So Here's What Happens When You... OBEY The Law?

There's been a bit of a hue-and-cry in the media over the recent announcements by AT&T and Caterpillar, among others, that they will be taking significant financial hits thanks to Obamacare.

In fact, it's not just limited to the media; Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA,) perpetual ne'er-do-well and foe of anything sane or intelligent, has decided to subpoena the CEOs of the four corporations which issued the biggest loss statements, those being AT&T, 3M, Caterpillar, and AK Steel Holding Corp.

Why?

Well, he wants them to come to a Congressional "hearing" at which apparently his purpose is to yell at them for making Obamacare look bad.

I know you wonder why I'd say that's his motive, right?

It might have something to do with the fact that he said

"The new bill is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern. They also appear to conflict with independent analyses."

What Representative Waxman isn't telling you - in the process of writing this letter (warning: annoying, slow .pdf) in which he asks that AT&T send every document for the last year that was seen by any executive in the company above the rank of Vice President that relates to health care to Congress - is that AT&T is required by the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to report these kinds of earnings adjustments immediately, or face punitive actions and fraud charges by the SEC.

So let me break this down into several salient points.

First, what this is, is naked political harassment of businesses that even admit that there MIGHT be adverse consequences for Congress' actions. There's no reason Congress should - or should even have the power to - call executives at private companies onto the carpet to "answer" for anything; much less, to do so because those executives obeyed a law that same Congress passed and which Representative Waxman was a signatory for.

Let me reiterate that; Representative Waxman himself voted yes on the law which required these companies to make these announcements, and is now furious that they have complied with it.

Secondly, Representative Waxman is upset because these statements of future losses don't agree with his figures on what the Obamacare bill is supposed to do; he thinks it's supposed to save money, so it's supposed to save money, period, regardless of what it actually does.

Thirdly, Representative Waxman seems unaware that the real danger here is not that these statements do not agree with Obamacare's projections, but that they portend a much worse outcome: namely, that companies unable to afford these losses will simply ditch their health plans entirely and leave their employees dependent on - who else? - the federal government to provide them with health insurance.

How, sir, I ask you, do you intend to save money, when everyone will be on the government plan, hmmm? Given that the government has incurred massive cost overruns in even such simple things as the Postal Service, how precisely do you intend to SAVE money by making everyone use it?

The answer is simple: you can't. And now you're mad that that fact is getting out; you're scared, because it's becoming evident that the citizenry is getting seriously angry with the obvious differences between the treatment of government workers versus private sector ones; you're scared because the public is on to the fact that you're screwing them - 66% of Americans think this will make things worse - and you fear their response in November; and most of all, you're scared because the Tea Party has prettier women than your protests do.

OK, that last isn't really relevant, but it's still true.

Well, it might be relevant: think about this, if you will. Where the beautiful women go, that's the height of fashion at the moment; they're the trendmakers, for all anyone can try to deny it. (How else do you explain those retarded-looking Ugg boots?) And right now, all the gorgeous women are at the Tea Party protests...

...And the pro-Marxist rallies have wrinkled, dyspeptic-looking hippies who are still lost in the Sixties.

...Like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer...

Anyway, I will close with one more salient point of actual relevance, number four, if anyone's keeping score.

The actual health insurance companies noticed the other day that the actual Obamacare bill, as passed, requires them to extend coverage for kids with pre-existing conditions on policies they issue - but doesn't actually require them to issue policies.

The official response of Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services? Well, she immediately reassured Congress that if there was any "ambiguity" in the Obamacare bill, she would be able to take care of it with regulations.

In other words, they passed a law, it doesn't do what they claimed, so they're going to say "screw the law" and just pass rules until you have to do it their way.

Sweet! Can I do this? I am passing a rule, right now - I'm sorry, a "non-statutory regulation" saying that Congress is now hereby required to rebate to me 100% of any penalties levied against me for choosing not to buy their overpriced, under-doctored claptrap, so that I have plenty of funds to do so again.

I'd guess all this hoopla is why they were trying to distract us with noisy stories of death threats that turned out to be false, huh?

This Came Up In A Totally Different Context, But...

Looking around, as I typically do in the mornings, in the elaborate jungle we technoliterati call "teh intartubez" I stumbled across an article which interested me.

Apparently, my long-held theory that morality is inherent in a living being of sufficient complexity was...

...Predictably, dead in the black. Scientists have discovered a particular structure in the brain that essentially evaluates situations for moral value; that is its only function, but it is measurable and quantifiable.

But wait, this gets SO much better. Bear with me, here, as we go merrily spelunking into the implications of the next part.

See, along with the discovery of the "morality center" in the brain, came the discovery that it could be altered or turned off...

...By strong electromagnetic fields.

I so wish I was kidding.

But I'm not.

So, let's examine this.

We know from recent elections that urban areas almost entirely and universally go Democrat.

We know that rural areas almost entirely and universally go Republican.

We know that rural areas are short on massive, magnetic field-generating power systems, while urban areas are loaded up with double-plus bonus ones.

Plus Wi-Fi.

Plus cell towers.

So, accordingly, I have a few questions.

First, if the centers of magnetic field concentration are also the centers of Democrat votes, does that mean people have to have their morality turned off to vote Democrat?

Second, can we come up with some sort of chain letter email alleging that Democrats have their brains turned off WITH ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT?

Third, short of living in Faraday cages, what can we do about this?

*Thinks laboriously*

OMG IT ARE TINFOIL HAT TIME!!1!

