Privatization of exclusive government functions leads to corruption and erosion of our rights.

This story underscores a basic fact about privatization of government functions, viz., that it leads to corruption and rights violations for our citizens.

When companies, like private prisons, make their profits based on the number of beds they fill, then increasing the number of inmates becomes incentive-ized.

It's that simple.

In my opinion, there are three exclusive government functions that are non-delegable:

1) Administration of justice

2) Collection of taxes

3) National Defense.

If you'll check your recent history, and by that I mean since Bush was elected, then you'll note an increase in privatization of all those functions. The news stories of those failures are ample.

Privatization is code for tolerable corruption.

Keeping our government answerable to the people means that privatizing certain functions intimate to the running of our country must never occur.

This case is a prime example of why. These judges give law and order a bad name.

Venality of this sort deserves public flogging.

Weed use linked to lower rates of workplace injury.

Here's an interesting scientific study that produced some counter-intuitive results.

(It's a pdf..)

Basically, the Swiss study showed that alcohol use while on the job led to greater workplace injury.

Here's the kicker: Marijuana use on the job was linked to lower rates of workplace injury even lower than that of workers not under the influence!

My suspicion is that the stoners are avoiding work while on the job so they have overall lower risks on the job.

Guess we'll need another study to find out.

Government is getting out of faith-based funding--The Constitution is finally on top again.

This story is good news.

I've always had my doubts about the Constitutionality of government funding of faith-based organizations. It violates the Establishment Clause in my opinion.

Furthermore, I don't think it fair that organizations who get tax-exempt status under the 1st Amendment should get tax money from those of us without the same benefits. Why should those groups who don't pay expand at the expense of those who do?

It's unfortunate for the populations these organizations serve, but we can ill-afford to fudge even a single time on the Constitution. It is inviolate.

The law is the law and to allow any exceptions sets a bad precedent.

Holder calls the nation out on matters of race--Excellent!

I give kudos to the Attorney General for his blunt assessment of race issues in America. We needed calling out on it.

For too long we as a nation have tiptoed around race, when what we need is an open and honest discussion. No group has a claim on being correct on this.

Here's what I know: Every single person has a race issue on some level. Failure to acknowledge that keeps our head in the sand.

Refusal to accept that simple fact will get us nowhere.

The mere fact that all of us suffer from prejudice is what makes us more alike than different.

Racism is inappropriate, but until we openly discuss matters of race without fear of political correctness or fear of labeling then we cannot grow as a nation.

Race is an outdated concept and I think most people are willing to explore the opportunity to move beyond it.

New drug shows how stupid pharma can be with their cash

Stories like this make me wonder why all the money spent to develop such a drug wasn't spent on things like, oh let me think...CANCER!

I have few problems with drug companies making a profit, but this takes the cake.

I have restless legs, but I don't take drugs for it. Likewise, why do we need a drug for improving eyelashes?

Screwed up priorities if you ask me. I'm sure they'll claim it's to help those who lost eyelashes and so on to give it some veneer of medical necessity.

So many people can't afford such a drug in today's economy that I doubt the market will support such a stupid call from the drug company who makes it.

Aggregate unemployment will result in widespread chaos.

Jobs are the fundamental resolution to our global problems.

Failure to realize this simple point will doom us all to chaos and diminishing returns in any of our attempts to fix the economy.

When companies make micro-economic labor choices, viz., layoffs, etc. then it may stave off that particular company's demise. When many companies do so globally, then it aggregates to profound effects. This is the micro-economic decisions having macro-economic effects.

Keeping employment up is the best prophylactic against protests and social turmoil. Working people have no time to protest and worry about the precariousness of their economic position.

We're in for trouble on a global scale because out-sourcing of labor will not save companies when the market is full of the unemployed. The unemployed have no means to purchase even cheap goods and services.

We're now in a time where the global economy is a zero-sum game.

Court finds no link between vaccines and autism--Jenny McCarthy needs to move on.

Finally a court has evaluated the evidence presented by parents of autistic children about the alleged link between vaccines and autism.

The findings?

The weight of the evidence shows no link between autism and vaccines.

That's what the science has said for years, but despite the evidence and the facts, many have continued to believe in a fantasy.

I suppose a fantasy is better than accepting the truth, when the truth is unpalatable.

My concern: As long as people prefer their delusions to facts, then we'll get nowhere.

Jenny McCarthy will probably complain about conspiracies and such.

Suppose time will tell.

Science gives men help for Valentine's Day.

In the run up to Valentines Day--that most dastardly event created by greeting card companies and florists--many outlets are publishing stories about love.

It seems Science news sources are no different.

Recent studies have shown what it is men need to know about women.

All I seem to know is that women never lose an argument, even when they're wrong.

They place much emphasis on grand gestures rather than the small and steady dependability some of us show.

Happy Valentine's Day.

See "The Wrestler"

I saw 'The Wrestler" this evening. I was blown away

The movie is sparse, but excellent.

It shows blue collar entertainers (wrestlers & strippers) and their troubles.

Loved it.

Marisa Tomei doesn't look 44.

