Dude, don't get a Dell!

My mother-in-law's computer started turning off, and she called Dell.  They told her she needed a new motherboard.

CPU without the heatsink.

Being the resident computer geek, I came down to take a look and found that the bracket which holds the heatsink fan assembly to the CPU was broken, so the heatsink was not properly pressing against the CPU, and thus was not cooling the CPU.  The CPU was overheating and turning off as a safety mechanism.

My plan was to get online and find the replacement part, and fix the computer.  My mother-in-law said "Why don't you call Dell.  They'll help." 

I hate calling tech support.  I loathe it.  Each time I try, I have problems regulating my blood pressure and fight to keep a civil tongue.  Call centers don't talk to tech savvy often, so their script and experience is geared to grandmothers, Luddites, and red necks.  As such, they won't listen, assume I'm wrong, and treat me like a moron.

So, after my mother-in-law prodded me a bit more, I gave up and called Dell for a replacement part.

I  spent almost an hour on the phone with them.  After explaining what I needed over and over again, and after sending them two pictures, they still didn't understand what I needed.

They kept on saying that the part I needed came with the heatsink fan.  It does not.  Their own website said so. 

After awhile, the fellow on the phone got his  "Technical Support Manager."   This guy looked at the picture of the CPU without the heatsink and said that  that the computer didn't have a CPU installed!  Anyone who has even a modicum of computer experience, can see the CPU is there!

The broken bracket.

Since my mother-in-law has never so much as opened her case, this is a case of a material defect.

A Dell illustration showing the bracket(green)

I found the part I needed for $7 in ten minutes on Google.  Thanks Dell.  Wonderful support staff there.  You have convinced me never, under any circumstances, buy a computer from you. 

Men of Science

I am a fundamental, born again Christian. I believe the Bible completely, and have no doubts as it its veracity.

I also am a science buff. I believe I have a scientific mindset as it comes to the natural world (as my poor bride will attest, when we disagree over a measurable item.)

I believe in science. The scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and predictive testing of said hypothesis) is one of the most powerful tools ever devised to eek out knowledge.

I also have seen two reasonable, articulate, rational people look at the same data and, due to presuppositions, come to different conclusions, both of which can be argued from the data.

While society looks at the pronouncements of scientists as gospel, I must humbly point out that it is not as cut a dried as one may think.

Hard fact #1, Science has presuppositions.

That's not an insult. All humans have presuppositions. Science is no different. We assume our senses are reliable, that our memories are correct, and that existence is uniform (i.e. what happened in the past, like the sun rising, should also occur in the future)


Modern science, though, has two philosophic presuppositions that under gird all they do.
They base all of their investigations first in  naturalism and materialism.  Naturalism is the belief that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature, while materialism is the belief that "the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.  These are the basic underpinnings of modern science.


Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that God exists (I do more than assume, but I digress). If God is real, how could science ever find evidence of His existence? Their primary axioms reject the possibility! What observations could be made that, considering the basic assumptions made, could be interpreted as proof of God?

Their predisposition makes all their observations and conclusions biased.

Hard fact #2, Evidence Doesn't Speak for itself.
Science starts with observation.  Some folks believe that ovservation alone disproves God.  A great example of this is distant starlight. 

We know that some stars are billions of light years away, right?  But how do we know it?  It's not like somebody got a really long tape measure and measured it.

There are two methods of measuring these distances.  First, you can take two readings from different parts in Earth's orbit and use mathematical triangulation (call parallax) to measure distances up to 1,600 light years (using space probe built for the purpose.)

For distances greater than that, they measure the brightness of the light from the stars and infer the distance from the brightness.  While they have tested this method against all near-by stars, and it holds correct, science is making an assumption of the uniform nature of the cosmos.

