Posted by sweetliberty on 11/15/09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gArUEEE1OF8

Posted by sweetliberty on 11/10/09

This is classic Bay Area:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/10/BAI21AHKDL.DTL&t
sp=1

First Tom Espinoza had his car stolen. Then he had to pay the city to get it back.

[...]

...in 2005, Mayor Gavin Newsom proposed that only city residents should get out of paying the fees, and it passed the Board of Supervisors 9-2. The reason was pretty obvious. According to FBI crime statistics, 5,758 vehicles were stolen in San Francisco in 2008. At $330 a pop, that could run into serious money.

So Espinoza, who lives a stone's throw from the city limits in Daly City and attended high school at St. Ignatius and college at San Francisco State, is out of luck.

"Yep," he said. "I had to pay to get my stolen car back."

Even the mayor's office is starting to wonder if that's good policy.

"I can see so no good reason why you should be victimized twice if your car is stolen," said spokesman Nathan Ballard.

---

Government: It's not about "keeping citizens safe." It's about raking in money to fund the welfare state so that nobody's feelings get hurt.

Seriously -- aren't these types of things what a local government *should* be funding? But instead, Gavin Newsom passes legislation to ban trans-fats and smoking.

Posted 11/10/09 rightsman Las Vegas,, NV

sweetliberty, If the government has banned trans fats and smoking, they must be good for you. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. Eat those eggs fried in butter. Sell your car and walk. It will really piss off the Revenue Enhancement Officers - formerly known as cops. Peace and Love, Robert Walker

Posted 11/10/09 bobjones68 Schaumburg, IL

Mr Walker, I've got one lit, all 3 eggs scrambled in butter with extra cheese and 5 strips of bacon, a large Coke to go with me coffee, then off to work I go.....

Posted 11/10/09 LizLiz Brooklyn(or Cresco,PA!) , NY

^ mmmmmmmmm

Posted by sweetliberty on 11/09/09

Why? Because it implies that the government owns your earnings, and allows you to keep whatever portion of them it deems appropriate.

And that portion, at least in California, just got a little smaller:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-state-tax31-2009oct31,0,2028140.story

Starting Sunday, cash-strapped California will dig deeper into the pocketbooks of wage earners -- holding back 10% more than it already does in state income taxes just as the biggest shopping season of the year kicks into gear.

That's right, folks. The reason my paycheck was smaller (as noted in a previous blog post) is because California decided it needed more of my money. So lawmakers voted to take more. Oh, and don't worry -- it's not as if Californians won't get their money back. The state has promised to refund it with our tax refunds in April. Just hope they're not issuing their famous IOUs by then.

Take a look at this lovely quote from the article:

But Stephen Levy, director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, wasn't so sure [the extra withheld would negatively impact consumer spending].
"It's having a relatively small impact on people's income," Levy said, pointing out that many families will receive only $12 to $40 less each month.

Oh, I see. So as long as it's not a very LARGE amount of money, then nothing is morally or Constitutionally wrong. Right?

First of all, Mr. Levy et al., I'm losing $50 a month, not the benign-sounding $12. And second of all, even if the state was stealing just a single copper penny from me, stealing is stealing. A wrong is still wrong, whether it has a "relatively small impact" or not.

This is so indicative of the way the government of California and the United States works. The idea of standing on principles is literally laughed at, while the lawmakers repeated vote away citizens' wealth, without citizens' consent, and then quietly escape out of office or have another crisis before they have a chance to see the consequences or take the responsibility for what they've done.

On a bright note, the article contained this smart quote, from Bill Dombrowski, president of the California Retailers Assn:

"Any time you reduce people's disposable income, there's going to be a negative effect on the retail sector."

If only the fat cats in Washington would listen to that obvious simplicity. You want an economic recovery? Higher retail sales? A boost in consumer spending? The give people back their money so that they can actually spend it.

Posted 11/09/09 Robyn Hamlin Saint Louis, MO

even if the state was stealing just a single copper penny from me, stealing is stealing. A wrong is still wrong, whether it has a "relatively small impact" or not.

Posted 11/09/09 BillNM Carlsbad, NM

Right on. But if the State steals a penny from you it will more than likely be pot metal. They stopped copper pennies over twenty years ago. Just another way of inflating the currency.

Posted 11/09/09 Fu Manchu Belleville, MI

So i guess they're not legalizing marijuana? Are you ready to leave CA yet?

Posted by sweetliberty on 11/09/09

Here's what I've realized: most people I know who support Obama have no idea what he really stands for. They don't know that he's increased the number of troops overseas; that he voted to renew the Patriot Act; that he favors unmanned drone attacks and believes in the ludicrous notion of "too big to fail." They think all of these things are happening via some kind of parallel dimension still under the influence of the Bush administration. "Bush started it," and all that.

"Bush started it" is a deflection. It's meant to divert attention away from the fact that they, deep down, know Obama is betraying them. They want someone to blame. But how long will the "Bush started it" mantra last? It's been nearly a year since Obama took  office -- surely someone, somewhere needs to start holding HIM responsible for what's happening in the White House.

Here in California, the 'gay marriage' issue opened many peoples' eyes to Obama. Many proponents of equality in marriage expected him to lead the way, or at least line up behind the movement. But he didn't.

Then they expected him to stop bailing out crony banks and corporate buddies. But he didn't.

Of course they expected him to withdraw from Iraq and at least scale back our military presence overseas, but what they got was the opposite.

But the funny thing is (and trust me, it's not "funny, ha, ha") these folks still claim to support Obama. He has a phenomenally high approval rating in California, despite the fact that his actions run counter to what most Californians want. I don't know how the cognitive dissonance isn't driving them all batty, or how they can rationalize what a "great" President he is, when he's doing everything his predecessor, whom they wanted desperately to impeach, did.

But sooner or later, the folks in California and throughout the country are going to have to reconcile what they believe, and the actions of the politicians they support. I hope that day arrives in time for the 2010 elections.

Posted by sweetliberty on 11/08/09
Last updated 11/09/09

This is how I'm feeling about America right now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO5WoLnOOlU

Hilarious 3-minute That Mitchell And Webb Look skit, but it struck a chord. I used to think America was the best country in the world, because we had freedom and we were the good guys. Now? Not so much.

Posted 11/09/09 Elysiumboy Billericay, United Kingdom

Very funny - I've not seen it before either. I love the waking up - it feels a lot like that when you suddenly realise being at war all around the world, having banks controlling our lives and government with their nose right in it, isn't normal after all. We are ruled by propaganda, spin, complete bulls**t, whatever you wish to call it. Thank goodness for Only fools and horses!