It Phils Sooooo Good

THANK GOD IT'S OVER.

Phantastic

I would just like to mention that the world will be a much better place when tonight, THIS WEBSITE will no longer have reason to exist, and will be taken down.

We've been Chasing this for years, but to get that Victorino at home will be well Werth the wait.

Maybe We Should Go Back To Those Days

Very, very funny. And so true. Hmmm. Connected?





h/t The Natalist Diaries

Tax or Treat

Roasting McCain and Unable

This is absolutely fantastic. I really wish this John McCain were in the debates. There'd be no chance for the Obamanation. Sorry it's in two parts. Couldn't find the whole bit in just one video.



And here's the second part:



But Obama, not so good, until he got to the self-effacing reference to his birth not happening at a manger but on Krypton, and all that followed.



Good Stuff.

Socialites

Great. All the world needs right now is more social drinkers, social smokers and SOCIAL SOCIALISTS.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

An Unlikely Proponent of Gay Marriage

I had begun a long post (surprise surprise) on how essential it is that Californians vote YES on PROP 8 this coming November. I had begun formulating two quite extensive arguments, one from a theological point of view and the other from secularist principles, starting with the nature of marriage and how homosexual activity is by its essence contrary to the activity of marriage. And since a species cannot belong to a genus to which its very essence is contrary, it would be impossible to truthfully and honestly claim that the species 'gay marriage' is a legitimate member of the genus 'valid marriage'.

I then began to describe another point- since Prop 8 is essentially a matter of linguistic semantics, it would behoove us to recognize that loose language is what got us into this problem in the first place, and the subtle effects of it are even found on the protectmarriage.com website and in the language of Prop 8 itself: this isn't about gay marriage, it's about homosexual marriage. Calling homosexual relationships 'gay' is like calling self-mutilation 'pleasurable'. It might be perceived to be so by some, but only if they are disordered and can no longer recognize what real pleasure is. I abhor the usurpation language by those who wish to undermine its meaning so as to denude it of any moral gravity that would otherwise condemn their unjustifiable actions.

And then a thought hit me, and it sounded so funny, and yet so impeccably truthful that I erased all I had written and began again with this:

I strive for being a husband in a gay marriage.

Yes, you read that right. In fact I would go so far as to say that gay marriage is only possible when one man and one woman, in the words of John Paul II, recognize that their respective masculinity and femininity complete each other in a physical, spiritual and sacramental manner, for it is only via this recognition, either implicit or explicit, that happiness is found in marriage.

Not only is gay marriage acceptable, but should be that hallmark of success in every marriage.

So when you go into the voting booth in 3 short weeks, remember that while it is essential to vote YES that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.", it is equally as important to restore the idea of 'gay marriage' in the only way it should be used: to describe a happy marriage.

Freedom of Choice Pact

Forget taxes. Forget Wall Street. Forget the war in Iraq. All issues pale in comparison to the issue of life when it comes to which issue carries the most intrinsic weight, and which is the one we must answer first, given the gravity of the subject. IN THIS ARTICLE, Hadley Arkes makes a good case (in fact, a very similar argument to Blaise Pascal's in 'The Wager' for the primacy of Theology given the stakes involved...) for what is the real issue here and in every election till this is resolved:

Every issue in our politics involves the concern for the righting of wrongs, the relief of injuries or injustice. They may involve people threatened with the foreclosure of their homes, the loss of their jobs and their health insurance. All of these cases involve the suffering of hurts and harms. But they also depend on a judgment of the beings who count as “persons,” for if they don’t count, the harms they suffer go curiously unnoticed. In that famous scene in Huckleberry Finn, Huck had contrived a story and told Aunt Sally that his boat was delayed because "we blowed out a cylinder-head." Aunt Sally reacted: "Good gracious! anybody hurt?" "No'm. Killed a nigger." "Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt."

Obama, as a man keen on the issue of race, should keep this quote on his wall instead of pictures of Ché Guevara the murderous, wretched mercenary of Communist puppet masters (Obama's new motto: 'Ché you can believe in'...). But he doesn't. He has signed the pact.