Once again, we have an assumption, albeit a well-meaning, logically concluded, and rigorously tested assumption that is spoken of as if it were proven fact, despite the fact that we have only observed the universe from our tiny spec.  Our sample size is just too small to know for 100% confidence.  For example, what if there were previously undetected phenomena which dims starlight that can't be detected from the angle in which we view the heavens?

So what is my point in all this?  Well, many state that science has disproved the Bible and has proven God doesn't exist, and that to believe in science means you can't believe in God.  All of that is utter nonsense.

Science doesn't disprove the Bible nor can science even speak to the existent of God.

Science isn't incompatible with faith.  Many of the greatest scientists that ever existed believed in God.  They saw the world as a manifest testimony of the glory of God.  They sought to explain the order and complexity they saw in the handiwork of God.

Don't let the assumptions sway you.

Fine Line

Ordained Church of God in Christ Pastor , Michael Salman, is now doing time in one my favorite jails, Maricopa county (home of the down-right awesome Sheriff Joe)

Why is the pastor in jail?  Well, he says it is for holding Bible studies in his home.  The county prosecutor says it for building and fire code violations.

Before we go into the Freedom of Religion and the Constitution, it is meet now to ask why public fire and building codes exist.

Simply put, fire codes exist because fires in public places can be deadly.  The record of  fatal fires is a very long and sad one.  Here are just a few for consideration.

• 1903 Iroquois Theatre fire which killed 605 people
• 1904 Triangle Shirtwaist fire killed 146 people 
• 1963 Golden Age Nursing Home fire, which killed 63 people
• 1980 MGM Grand Fire, which killed 85 people
• 1990 Happy Land fire that killed 87 people
• 2003 The Station Night Club fire killed 100 people

The only reason we don't have even more deaths than what we do is the fire codes that exist.  When something bad happens, people look at it and say "how can we prevent that from happening again?" 

The following are some examples of current fire code regulations which are designed to safeguard lives.

• doors that open with a push bar, and swing outwards, so panicking people can get out even if the people behind them are pushing them. 
• Battery-powered fire exits that will show those who are trying to get out where to go, even in a smoky, unfamiliar room.
• Multiple exits to the building, so when there is a fire people can get out fast.
• Sprinkler systems, designed to extinguish a fire or at least contain it long enough to evacuate a building 

Homes are generally excluded from these type of regulations. 

Therein is the rub.  Pastor Salman stated that he was having a private Bible Study in his home.  They weren't open to the public, and were attended by about 40 people a week.

His"home" was actually a 2,000 square foot building behind his home that, when built, was billed as a "game room."  That's only slightly smaller than the median US home size of 2,169 reported in the 2010 Census.

The City says that if 40 people gather every Sunday, it falls under the code as a public building.

So whose right? 

• Mr. Salman has a right, as an American, to worship and lead Bible studies in his home.
• The city of Phonex has a right and duty to make sure that public spaces are not death traps by enacting and enforcing fire codes, like every other city in America.
• Churches are expected to follow the law.  That inculdes building codes, American's with Disabilities Act, fire codes, and so forth

So the only question is whether Mr. Salman had a church or a Bible study.  My gut feeling is that  Mr. Salman had a church and either couldn't afford the money,  or didn't want to expend it to find a suitable commercial property for his church.  I think he was trying to slip in under technical definitions, so he could 'have his cake and eat it too.' 

But, who decides what is a "church?"  Could the government come in and tell me and my family that our family Bible studies are somehow illegal because they're not in a regulated space?  Who decides and what about our freedom of religion and freedom of assembly?

The main issues, to me, are what is a church and where does the power of government to regulate the lives of private citizens end?

In this case, I feel that Mr. Salman was wrong to knowingly disobey the law, and skirt the law. 

But, would he be in jail if he were leading the young democrats instead of a Bible study?

For the Kids

It seems that Scientologists  Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise are getting divorced.  TMZ (I am sorry for linking to TMZ) reports that they were ready to do battle until they learned how damaging battling parents could be for their daughter, Suri.  Now, they are working together to divorce amicably.