/tongueincheek

In seriousness, there is actual scientific evidence that magnetic fields can alter a person's moral compass, and considering the massive correlation between Democrat voting districts and magnetic field concentration, as comical as I find this, it might in fact be accurate to say that the Democrats are actually INCAPABLE of comprehending morality, because their moral centers are malfunctioning thanks to their cell phones, netbooks, Starbucks, McDonalds, and massive, massive power wires.

This of course as yet fails to explain MY issues, but then, my moral compass is just fine; it's my "able to function normally and without twitching" that's not so hot.

So.

Remember when your grandparents told you that the internet and cell phones were tools of the devil?

OMG THEY WERE RIGHT!!!

...If there wasn't actual scientific support for this, I would be laughing so hard I'd split a rib.

In Which I Rant Angrily About Religious Exclusions

Something interesting in the health care bill upon which very little attention has fallen is the clause which allows exemptions from the health insurance requirements for people with opposing religious convictions.

With the inevitable skill and talent our Congress always brings to the table, they designated a list of groups that are allowed to object to the provisions of the bill; what's really great? They refer to a list of designated religious groups that isn't actually in the bill.

I wish I were fucking kidding.

• (1) IN GENERAL- The term ‘applicable individual’ means, with respect to any month, an individual other than an individual described in paragraph (2), (3), or (4).
• ‘(2) RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS-
• ‘(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION- Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.

The problem here is that Section 1402 stops at (f) and does not then continue to (g,) which poses a problem for anyone looking for the religious exemption, since there's no actual list involved that delineates the people allowed the exclusion.

Great thing we found out THAT was in there (or, rather, wasn't,) before they passed it, right?

Now, in all honesty, I was prepared to launch into an impassioned rant about how it's fine for the Amish to be excluded because they just don't like to pay taxes, but it's somehow not ok for Catholics to be excluded despite the fact that they are morally opposed to abortion, but imagine my surprise when I realized that the bill refers to sections of itself that don't exist - which means that the religious exemption doesn't exist, either.

Indians - I would say Native Americans, but the bill specifically refers to them as Indians - are excluded, though.

(That would be Section 1501(e)(3,) if anyone's curious.)

Nice.

Gotta love the way the government was in such a hurry to pass the bill that they didn't even bother to make sure they actually HAD all the clauses they refer to in it, don't you?

In Which I Discuss "Bipartisanship"

For those of you - especially on Facebook - loudly praising this health care bill, you should really know what happened last night.

Last night, Republican Senators proposed 23 amendments on the health care reform bill.

Senate Democrats shot down all of them.

Why?

Because accepting any of them would mean that the bill would have to go back to the House again for another vote.

So let's see what the Republicans thought was so important that they were willing to see that vote go against them again, hmmm? Why rub salt into their own wounds?

Well, let's just count down those 23 amendments, shall we? (Vote counts and amendment text from the Senate.gov website, by the way.)

1. David Vitter (R-LA) proposed (S. Amdt. 3668) to give portable mammography machines a tax break and allow greater public access to them; defeated 56-39. Why do Democrats want people to have breast cancer?
2. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R, sorta - TX) proposed (S. Amdt. 3635) to extend the tax break on the marriage penalty tax, so that married couples won't get penalized for being married; defeated 55-40. Why do Democrats hate married couples?
3. James Risch (R-ID) proposed (S. Amdt. 3645) to repeal the limitation on itemized medical expense deductions on income tax; defeated 55-40. Why do Democrats hate low-priced medical care?
4. Robert Bennett (R-UT) proposed (S. Amdt. 3568) to protect the right of the District of Columbia to legally define marriage, thus protecting the bill allowing same-sex marriage D.C. passed in December; defeated 56-39. Why do Democrats hate gay people?
5. Charles Grassley (R-IA) proposed (S. Amdt. 3699) to extend COBRA coverage and the National Flood Insurance program, as well as using unallocated stimulus funds to offset the spending in the health care bill; defeated 56-40. Why do Democrats hate extended health coverage and flood insurance?
6. Jim Bunning (R-KY) proposed (S. Amdt. 3681) to allow individuals to opt out of Medicare Part A; defeated 61-36. Why do Democrats hate freedom of choice?
7. Judd Gregg (R-NH) proposed (S. Amdt. 3567) to prevent Medicare being used to pay for other programs, and require Medicare funds be used to help keep Medicare funded; defeated 56-42. Why do Democrats hate Medicare funding?
8. John McCain (R-AZ) proposed (S. Amdt. 3570) to eliminate the sweetheart deals for states whose Representatives' votes were bought; defeated 54-43. Why do Democrats hate honesty?
9. John Barrasso (R-WY) proposed (S. Amdt. 3582) to ensure that Americans who already have health insurance can continue to afford it, by limiting premium increases; defeated 57-41. Why do Democrats hate low-priced health insurance?
10. Charles Grassley (R-IA) proposed (S. Amdt. 3564) to ensure that members of Congress, and the President, are also subject to the health care bill; defeated 56-43. Why do Democrats want a privileged elite?
11. George LeMieux (R-FL) proposed (S. Amdt. 3586) to ensure that members of Congress are required to enroll in the "reformed" Medicaid; defeated 59-40. Why do Democrats want a privileged elite?
12. Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposed (S. Amdt. 3556) to keep sex offenders from buying Viagra and other ED drugs; defeated 57-42. Why do Democrats hate your kids?
13. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R, sorta - TX) proposed (S. Amdt. 3608) to allow states to opt out of federal health coverage; defeated 58-41. Why do Democrats hate states' rights?
14. Susan Collins (R, sorta - ME) proposed (S. Amdt. 3638) to eliminate the $40,000 penalty for hiring previously unemployed people; defeated 58-41. Why do Democrats hate jobs?
15. John Thune (R-SD) proposed (S. Amdt. 3639) to ensure states do not lose jobs from the SAFRA Act; defeated 55-43. Why do Democrats hate jobs?
16. John Thune (R-SD) proposed (S. Amdt. 3640) to repeal the CLASS Act; defeated 55-43. Why do Democrats hate senior citizens?
17. Pat Roberts (R-KS) proposed (S. Amdt. 3579) to remove the additional tax on medical devices; defeated 56-42. Why do Democrats hate low prices for medical devices?
18. James Inhofe (R-OK) proposed (S. Amdt. 3588) to exclude pediatric medical devices for the disabled from the medical device tax; defeated 57-41. Why do Democrats hate the handicapped?
19. Orrin Hatch (R, sorta - UT) proposed (S. Amdt. 3644) to ensure health care for wounded military personnel; defeated 54-44. Why do Democrats hate veterans?
20. Judd Gregg (R-NH) proposed (S. Amdt. 3651) to recalculate the Medicare formulas so people who need it will have easier access; defeated 56-42. Why do Democrats hate Medicare?
21. Richard Burr (R-NC) proposed (S. Amdt. 3652) to protect Veteran's Administration health programs for veterans and surviving family; defeated 54-44. Why do Democrats hate veterans?
22. David Vitter (R-LA) proposed (S. Amdt. 3553) to repeal the federal government's takeover of health care. A forlorn hope, but worth a shot, I guess; defeated 58-39. Why do Democrats hate individual liberty?
23. Pat Roberts (R-KS) proposed (S. Amdt. 3577) to protect Medicare benefits in rural areas; defeated 54-42. Why do Democrats hate farmers?

