Well, the Democrats are debating *their* new spending package, and some of the stuff in it has started to come out. For one thing, despite a promise of ‘no pork,’ there’s pork in it.
Everybody who’s surprised, raise your hand. Those of you who’ve raised your hands, please verify that your brains are actually *inside* your head, and that they didn’t leak out of your ears last night.
However, there’s one bit that folks are up in arms about that I actually agree with Pelosi on (I know, I shuddered too.)
Using some of the funds on birth control.
We’re not talking about forcing people to use birth control or get abortions – China-style population control. A lot of people seem to think we are, so let’s get that out of the way first. Based on what I’ve heard about it, these hundreds of millions for ‘family planning’ are primarily for making contraceptives available for free/at reduced cost to low-income individuals.
Not only to the unemployed, but to the underemployed and college students.
Now, will this stimulate the economy? Not immediately, no. But funding birth control is one of the best returns on investment the government has ever tripped over. It’s certainly a better return than abstinence only sex-ed! Why?
Because doing this allows people who *don’t* want to have kids and can’t afford them – regardless of race or social status – to not have them. This keeps families from having to take welfare from the states and federal government.
It also means that the kids who are born will, presumably, be born more often to families that can afford to raise them. This gives *them* better odds in life of ending up in college and better jobs. It keeps *them* from perpetuating the poverty cycle that leads to a continuous upward-spiral of welfare, crime, and related issues (I am *not* saying that everybody on welfare is a criminal – my family was once too.)
Perhaps more importantly… making contraception easier to get means that abortions happen less often. I’m pro-choice, but that doesn’t mean I want to see abortions happen more often. Which is a better expenditure, by the government or *anybody*? A buck for a condom, or $600 for an abortion?
That right there pretty much makes contraception a good investment, if you ask me.
Ultimately, this sort of expenditure actually has an impact on future expenditures by the state. Should it be bundled in with the stimulus package? I don’t know. But it *is* a good place to spend money. Maybe if we can get comprehensive sex-ed on the menu next, we can make sure people actually know how to *use* that contraception once they can get it….
Well, I promised something to piss off the liberals, so here we go.
Bush, in his recent press conference, said he was disappointed in not finding WMD’s in Iraq. Thereby perpetuating the great myth of all the wrong-headed thinking about the war lately….
Namely, that Iraq had no WMD’s, and that the whole thing was a great big boondoggle meant to get at Iraqi oil (BTW – look how well that worked for us!)
This pisses me off slightly more than the continuing global warming ‘crisis,’ so I’ll go ahead and talk about it first.
The great lie of anti-war rhetoric, while dealing with the current Iraq War, is that Hussein had no WMD’s, and that we knew it full well. I hold that he did have them, and we knew he had them, and some intelligence agencies believed he was preparing to create more. While not all intelligence agencies agreed with this assessment, the decision was made to go in and take out the Hussein regime before he had a chance to prove them wrong, particularly since his chosen method for doing so tended to be gassing his own citizens.
Does this justify going to war without an attack? I don’t know, and I’m glad I’m not the one who has to make that sort of call, unlike the hundreds of Congressmen who authorized the war.
Now, accepted wisdom is that I’m a total crackpot for thinking that – we all know there weren’t any WMD’s, after all!
And I have a friend of the family who used to be in the Hazmat disposal units; while I got no details from him, I have it on his authority that there were a lot more that were found in various places throughout the country. They weren’t trumpeted as examples of how we were right because we didn’t want to give anybody shooting at us an idea of where to look for more.
Now, after this was brought out, I heard some people making excuses about how they were degraded and weren’t dangerous, or able to be used in weapons anymore.
I heard some people say that it didn’t matter, because those WMD’s pre-dated the Gulf War.
But that’s not no WMD’s. It is an argument that they didn’t have “stockpiles,” (though, given what the media sometimes considers an arsenal, I’d say it qualifies). It is an argument that they weren’t actually ramping up to start producing again. But it’s not “no WMD’s.”
I’ve heard some people say that it didn’t matter, because there weren’t any delivery systems.
Were there huge stockpiles of WMD’s just waiting for Al Qaeda to use when we went into Iraq? No. But there weren’t “no WMD’s” either. That people continue to believe that is the case is one of the biggest boondoggles of the century to date.
It spells out the issue quite nicely.
Okay, so not a full-blown ‘pissing somebody off’ post just yet, but that can wait until the year’s a bit further along.
Hmm. So, 15 minutes watching a game and the hot men and women in it can give you body image issues.
Point 1: Gamers. Ladies and gentlemen? Many of them *should* have body image issues. I should know, we’ll leave it at that.
Point 2: More importantly, this is a phenomenon unique to video games? Oh, wait, it wasn’t… not until video games became the Great Satan. It used to be magazine ads. TV ads. Movie stars. Barbie, for God’s sake. Now, it’s video games. The issue isn’t the medium, it isn’t the people viewing it, it’s what’s being viewed. Which brings me to….
Point 3: Pro-wrestling games for the guys and beach volleyball games for the girls. Come on – who *wouldn’t* get body image issues from watching either of those? Chiseled guys, oiled up to emphasize their steroid-addled physiques, and bikini model? Refer to point 2, people.