While I applaud all parents who realize the word doesn't rise and set above them (it's not all about you), and put their children before their own selfish wants, Suri be better off if they found a path to reconciliation.

After all, many studies (like this one, and this one, and this one.  These are by no means the only ones) show that children whose biological parents stay together do better in school, have healthier lives, and have more successful relationships then children of divorce parents.  The Children whose parents divorce are more prone to drop out of school, be abused, and be unemployed.  In nearly every category, children whose parents stay together do better than those familys who don't.

Tom and Katie, since you truly love your child and want to do whats best for her,  why not get into counseling, step over the inflated egos, lose the pride, drop the selfishness, and find a way to resolve your problems? 

Stupidest Marraige Advice!

I saw link on Facebook talking about "9 Marriage Problems that Are Actually Good for Your Relationship."

When I read it, I was so taken aback by the sheer stupidity of the advice that I was stunned silent.  At least, that is, for a few moments.

Between 41% and 50% of all first marriages end in divorces says DivorceRate.org.  The statistics are even worse for second and third marriages (more than 70% of third marriages end in divorce)

With such a high probability of failure, I can't let these stupid suggestions stand without rebuttal.

Problem One, "You both fantasize about other people." 

"This could be good for your marriage, the article says, "So thinking about a sexy neighbor, for example, can improve your marriage-as long as those racy visions stay in your mind."

Since the mind is the breeding ground for all behaviors, the slope between thinking and acting can be a very slippery one indeed.  The article says that fantasizing about others "allows you to open up to your partner physically and emotionally."

How can imaging someone else make you close to your spouse?  It doesn't.  What it does is cause you to be disillusioned with your spouse, and it will lead to relationship problems.

Problem Two, He goes out with the guys.

"Interests and hobbies outside of marriage feed a person's spirit and help break up routine."

Marriages tend either towards togetherness or isolation.  Drawing together by living a shared life of shared passions and interests knit hearts together, strengthen marriages, and repels divorce.

While separate interests isn't necessarily a bad thing and time apart is necessary for both spouse's sanity, if both the husband and the wife peruse their lives separately, they WILL  grow apart and have less common ground between them.  Couples should try to seek activities that they can enjoy together.

One other point.  While it is a good thing for a man to be around other men, too much time spent with "the guys" isn't healthy.  It can be a mark of immaturity, lack of commitment, or selfishness.

Problem Three,You argue a lot

"Fighting ... means you trust each other enough to share your feelings"

First, let's define terms.  According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary fighting means

To contend against in or as if in battle or physical combat

Conflict is common to all marriages.   So are fights.  But, fighting and arguing isn't healthy.  Fighting isn't about trust, it's about trying to force our way on our spouse.

While fighting can be a way for a couple to communicate, it's better to disagree without having to resort to fighting.  Fighting occurs when we allow our emotions free reign, and seek to win, not seek a solution.  When we fight, we want to be heard, not to listen.

True communication occurs when we seek to hear and understand first, and only then be heard.

Problem Four, He spends a lot of money on his hobbies. 

"But if the bills are paid and the kids are taken care of, let your husband get new golf clubs or go on a fishing trip."

Sure, it's fine to responsibly indulge yourself  from time to time.  But a consistent desire to spend money on your own own selfish desires is a mark of self-centeredness.  Being self-centered is poisonous to your marriage.

He uses porn.
 

"[Porn]... only becomes problematic when porn is used in secret or instead of interaction with a partner. "

Porn is a problem regardless of how it's used.  Porn distorts how we perceive and enjoy sex.  Porn desensitizes the user to real sexual stimuli, and may create unreasonable expectations our spouse cannot meet.

No porn use is healthy.  Porn use can lead to increased isolation, hurt, and relationship problems, and actually impair healthy sex within a marriage.