The correct answer to all of those questions is simple: they don't care if it's a GOOD bill; they only care that they have A bill, so that they can point to it as their only significant legislative success so far. They don't care how it actually affects things, only that they have a sign of success.

This is what I typically call a giant cartload of horseshit an empty symbolic gesture.

A Yummy And Simple Meal!

So, for dinner tonight, three dishes: steak, asparagus, and a potato casserole.

The steak was pan-fried by my lovely fellow chef, with a seasoning blend of white pepper, onion powder, garlic, celery, oregano, allspice, paprika, thyme, and sage; medium well.

For the asparagus, my lovely fellow chef took lightly browned bacon, and caramelized onions, and boiled it together on low heat with the asparagus and some red pepper flakes, so that the asparagus soaked up the bacon grease and the pepper.

For the potato casserole, we washed and boiled three potatoes, and pre-heated the oven to 350.

While the potatoes were boiling, we took a can of cream of celery soup, a packet of onion soup mix, a half-can of milk, a tablespoon of flour, a half-teaspoon each of white pepper, paprika, parsley flakes, and basil leaves, and a half cup of crumbled feta cheese, and boiled them all together into a thick soup.

Once the potatoes were fully cooked, we diced them, and placed them into a baking dish, then covered them with a fairly thick layer of mixed crumbled cheeses: feta, parmesan, asiago, and romano. Then, we covered the potatoes and cheese with the soup mixture, and topped it with a thin layer of grated swiss cheese, for a baked crust, and covered the dish with tin foil.

It baked for about 25 minutes.

Now, I will say at this point, my lovely fellow chef, having tasted the finished product, decided to apply the casserole as a steak topper; in the event that you intend to do the same, it might be easier to forgo the swiss cheese crust.

...Everyone who tried it loved it.

Since I'm Tired Of People Making This Statement...

You've heard it a million times.

"Health care is a right!"

And that is then used to justify any sort of legislative excess, any Congressional dealmaking, any violation of the Constitution which was intended and deliberately designed to protect us from our government.

But here's the thing; health care is not, and cannot be, a right.

I will explain, at somewhat greater length than I have done in comments on other people's posts. Hopefully, I will give you guys some food for thought.

A right is something inherent in your humanity; it's built in, and cannot be denied, removed, or abrogated in any way.

There are only two first-order rights; there are any number of derivative rights.

The first-order rights are simple; as a human being, you have a right to your life, and you have a right to your freedom.

Those rights are usually discussed as trumping everything else; but there is another factor inherent in the definition of "right" that is usually ignored: your rights cannot infringe on those of someone else.

You have a right to your life, which is infinite and indivisible, PROVIDED THAT the things you do to sustain that life do NOT infringe on anyone else's rights.

You have a right to your freedom, which is infinite and indivisible, PROVIDED THAT the things you choose to use it for do not infringe on anyone else's rights.

It is the only inherent limitation.

You can do anything you want, except infringe upon other people; therefore you cannot have a "right" to steal from people, regardless of how hungry you get, or how high your medical bills get.

I will come back to that.

Those are the only two first-order rights; all other legitimate rights are derivative of one or both of those. For example, the right to own property; you MUST be able to own property, because as long as other people can take away your means of sustaining your life, you can't keep your life. This is what makes stealing morally wrong; when you steal from someone the things they've worked for and earned, you are infringing on their right to their life.