And because he doesn't see a fetus as a person either at conception or through birth, Obama can somehow manage to hold his head up and sign the pact with planned parenthood et al. to codify evil:



And he's serious. Because he not only thinks of a fetus as a non-person, but even born BABIES ARE A PUNISHMENT for what would otherwise be to him an acceptable promiscuity. And this is why we must end this vote-for-Ron-Paul-to-send-a-message-to-the-Republican-Party bullshit right here and now. Some otherwise very intelligent people are voting for Ron Paul this November. Let me put it very simply: voting for Ron Paul takes away votes from McCain. I'd love to see Ron Paul on the republican ticket as much as, or more than, the next guy, or even as a viable third party (which wouldn't happen) but the reality is that Ron Paul is doing for Obama what Ross Perot did for Bill Clinton. Now is not the time to make some ideological but impractical stand. Now is not the time to be playing with fire, no matter the policy Ron Paul stands for. Watch this to see what we will be living with for the next four years, and what we'll be missing if good people put naive but true ideological constructs in front of the realities and practicalities of political life:

Taxognomy and Taxing Ignominy

Recently, I posted a bit by Prof. David R. Kamerschen called BAR-STOOL ECONOMICS. This synopsis of Prof Kamerschen is a basic description of Reaganomics and an essential component in the trickle-down theory of economics. Some questions have been raised as to the validity of this description, and so I thought I'd revisit this subject, especially in the light of Barack Obama's continued insistence that his tax cut to 95% of working Americans is what the country needs, and is a complete turning away from the Bush budgets, where only the rich get tax relief.

Among the middle class and/or uninformed, it is a generally held but wrong opinion that Republicans only give tax breaks to the top 1-2% (i.e. the Rich) and tax the poor (i.e. the rest of the country), while Democrats give tax breaks to the bottom 98%, and tax the rich. The reality is that the Bush tax cuts of 2003 were the most progressive tax cuts for the middle class in quite some time. (Don't get me wrong, I think that Bush is an idiot economist...his tax cuts are good policy, but only when combined with less spending. Unfortunately Bush is a quasi-Republican when it comes to taxation-where he continues to tax the rich and undertax the welfare addicted masses- and a Democrat when it comes to spending. This is the worst possible mix.)

Take a look at the Wall Street Journal's analysis of the Bush tax cuts back in 2003 HERE, and more importantly, HERE.

Overlooking for the moment the role this (unfortunately) plays in (undermining) trickle-down economics, one must be turning a blind eye to the facts if it's believed for a moment that Republicans don't help the little guy. Simply put, the tax on the middle class has been cut significantly, which, as a solid member of such class, I feel not only in rate deductions but also in credits. How is this possible? Because the rich, while getting a tax cut under Bush, will make up a greater portion of the total tax revenue. This is bifurcation of tax revenue at it's worst.

Families with incomes over $100,000 would end up paying a larger share of the total income tax. These families would pay 73% of all federal income taxes. Not to put too fine a point on this income redistribution, but taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 could expect on average to pay about $99,000 in taxes under Mr. Bush's plan.

But take a look at the Obama reality. Under the Obama plan, 95% of working Americans will get a tax 'relief'-but 10% of America will get screwed more than even he recognizes. Howso? Because when he cuts income taxes on the middle class, he'll raise it on the wealthy publicly and on everyone privately- he proposes increases to the social security tax, death tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax, etc. etc. But he's also going to increase spending. So he'll raise taxes even higher (one wonders why the $200,000 earners paying up to 73% in taxes haven't revolted yet. They will soon). This results in wealthy having less money to 'play' with.

'What's the big deal', you ask? 'Who cares if some rich jerk can't afford another yacht?

Simply put, the wealthy spend the greatest percentage of their money investing in American Markets. What they spend on goods is trivial compared to their investments. They do this because they are greedy and they want more money. The poor and middle class spend the greatest percentage of their money on goods (and usually goods which make them 'feel' wealthy like big screen T.V.s and new foreign cars). They do this because they are greedy and they want others to think they have more money. So while the wealthy are putting money back into American markets, the poor and middle class is busy giving their money to China, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, etc. Truly, if Barack Obama becomes president, he will ensure that every single person in America will have a home, two car garage, and 2.5 big screen TVs.

Thus the result of taxing the rich and giving it to the poor is that American companies won't have investors (because the rich can't invest, and they're also not selling goods because the poor are buying cheap foreign crap rather than American goods)

Thus, when Mr. Obama and the Democratic economic machine gets into office, plan on more American companies either going out of business or going overseas. And soon after that you'll lose your job.

And then you won't have to pay any taxes.

A Dreadful Evening

2 tickets to the NLCS in the left field bleachers, full of vocabulary challenged idiots sporting faux-Manny dreadlocks with a penchant for chanting "PHILLY SUCKS, PHILLY SUCKS" all freaking night, merely because the Dodgers got lucky with a 5 run first inning: $250

Replacing your shirt after being pelted with peanuts, condiment bags, ice cubes,mystery missiles, waterbottles, nachos, half-eaten dodger dogs and beer all night: $30

Being the only ones wearing Philly red in a sea of drunken and belligerent Dodger blue when the benches cleared in the third: Priceless.