He works all the time

"Chances are, his drive and passion for his job are qualities that initially attracted you to him"

Working all the time is damaging for a marriage.  If the work is short-term, agreed upon by the couple, and used to benefit the family as a whole, it's tolerable.  When any of those items are not present, "working all the time" is intolerable.  Note:  working all the time is not a 40 hour a week job.  It's more like an 80 hour a week job.

The idea, however, of placing a career in front of the family is just plain wrong.  A man (or woman, for that matter) cannot develop close relationships to people he never is around.  Regardless of how much money or prestige it brings, it also brings loneliness and hurt.

You both flirt with other people online.

flirty friendships can be healthy as long as they don't get physical

 Sure, and building a fire in your living room floor is fine, as long as you control the flame.  If one of the spouses is feeling lonely or hurt, a flirty relationship can become something more very quickly.  Numerous families have been destroyed when a casual flirty relationship flared into some much more .

You're too tired for sex.

Of all nine, this is the only one I feel is not bad advice.  Many marital problems are caused by lack of sex.  For men, rejection breeds contempt, and contempt isn't healthy in a relationship.  Setting regular time to come together is not a bad idea.

The problem is that, for a women, the sex act isn't just physical.  To her, emotive and relational aspects are more important than just the physical.

This means that the state of the marriage, as she sees it, dictates her capacity to  want and enjoy sex.  Focusing only on the physical and ignoring the emotive and relational aspects of sex is like talking about ice cream without mentioning that it's cold.

He's close with a female colleague.

your financial stability and social status may depend on this specific office relationship

While the articles points out that honesty aids in  preventing affairs, close relationships with members of the opposite sex are quite the fertile ground for affairs

I look at marital infidelity like an infectious disease.  Public health measures prevent the spread of infections disease by controlling the vectors of contagion.  In other words, they find the ways disease spreads (cockroaches, rats, unprotected sex, etc) and tries to break the chain so infection doesn't occur.

Close relationships like those mentioned in the article crosses a line of separation, leaving a  married man susceptible for infidelity.

Sure, it's just a friendship now.  But once the relationship becomes more than just colleges, and his emotional or physical needs  aren't met, it will be a great source of temptation.

It is better to live in a smaller house, drive a smaller car, wear less fashionable clothes, than destroy your family.  Social status and financial stability are nothing compared to a intact and healthy family, and the family begins with the marriage.

Undocumented Immigrant

I am so annoyed with the phrase "undocumented immigrant."It is like saying "unauthorized, non-customer withdraws" to describe bank robbery.

The liberal position is irrational. This nation has laws on immigration that are being violated rampantly, and it seems like the liberal party line is that we, as a nation, should ignore the violation of those laws.

The conservative leadership is even more vacuous than the left.  While talking about the importance of securing the borders, they do as little as possible to tharwt the onrushing tide of illegals.

I am not debating the current immigration system at all.  I think it is broken, and broken badly.  No, what I am talking about illegal immigration.  If our  laws are wrong, we should change them not ignore them.

Ignoring the law devalues the rule of law and creates a  subclass of people to whom the law is not a protector but a persecutor. These people are open to abuse and oppression because they fear going to the law for protection because they are in violation of it.


I hear sorrowful voices on the left crying out about the "destruction of families" caused by deportation of an illegal arrested for a "minor infractions." These voices conveniently ignore that those arrested are already lawbreakers by being here illegally.

Neither major political party gives anymore than lip-service to the problem.  Both have a vested interest in keeping the status-quo.

The Democrats like illegal immigrants because it builds their political base.  Typically, illegals congregate in lower-class neighborhoods, increasing the population of these areas.  When determining representation in the U.S. House, the census counts all population, not just legal residents.  Oh, and remember that the children of these illegals people are citizens, and can vote.  When they vote, they usually vote Democratic.

Republicans like illegal immigrants because they represent business owners and business owners like low-cost labor. Illegals come from lands where the daily wages are a fraction of what a documented worker can demand, and are happy to be abused.  They can even be paid less than minimum wage, because who are they going to complain to, the wage and labor board?