Slavery - defined as "involuntary, uncompensated labor," to avoid discussion of the goth girl who likes to wear a collar - is morally wrong because it infringes on both first-order rights; it denies you your freedom, and takes away control of your life.

The purpose in most of the Constitution, as is clearly evident in the Founders' other writings, such as the Federalist Papers and their personal letters, is to secure both first-order rights from intrusion both by other citizens and by the federal government.

Health care is a service; it must be provided to you by someone else. Even if you are a doctor yourself, there are some procedures you simply cannot perform on yourself; health care is entirely, completely, totally and without reservation dependent upon other people to provide it.

This is no problem; because you have the right to own property, you have, derivative of that right and the right to freedom, the right to exchange your property for someone else's goods or services; this is the moral foundation of capitalism, and it is why the free market is the only morally justifiable economic method. Any other method of transfer or exchange of goods and services involves someone getting stolen from, even if it's a government doing the stealing; this is the primary moral problem with most of the things the government does outside the powers enumerated in the Constitution, and with some of the things that WERE enumerated in it.

What you cannot do, however, is exchange someone else's property - including their earnings - for a third party's goods and services.

Because if you are taking someone else's property without their permission, it is stealing, and violates their most fundamental right, their right to their life.

This is why all forms of transfer payments are wrong; this is why welfare is wrong, progressive taxation is wrong, the "prebates" in the so-called FairTax plan are wrong; Social Security is wrong; tax-supported pension funds are wrong; many, many things the government does are wrong. They may be LEGAL, but that doesn't matter, especially under a government of tyranny, which passes any laws they feel like and demands that we comply with them.

I have said before that the only morally justifiable tax - and it is still sketchy - is one whose funds are used to provide value to one hundred percent, no exceptions, every single person who pays it.

Welfare benefits those who are on it, but openly violates the rights of those who pay higher taxes to fund it without receiving a similar check from it, which is why it's wrong.

Health care suffers from the same problem. If you take my tax dollars to pay for someone else's health care, you have failed to provide benefit to me; you have stolen my money; you have violated both my freedom and my right to my life. It is worse when you follow the path of the "Obamacare" bill, and provide for penalties against me if I don't choose to participate in your travesty; this violates my freedom even more openly and completely.

So much so, that it reduces me to performing...

...Involuntary, uncompensated labor...

You cannot have a "right" to own slaves.

You cannot have a "right" to steal the money from my wallet, the food off my table, or the table.

Since this incarnation of "health care reform" does exactly these things, it is morally wrong, period.

My personal opinion is that the best way to reduce the costs inherent in health care and health insurance both is to remove the single biggest spender from the equation; take the government out of the health care business. My opinion is open to debate.

"Rights" are not. You cannot debate human rights; the only applicable debate is whether, and which, rights apply to a given situation; we call the results of those debates "ethics."

In this case, the approach chosen by our government, in direct and open defiance of the obvious will of the people, violates the rights of ALL the citizens of this country.

There are many ways our health care system could be improved; there are many ways our health care costs could be reduced; there are ways our health insurance system could be improved.

Allowing the government to take control of one-sixth of the economy, in a naked power grab for control of something specifically forbidden by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, is not one of those ways.

Health care cannot be a right, because it requires the actions of others.

You have an infinite and inalienable right to buy whatever you can pay for.

I will support that to the hilt and willingly work to devise ways to increase your buying power, decrease costs, and generally make health care more available and affordable for everyone.

Turning the citizens of the United States into slaves for the purposes of providing kidney transplants to indigents is immoral and wrong. It violates the first-order rights of every citizen of the country, even the ones who benefit from the bill, because it turns them into thieves, even if they don't realize it.

Health care is not a right.

The ability and freedom to BUY health care, or not to, is.

When the government takes over health care, and penalizes you for choosing not to buy it, or to buy coverage the government deems insufficient, your freedom is abrogated again.

There is nothing right, and everything wrong, with this bill, period.

I urge you to consider that, at great length.

Mostly, I urge you to be aware of the depths of tyranny and immorality our government has reached, in direct contravention of the Constitutionally enumerated powers, and the Constitutionally mandated legislative process; entitlements are nearly impossible to repeal once they are in place, and the simple fact the Republicans and Tea Partiers seemingly forget is that even if they win every House and Senate seat that's open in November, they will not have a sufficient majority to overturn a Presidential veto - and Obama will unquestionably veto any repeal bill.

Government health care is here to stay; it is not going to be repealed.

It is one more step in our government's slow-motion process of throwing the Constitution aside openly and turning this nation into Soviet Russia, circa 1967.

You owe it to yourself to be aware of this, so that you can take the measures necessary to protect and defend your right to freedom and your right to your life.

So, An Historic Day by Any Measure.

This was the day that our Congress decided that the Constitutionally-mandated process for passing a bill into law no longer applies to them.

Those of you fooling yourselves into thinking that this debate was even ABOUT healthcare, think again.

What this was about was the accountability of our elected officials to their constituents; they've declared, tonight, that they don't have any; that they are above the law, above the Constitution, and able to pass whatever law they see fit, provided they have a friendly President.

Historians, in later years, will mark tonight as the moment when the Constitution of this nation lost effect, and was thrown away entirely.

Without that Constitution, the citizens of this country have no protection whatsoever against the abuses of governmental power that are becoming more commonplace every day.

Just think; now, we will be FORCED to buy health insurance. Regardless of whether or not we can afford it. We will be FORCED to buy it in the way, and for the price, the government dictates.

