, I just think you should interpret the Adam and Eve story for the moral, as opposed to viewing it as a literal historical piece of writing. The moral of the Adam and Eve story is, of course: If a snake offers you an apple, don’t take it.