We need to take sensible steps to fix this problem.

1. Immediatly seal the borders. We need to finish building the fence across our southern border.  We need to apply enough resources to be able to intercept and repel all border crossings.
2. We need to seriously address our immigration policy, and reform it such that immigrants who wish to migrate legally can do so (within reason, of course.)
3. We should hold the current employers accountably for breaking labor law, and employee illegals.  If the penalty is sever enough and enforce consistent enough, all current illegals will leave on their own when their work drys up.  Once they get home, they can apply for a visa like everyone else.

Teen Pregnancy

I read an article in the Charleston Gazette Mail about teen pregnancy rates in WV that left me dumbfounded.  I have several problems with the attitudes revealed in this article.

First, While I agree that it's a problem,  I think the article oversimplified the problem.  Births to unwed mothers in general and teenager unwed mothers in specific are a problem.  Married 18 and 19 year-old mothers are not the problem. It isn't just age.

Second, the article talks about pregnancy and birth  as if they were diseases.  Pregnancy is the rational, expected outcome of the activity designed to produce it.  Birth naturally follows pregnancy.  Nobody works out in the gym, and wonders why she looses weight.  Nobody goes to a tattoo parlor, has needles stuck into his arm, and wonders why he  have a tattoo.  Nobody goes to work and wonders why she gets a paycheck.

I find some of the comments laughable.  Like this one.

Although one particular reason cannot be pinpointed for West Virginia's teen birthrate, Pomponio said poverty might be one factor.

Sure, I'll grant that poverty may have something to do with it (there's a joke about not affording cable TV), but I can pinpoint one reason for the high teen birthrate, actually stated it in the article.

The CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey of 2009 indicated that West Virginia has a higher rate of teen sexual activity than the national average: 54 percent compared to 46 percent.

The big news is that teens are getting pregnant because they are having premarital sex.

Note:  WV Free, the organization which published the report that the article addresses, is a pro-abortion organization.  The organization is a champion of "reproductive justice."

Searching is for Chickens

I was doing some research on COOP plans, which are Continuity of Operations plans.  It's the idea of planning how your organization will stay in business when emergencies or disasters strike.

I kept getting results about nesting chickens and chicken coops.  My mind was a million miles away from chickens, so it took me a second to realize that coop and C.o.O.P mean the same to Google.  Goes to show, you can get some really fowl results from searching.

Sallie, you're screwed up!

I was stupid.  I went into debt to get my degrees.  I owe a little over $20,000 to Ol' Sallie Mae for an Associate's and a Bachelor's degree.  I freely admit I was stupid.  No shock there, for I'm frequently stupid.

That disclaimer said, I went to answer some love-mail from ol' Sallie, and tried to log into my account.  I forgot my password.  Easy enough to do, I know.  I dare not even count the number of different web sites, accounts and services for which I must remember passwords.  But I digress.

I forgot my password, but there was an easy, simple little button that says "forgot password."  I clicked it, believing it would be simple. 

It was.  Simply frustrating.  I typed the password I wanted.  It was a nice, juicy 18-character complex password that makes computer-security types sleep well at night.  An error came back that said...

Invalid password.  Passwords must be between 8 and 32 characters long, contain at least one number and at least one letter, and must not contain the word 'password' or your user name.

Maybe the password was too long?  I counted the symbols.  Nope, less than 32.  I looked at it clsoely, and could see at least a number, and a letter, and that it did not contain 'password' nor did it contain my user name.

So I tried a different one, thinking that maybe I used this one before.  I got...

Invalid password.  Passwords must be between 8 and 32 characters long, contain at least one number and at least one letter, and must not contain the word 'password' or your user name.

So I tried another and another and another .... Until I realized what was happening. 

As part of a complex password, I was including a special symbol in each of my passwords.  As encouraged by most security geeks, I was including spaces, dollar signs, and other punctuation marks to make the password that much harder to guess. 