There is no Constitutional mandate for Congress to dictate to private citizens what they can and can't buy.

The ignoranti are loudly and gladly proclaiming that this makes us "finally catch up to the rest of the world."

Exactly... With one problem.

For decades, the failing economies of the majority of the developed world have been propped up by the United States, both by direct support and by the use of our citizenry as a massive export market.

This is HOW they have paid for "universal health care" in most of the rest of the world.

Who will pay for us?

Who will prop up our economy?

For all the many failings the Republicans have, they at least know a catastrophe when they see one; the House Republicans all voted against this travesty.

Good for them. At least they are capable of understanding that the purpose of an elected representative is to represent his or her constituents; rather than deciding what's "best" for those constituents and then ramming it down their throats regardless of their opinions on the matter.

TODAY, I weep for the end of the nation I love.

TOMORROW, I look to see if there's any escape for me and my family; this tragedy is unstoppable now, and our great experiment has been destroyed by those who cannot allow people to be free; the statist scum who have been directly undermining the direct and specific intent and purpose of our Founders, all the while paying lip service to the good of the people.

By electing these clowns, the people proved they are fucking idiots.

And thus, deserve exactly what they voted for - and got.

for those of you who think I am exaggerating, or being melodramatic; you're welcome to think whatever you want. But when this country collapses entirely, under the weight of its own impossible debts, run up (in ONE YEAR!) by a man with no executive experience, an agenda of communism, and a good speechwriter because someone coined a cutesy nickname for the candidates from the other party, I hope you remember my melodrama.

I hope you do.

I hope it helps you feel better about what you helped destroy.

It will be a consolation, as they march you into a camp somewhere, that I was right.

Oh, wait, no it won't, but I don't care. Fuck you communist retards.

An Easy Breakfast

Given the idea by Jack-in-the-Box restaurants' surprisingly good breakfast bowls, and inspired to a kind of fiendish inventiveness by hunger, the other day I manufactured this dish.

One of my fellow breakfast eaters announced that it was "better than sex" which I am pretty sure is an exaggeration, but prompted me to point out that if that is in fact the case, she and her man are clearly doing something incorrectly.

It was pretty tasty, though, and so I will share.

This is a dish made in layers, in a particular order, so as to maximize the use of the bacon grease. If you are not a bacon fan (what's WRONG with you?) then you can substitute another cooking oil, but I'm not writing out a whole second set of directions.

Learn to cope.

So: rather than give a list of ingredients, I will tell you how I made these, in the exact order I used to make them. You'll get the ingredients along the way.

This makes four small, or two "omg I'm full," breakfast bowls.

First, I started by taking a half pound of thick-cut bacon, and slicing it into strips across the pre-cut slices; this resulted in a good supply of 1/4" by 1" micro-strips.

I took a good-sized, high-walled skillet, tossed the bacon in, and set it on high.

While the bacon was frying, I scrambled together 6 eggs in a bowl, and used a mason jar to shake together a cup and a half of milk, three heaping tablespoons of flour, and some white pepper.

My lovely assistant was kind enough to save me some time, and diced several potatoes (I think 4) into 1/2" cubes, skin-on.

As the bacon reached its desired crispiness, I took it out of the pan, leaving as much of the grease as I could, and set it aside to drain on a paper towel. I poured the diced potatoes into the hot grease, and continued with high heat, spicing the potatoes fairly generously with seasoned salt, onion powder, and garlic powder. (Fresh garlic and onion would have been better, but not by enough to be worth the trouble; i was really pretty hungry.) As they cooked, I got out two fairly deep bowls.

When the potatoes were ready, I drained off all but a tiny bit of the now-spicy grease into a cup, and put the potatoes into the bottoms of the bowls. Returning to the stove, I poured the scrambled eggs into the pan, and added some parsley flakes. While the eggs were getting nicely scrambled, I prevailed upon my lovely assistant to cube and melt some Velveeta cheese in the microwave, and added my own shredded cheddar cheese to the eggs as they scrambled.

Once the eggs were done, I separated them into the bowls, and crumbled the bacon over them, then topped them with the melted cheese.

Returning once again to the stove, I poured the remaining grease into the pan, along with the milk mixture, and stirred it until it thickened into a nicely creamy, lightly peppery gravy, which I then poured over the bowls.

All done!

They were quite filling, and though slightly time-consuming, they go faster than you might think if you have someone there to dice and hand you stuff.

For variations on this, I would perhaps add some chives to the eggs, or substitute different cheeses; I'd think Feta for the eggs and Monterey Jack for the melted topping might go well.

Enjoy!

The Narrative Gap, Part One

So, the 2010 United States Census is up and running. We're in a "post-racial" world, right?

Then I have some questions for you.

Questions like:

"Is this person of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?"

"What is this person's race?"

And more questions, like:

"What reason do you have to ask these questions?"

"For what purpose do you intend to use this information?"

"Why do Hispanics deserve such special notice as to have their own census question?"

See, something that seems, these days, to escape people is the actual meaning of the word "racism."

Racism means making decisions based primarily or partially on the basis of race. That's all it means; it has no legitimate alternate definition.

So.

We're "post-racial," which ostensibly means that we no longer use race as a decision-making criterion, and have moved on to other determinants, like competence or merit.

If this is the case, why is the census asking these questions at all?

There is no purpose to having data you do not intend to use. Thus, by virtue of the fact that the census asks racial questions, the data provided in answer to those questions is needed for...

...Something.

Here's the problem for the government.

If you are asking race-based questions, it is because you intend to use that information.

If you are intending to use racial information, you are being racist.

Because there is no way to use that information that ISN'T inherently racist.

Are you making decisions based on race? Then you are being racist; that's what the term itself means.

If you are engineering voting districts based on racial groups, you are being racist.

If you are basing social program funding on racial groups, you are being racist.

If you are compiling statistics based on racial groups which will be used for these purposes, you are assisting racism - which means you are being racist.

If you are NOT doing these things, then you have no need for the information, period.

There is a narrative gap, in this government. On the one hand, they ask us to believe that questions of race are behind them; on the other, they need to know what race you are.

The only reason to put anything other than "American" in the race options sections on your census form is that you support racial divisiveness and race-based social engineering. You - especially if you are a member of a "minority" group - only harm the much-vaunted cause of racial equality by allowing the government to continue to care what race you are.

They use race data to determine eligibility for college scholarships - racist.

They use race data to determine social service funding - racist.

They use race data to determine voting districts - racist.

They use race data to determine eligibility for social services - racist.

And each of those racist uses undermines the ability of the targeted group to assimilate into the overall society; each of those racist uses undermines relations between the targeted group and everyone else, by creating both the image, and the impression of preferential treatment; each of those racist uses harms the overall social fabric of our nation and creates MORE racism, more division, more tension - and more easily exploitable fault lines in the electorate.

So.

Who stands to gain from racial divisions?

Only the governmental elements dependent on race for their electoral support, that's who.

We have a Congressional Black Caucus - a group consisting only of black congresscritters, exclusive of anyone else, who make their living - quite literally - by pandering to the constituents who share their skin tone.

We have a Congressional Hispanic Caucus - a group consisting only of Hispanic congresscritters, exclusive of anyone else, who make their living - quite literally - by pandering to the constituents who share their skin tone.

We do NOT, however, have a Congressional White Caucus.

Because such a thing would automatically be assumed to be racist - because it would be exclusive of others, and pander to the constituents who share its' members' skin tone.

Race-based "caucuses" are inherently racist.

Race-based college scholarships are inherently racist.

Race-based social services are inherently racist.

Race-based census questions are also inherently racist.

Don't answer them; write in "American" on the answer line, rather than assist the government in perpetuating a system of divisiveness they use to exploit the voters.

Don't let them try to simultaneously sell you on the idea that asking those questions is ok, but that they are somehow NOT racist, because of their skin tone.

Because the idea that racism depends on the skin tone of the decision-maker...

...Is racist.

I Love It When Random Awesome Stuff Happens.

I'm from the South.

Down here, Whataburger restaurants are a staple; the orange-and-white W signs are ubiquitous on Southern highways.

Some of y'all might not be familiar with them, seeing as a lot of you are godless Yankees, and all that.

So.

I'm leaving for Minnesota Thursday morning.

There are no Whataburger restaurants in Minnesota.

Or Pennsylvania.

So, figuring that we'd take advantage of what might be our last chance to eat there for years to come, Tara and I decided to split lunch, and we rolled in to Whataburger #270 at about ten minutes to noon.

Now, you guys have been in fast food joints. You know what to expect: food made of pressed monkey meat sandwiched between slices of soggy cardboard, fries mashed into the floor that haven't moved for weeks and have bugs crawling on them, cup rings on every flat surface, annoying, desultory service...

Well, Whataburger is many things, but it sure ain't McDonald's.

We walked in, and the first thing I noticed was that the place was friggin' spotless. I mean, SPOTLESS. No cup rings, the floor was clean - and as I watched, one of the employees was carefully sweeping dropped fries out from under the tables - the employees' uniforms were neat, the dispensers were full, and I saw the cook - twice - clean the grill between orders. Even the glass doors and outside walls were spotless. I can't imagine where they find the time to wash the walls, but they apparently manage.

Dude, cleanliness in a kitchen is a requirement, but Whataburger carries it to extremes. So I was already impressed by the time I got to the counter, and got smiled at by four different employees. They took our order, got everything right on the first try, and we took a number and went to a table. By the time we had gotten James to sit still for a second, they were already bringing our food out.

While we ate - I will get to the food in a minute - we watched as the lunch rush hit. About 20 people came in within 3 minutes of each other, and this doesn't count the drive-through; they fielded it easily, the assistant manager - a girl named Saran - opening a second register as soon as more than two people were waiting. (Something way too many businesses fail to do, and it's always annoying when that happens.)

The employees were busy - something also all too rarely seen at fast-food joints. The only time I saw an employee stand still for more than 15 seconds was once, when the girl bringing people's orders out to their tables, she had to hold a tray for one last order of fries.

Finely tuned machine, guys, seriously.

We got our food.

Let me explain to you, first, that food - of any kind, even "fast," is an art form. Reducing food to a science results in McDonald's; everything is frozen, so it's exactly alike (and sucks,) and everything is heated in microwaves or heat lamps so it's exactly alike (and sucks.)

Not at Whataburger.

They say "just like you like it," and they're not fucking around.

I got a grilled chicken melt, which is a sandwich that's a grilled chicken breast with melted swiss cheese, grilled onions, grilled Bell peppers, and mayo on either a toasted wheat bun or Texas Toast.

That is one seriously yummy sandwich, guys.

But Whataburger's not just about having good food - they're about having what YOU want on it, and they use colorful little stickers on the paper they wrap your sandwiches in for every special request, just to make sure they get it right. Bacon? How many slices do you want? Extra cheese? Grilled onions, peppers, or jalapenos? They have you covered.