Ol' Sallie Mae choked on special symbols.  Did they say not to use them?  No.  Did they say "Um, here's your problem?"  No.  The web site wasted my time with that inane message that was completely off base.

Not only did they waste my time, but they show how pathetic they really are.  I mean, even Windows supports complex passwords.  Papa Johns, Gmail, and Facebook all support complex passwords. 

But good ol' Sallie Mae chokes on them, meaning that their passwords are less secure than your Speedie-Rewards account.  Great job, Sallie.

Why Facebook is good exercise for self-control

I read a post, today, from a friend on Facebook, lamenting something which needed no lament.  Today is not special.  At least once a week I see a post which tells me the poster either has a serious lack of understanding of the way the world works, or a complete misunderstanding of cause and effect.
These provide wonderful opportunities for my to practice keeping my virtual mouth shut.   Here are some general (made-up) examples of what I'm talking about and, no, I'm not thinking of you, whomever you are taking offense. 

Post:   "We have no money, I don't know what to do"
What I want to say:  "Turn off the x-box, and get a job.  McDonald's is hiring, and you're not too good to flip burgers."

Post:  "We are at our whits-end, we just don't know what to do.  Little Johnny is completely out of control!"
What I want to say:    Well, since you haven't tried it yet, why not try being a real parent?  You know, grown a spine, be the boss, say no, don't give in, and enforce some discipline.

Post:  "Look how tough I am!  Person so-and-so made me mad, so I will try a little spineless, passive-aggressive character assassination behind his/her back by berating them on Facebook without using that person's name!"
What I want to say:  Say it to the person's face, or shut your mouth.  You obviously have the spine of a jellyfish.

I didn't say anything.  I consider that an accomplishment.

PETA

This article in the International Business Times reports that the new xxx top level domain name is causing some porn business to fuss at having to 'protect their brands'.  While my heart breaks for the poor business (please hear the insincerity and sarcasm in that comment), I found this blurb very interesting.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have also signed up and instead of blocking its name the organization will launch peta.xxx as a pornography site that draws attention to the plight of animals, according to PETA spokeswoman Lindsay Rajt.

So, for those of us who detest PETA, we now have a new reason to detest that group even further.   So even while PETA's Wikipedia Article states that

The group regularly protests the use of animals in entertainment, including circuses.

They announce that they don't have a problem exploiting women to help animals.

Response to "Envy"

My blog posts sync with my Facebook account.  My brother responded to my blog post of  4/30/2010 (which finally was posted  today).  He said

Isn't the idea of equality supposed to be a founding principle of this nation? 

To which I reply, "It depends upon which type of equality you are referring."


There is equality before the law, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence.  In it, our founding fathers stated

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The “Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts”, penned by John Adams in 1780 perhaps states the idea more clearly.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness

They wrote this in rebuttal to the idea of the Divine Right of Kings at a time when the law for the commoner was not the law for the royals. Created equal means that our nation does not recognize certain classes to be superior than others and all people in this nation have equal state and standing before the law.
Even though we've veered some from this founding notion of our nation with some of the current class-based politics (hate crimes, protected classes in employment law, affirmative action laws, etc in which one group is 'more equal' than others.) and that wealth and power still create a pseudo nobility which often receive much fairer treatment than the poor and obscure (to the nation's shame), most of our nation's law is based around guiding principle.
But I wasn't talking about that kind of equality. No, I meant the equality of outcome.
My problem with equalizing outcome that I discussed in my blog post is that in attempting to equate outcome, the government must restrict freedom.  It has no other choice. Either it must take from one to give to another, or prevent one from accomplishing his potential so that he will not overshadow those with less potential.
If we are both handed a shovel, one of us digs for ten hours while the other doesn't, the results aren't equal.  We both had an equality of opportunity (the shovel, the dirt, and the ability to dig), but outcome was not equal.  If we were paid by cubic foot of dirt dug, one would make out well, the other wouldn't.
But, equality of outcome means that in the above scenario the government ignores the difference in the amount of effort applied and money it takes from one and give to the other, to make things equal.
Is it fair for you, after toiled in the sun all day to dig that hole, for the government to take your pay to give to me, who found a shady spot and napped?  This rewards my sloth, and punishes your  work.  When the Soviet Union experienced this, they sent men with machine guns to force both do the same amount of work. That's not freedom but oppression.
Furthermore, the highest need in Maslow's hierarchy of needs is self-actualization, which I will define as a human reaching his or her fullest potential based on the skills, desires, talents and abilities he posses. Under a model of equality of outcome, nobody can reach this except, perhaps, the lowest-functioning among us.
The only true way to allow people to grow and nurture the talent they have while being fair is to dispense with the notion of equality of outcome and focus solely on equality of opportunity because attempting to enforce that type of equality leads only to equality of misery and suppression of the human spirit.