Delicious. And topped off with a cinnamon roll, for $1.69, that was fresh, warm, with melted icing, that was the size of my hand.

I have big friggin' mitts.

So, yeah, awesome.

And it struck me, as I was sitting there, chowing on a particularly damn fine sandwich; there's a reason for this. Two, actually: the Whataburger corporate philosophy, and good management.

First, Whataburger is an American food chain, and they're not shy about it. They fly the flag at EVERY RESTAURANT, use all American products, and have a sign in the window that says, "One nation, under God, indivisible."

They take it seriously. And the American spirit - if there is such a thing anymore, which I guess there is, from Whataburger at least - is, at its simplest, beating your competition by offering the best bang for your buck anywhere.

They deliver on that.

And secondly, good management.

What I saw in that restaurant was a solid, frictionless machine; their team knew their jobs, they were happy, motivated, energetic, hardworking, and from about 6 different countries, unless I miss my guess.

And that, folks, is exactly what the American "melting pot" was supposed to produce.

I got out my receipt, dialed up to customer service, and told them that Whataburger #270 is doing a fantastic, off-the-chain job, and has (obviously) a really great management team.

And I went over and explained to the general manager about my move, and my absolute, unalloyed delight that my last meal for a while in Whataburger had been such an incredibly positive experience. I shook his hand and thanked him. He told me, "we'll expect you to come visit us. Six months sound good?"

Hell yes, it does. I don't know if it'll be POSSIBLE - but the first time I show up down here, I absolutely assure you, you will find me sitting in that Whataburger.

Think I'm going a bit overboard about a burger joint?

Step back a bit, guys, and really examine your memory; dig deep, mine your memories, and try to think of the last time you thought a fast food chain was doing a good job. Not a GREAT job, but just a GOOD one.

And then imagine how it felt to walk into one of my long-standing favorite places to eat, for what might be my last time there for years to come, and have the whole experience be not only "satisfactory," but as completely, across-the-board fantastic as that.

There's one guy I want to call out: Gerald Sanders, General Manager for Whataburger #270. He's the guy with his name on the receipt, the one upon whose shoulders the entire operation of that individual restaurant ultimately rests.

You're doing it right, man.

Thank you.

Yet More Evidence That McDonald's Is Run By Unreasonable Dicks

OK. I haven't talked about this much, because I don't, as a rule, but my wife and I are splitting up.

Part of this is that she - and my son - are going back to Pennsylvania.

Which means it's going to be a long time before I get to see my son again. Not because of anger, but just because we're both poor, and we're going to be very far apart.

So tonight is the second-to-last night I get to spend with him.

Right, let's go someplace fun!

Err, giant rainshower. The park is nothing but mud, our local mall has apparently died a sad and slow death and now haunts the landscape, a haggard-looking ghost looming over a vast expanse of parking lot like the looming specter of yet another real estate crash; where can we go?

James says, quite seriously, "I want toy."

Ok, where can we go where he gets a toy AND he can play?

Right, McDonald's has a play area, indoors, and he gets a toy in a happy meal. He won't be too traumatized by the over-fried food, the soggy cardboard buns, the limp and tasteless fries; Mickey D's it is.

So, father and son, we set off into the early evening, hand, in hand, in car seat.

The whole way, he's chanting about toys and food.

"I want to eat, Daddy!"
"I want a toy, Daddy!"
"Move that bus, Daddy!"

...It's not my fault his mom likes that home makeover show.

We get there, we get "food," and we get settled and eat.

After he decides he's had enough horrible stomach trauma, he says "Daddy, I want to go play!"

That's the whole idea, son.

So, I set him up in a chair, take his (small only by comparison to mine) shoes off his (small only by comparison to mine) feet, and turn him loose.

FREEDOM!!!

He runs over to the play area, and stops. Looks around in slight confusion.

There's the requisite brightly-colored pre-fab plastic tubes everywhere; safety netting to keep kids from falling off anything and coincidentally keep parents out of the play area entirely; giant slides, some kind of immense human hamster ball, a perfect place for kids to have a blast!

...All of it 10 feet off the ground, and reachable only by means of a kind of staircase made by alternating triangular platforms.

...Which are JUST too far apart.

Ages 3-12, right. My 3-year-old son, taller and bigger than almost any kid I've seen his age, can go no farther than the second "step," and gets to stand there and watch in frustration as kids old enough that they really shouldn't be playing on the damn thing anymore anyway - what the hell is a ten-year-old doing on a red plastic indoor slide?! - go scampering around up above him, as he is unable to climb up to them - and I am prevented from helping him by McDonald's wonderful safety netting.

He jumped up and down.

He stopped.

He started to sniffle.

He climbed back down, came out, took my hand, and dragged me to the table.

He stuck his (small only in comparison to mine) feet out for his (small only in comparison to mine) shoes.

He took my hand again.

He dragged me out of the restaurant, saying, tearfully, over and over again, "Daddy, I want to play. I want to PLAY."

We got to the car, I opened the door, he climbed in and got into his car seat. I buckled him in. He crossed his arms, ducked his head, and stuck his lower jaw out so far he looked like something out of a Dick Tracy comic.

I got in the car.

He said, very sulkily, "I want a FRY."

I gave him one.

We drove home, punctuated by an occasional sniffle or "more fries, daddy?"

Bada ba ba baaa, you fuckers.

It's Falling Apart On You, Isn't it (Part 3: "OMFG, Was that My Axle?!" Edition)

So, I've talked about the Toyota recalls.

But it's time for a little more about it, in light of recent events.

See, for all the posturing, it wasn't just Toyota. In the last two weeks, GM, Nissan, and Honda have all had to do massive recalls, as well.

Considering all the bits recalled in the first wave of Toyota recalls were made by subsidiaries of the Dana Holding Corporation, I'm left wondering how many of the parts in these recalls were, as well?

Perhaps someone should consider a safety and quality audit for Dana Corporation and its subsidiaries. Especially considering we're now talking about Nissan recalling 500,000+ vehicles, Honda recalling 400,000+ vehicles, and GM recalling 1.3 MILLION vehicles, on top of the already massive Toyota recalls.

I mean, guys, we're talking about nearly as many vehicles recalled in the last month and a half as were sold on the planet in total for all of last year; does anyone else think this may be cause for concern?

...Does anyone else wonder, just maybe, how many of the cars made by other manufacturers ALSO have these same faulty parts, that we just don't yet know about?

It's Falling Apart On You, Isn't It (Part 2: Climate Change Boogaloo)

It's accepted.

That's the mantra the proponents of the "anthropogenic global warming" theory keep trying to drum into our heads.

It's accepted as fact.

That doesn't mean it IS fact; they don't care about facts.

Only the agenda.

The problem with that is that the theory itself doesn't make any sense; the facts don't support it; and their agenda is tremendously damaging to a public which is gradually becoming aware of its ramifications.

The result?

In order to get their agenda to pass, the loons the environmental lobby has managed to get into government (worldwide, not just ours,) are willing to rely on fraud on a massive scale.

So, the first step? Make sure the climate data that's reported matches their intended conclusion.

Well, how do you do that?

First, by hanging climate sensors next to halogen lightbulbs, for example.

It also helps to have "volunteers" manning the climate stations that are willing to flatly fabricate data when they don't want to be bothered to report, or even check, the actual data.

When that still results in skepticism, they resort to trying to hide the data.

If that falls through, they have Al Gore come along and tell you that the massive snowfalls this year are due to the weather being warmer; they claim this makes sense, because warmer air carries more water. They really, really try to push this argument.

Even when it's not only not true, but OBVIOUSLY so. So much so that it almost takes no effort to counter those arguments; all it requires is a simple temperature survey. So let's do one, shall we?

Here's an article which discusses all the recent blizzards; I will specifically address February 10th.

Washington, DC's average temperature on February 10th is 37 degrees (High 45, low 29.) Record high was set in 1960, at 68 degrees, record low was -8, in 1899.

So what did it look like this year?

Well, this year, the average was 25.9 degrees - not only low, but below the average LOW temperature for DC this time of year. And they had a massive blizzard; a FOOT of snow.

If warmer air was responsible, how come the temperature is lower?

Never mind, I know they can't answer that.

That's ok. They have bigger issues at hand.

The U.N. climate chief is stepping down. "For personal reasons," of course, not the massive and ever-growing scandals.

That's ultimately a drop in the bucket, though.

What's really bad is how they're having to show their hand - and their intent - so openly.

It's called "good cop, bad cop."

First, Obama makes an empty symbolic gesture, of the type of which he seems so fond, and announces funding for several nuclear projects. Funding, of course, in the form of loans to power companies to build nuclear plants.

That's great!

Of course, they're the old-style uranium and plutonium reactors that can melt down, produce toxic waste, vent hot water into rivers, and that the greenies have quite rightly screeched about for years, instead of the non-polluting, non-heat-venting, meltdown-immune thorium reactors I've mentioned before that can be built anywhere, instead of just on rivers, but hey, any port in a storm, right?

He doesn't even have a disposal site picked out for the toxic waste, but that's not the point of this gesture, you see.

The point of the gesture is that Joe Schmoe (who I pick on a lot,) doesn't know one nuclear reactor from another, and thus can't tell that these reactors are bad, and the others are good; all he sees is "nukes."

Then, when the Republicans - and the greenies - oddly agreeing on something, complain about the new reactors, Obama can say "you've been bitching for years about wanting nukes, you got nukes, now STFU," and Joe Schmoe will think he's right.

Yes, yes, that's clearly what we've been asking for, is bad, polluting reactors from the first generation of nuclear technology - you know, from the 1950's - because nukes are inherently good; as opposed to good, non-polluting fourth-generation reactors - you know, from this year, with current technology - which are much safer, create a smaller footprint both physical and ecological, produce no toxic waste, don't vent heat, and use a far more common mineral in general supply.

Why would we want those?

They're counting on you to not know the difference.

And with the other hand, having made their good-cop gesture with their left, they produce: "In order to meet our emissions goals in ten years, we're going to have to raise gas to $7 a gallon."

Because clearly, our economy will survive that. After all, it's strong, in a robust, solid period of sustained positive growth.

You want to know what I don't get?

I don't get why the Teamsters' Union isn't screaming its bloody head off; if they use massive taxes to raise gas to $7 a gallon - it's already going up, for no legitimate economic reason - the trucking industry will cease to exist.

Of course, that would have NO other effects on our economy at ALL. No prices would get raised, no companies would go out of business, everyone but the truckers will be FINE.

Do you honestly believe that?

I don't. So I'll ask a simple question.

Given the obvious impact this would have on any hopes we have of an economic recovery, what agenda could be worth that?