new old blog posts

For the past six years, I've been juggling  school, work, family and church, to varying degrees of success. 

Over the course of time, I've written several posts that were left in a draft state because I ran out of time.  I went back today and cleaned and posted several of them.

So enjoy the years old new posts!

Defict

I get so ticked when I listen to the brainless talking heads on the news!  They have these serious-sounding discussions about the Federal deficit and seldom discuss the underlying debt!

The deficit is only the amount by which the Federal Government overspends each fiscal year.  Imagine it like this...

If a family making $55,000 a year, spends $90,400 a year, it's deficit is $35,400. 

Consider the fact that the same family have been overspending for decades, and owe a combined total of  $332,000 of outstanding debt. 

Now throw into the mix a discussion between the mom and dad, about how much money to cut from the budget.  Dad says that they need to cut $5,400 but mom says that's too harsh, they need trim only $3,000.  Any sane human would scream "You morons!  You need to cut at least $35,400 JUST TO AVOID ADDING TO THE DEBT!"


These numbers are in the same proportion as the Federal Budget (with the exception of the proposed cuts, I just made those up for illustration.  Democrat and Republican proposals would cut even less than my illustration)

In 2010, the  Federal tax income was $2.16 trillion.  Outlays were $3.55 trillion with a national debt of nearly $14 trillion.

Folks, this is insane!!  We cannot continue to borrow like this!  If the federal government didn't spend a dime on anything else but the debt, it would take over six years to pay off.

It's worse than you think.

In 2010, Federal entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, TANIF, etc) was 96% of Federal revenues.  Interest payments on the debt was another 9.9% of Federal revenues.  This means that before we build a road, buy a bullet, pay a solider, hire an FBI agent, or launch a Space Shuttle, we're already in the hole $125 billion!


Our elected leaders have to make tough decisions to fix this mess, and they are unwilling to do so.   Elected officials don't like to offend people. So if they have a decision of doing x or doing y, and the people are going to get up set with either giving up x or giving up y, our brilliant folk just do both and pay for it later!

What we need is a balanced budget amendment to the constitution.  Four-fifths majority to spend more than they take in, authorized only for six months.  The provision would be waved for the duration of a declared war.

What this would do is require the government officials to actually make the hard decisions like raise taxes, cut spending, stop intervening militarily everywhere in the world, and maybe even stop proposing new social programs.
 
This is not a left or right issue.  If nothing is done, our nation will collapse under the weight of its debt, and our people will be subjected to pain the likes of which they've never before known.  After all, somebody has to pay the fiddler for the dance. 

Democracy out of control.

Peter Barca, the Democrats’ Assembly leader said  “Our democracy is out of control in Wisconsin, and you all know it — you can feel it.”


Why?  Because the people voted folks into office that differed politically from him?  Really?  No, Peter.  Democracy is out of control when elitist like you decide they know better than the electorate.  I think democracy is doing just fine.