Republicans engage in economic brinkmanship with country's health and future.

I'm utterly dumbfounded and disturbed by the Republicans' obstructionism on the stimulus.

In the face of a declining economic picture, they continue to push an agenda that has done nothing but worsen the jobs picture and the overall economic health and future of our nation.

The Republicans are like Nero fiddling while Rome burns; they fiddle around by playing economic brinkmanship with our nation's economy.

And for what? Short-term political advantage.

Shameful.

I'm afraid Obama will be forced to fight back publicly by calling them out. He's already starting to.

No one wants to spend all that money, but what's the alternative? Tax cuts?

That's been tried along with rebate checks and neither of them have worked.

The tax cut agenda is like drinking more alcohol to cure alcoholism: It only makes things worse and provides no incentive to recover.

The federal government is the only one capable of spending in the amounts necessary to affect the economy as a whole. Giving tax cuts to businesses and wealthy individuals encourages savings because of the bad economy.

We need spending, not savings so we are thus left with stimulus spending.

Bank bailout is nothing more than a large wealth transfer to the already wealthy

Here's the problem with the first bailout of the banks.

If you'll recall, I opposed the first bailout because banks were the primary benefactor.

My opposition stemmed from the fact that taxpayer provided cash was going to banks who had made poor decisions. Additionally, the targeted banks were investment banks that dealt primarily with wealthy investors and institutions.

My concerns were twfold: 1) Banks were rewarded for bad decisions and prevented from suffering the fate of businesses in the market who fail because of those decisions. 2) The wealthy investors were getting a handout from the government while the rest of us footed the bill.

Well, it seems my fears are being borne out.

The banks used the TARP money to prop themselves up and secure their viability at the taxpayer's expense.

This is yet another reason why Bush was wrong for America: He rewarded the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

Thanks.

Illegal drugs only responsible for 10% of drug-related fatalities.

Here's yet another reason why the so-called War on Drugs is irresponsible and wrong-headed.

To hear the press and law enforcement talk about it, you'd think illegal drugs are killing vast numbers of our youth.

But you'd be wrong. That's merely the propaganda.

The reality: Over 90% of drug related fatalities are caused by alcohol.

Alcohol is a legal drug.

This begs the question: Should we spend the money we currently allocate to fighting what is essentially a War on Americans when the greatest threat to our youth is from readily available and legal substances?

Can we, as a nation afford such a boondoggle? Even if it sends to wrong message?

Hardly.

It's time for fiscal discipline in law enforcement. Who came up with the notion that law enforcement is outside budgetary constraints?

ALL publicly-funded entities must be measured by the same economic benchmarks or else we've lost our economic sanity.

Tragic story of police stupidity and Constitutional violations.

This is a tragic story of law enforcement gone wrong.

The police botched a search and raided a mayor's house, terrorizing the mayor, his mother-in-law, and shooting both his dogs in the process.

The police lied about the raid in an effort to shift the blame to the innocent victims of their stupidity.

The founding fathers turn over in their graves when the government does things like this. The Constitution was designed to protect citizens from the government.

The 4th Amendment has been eroded over the years by the right-wing appointees to the court, who operate under the assumption that law enforcement should be protected from the rights of citizens. This is contrary to the Original Intent of the founders so it should be repudiated by the proto-fascists on the bench.

I would like to point out that the Constitution makes the people sovereign. What does that mean?

It says that when government goes too far the citizens have a right to defend themselves and shoot back. The Cato Institute offers up a good example of botched raids resulting in tragic loss of life.

Law enforcement has no room to complain about lack of respect when they do things like this and then lie to cover their asses. Basic police work would have prevented this, but they were more concerned about getting their adrenalin rush than in protecting the Constitution.

So much for their oaths.

150% investment return still isn't good enough for Congressional Replublicans--I'll take it!

I have a thought experiment for you. Better yet, let's call it an investment game.

I offer you a chance to make an investment. Say I provide you good, strong figures from a reputable expert on the investment that says for every $1 you invest, you will get $2.50 in return.

Simply put: If I offered you an investment opportunity where you could make 150% return and you trusted a third-party expert who said as much, would you take the bet?

Would you?

I know I would.

If you make 10% return on a typical investment that's pretty good in this climate, but 150%?

Sounds too good to be true doesn't it?

Well, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that for every $1 invested in stimulating the economy, the return will be $2.50 to the economy as a whole.

What I don't get is this: The CBO is non-partisan and has the resources to make this determination. In fact, they are legally obligated to tell the truth based on their best evidence.

With that being said, why is it that Republicans ignore such good investment advice by voting against the economic stimulus?

Maybe they're stuck in the same stupidity loop that got us into this mess in the first place. There's medication for those who continue to believe things contrary to reality; it's called Thorizine. A good dose of therapy couldn't hurt either--let's call it minority status.

If the economy doesn't improve in the next two years, I'll eat my words. I'll own up to being wrong, but until then, more of the same won't get us out of this mess.

Bank of America truly out of touch. Unwilling to share America's economic pain.

What a stunning display of "being out of touch".

Bank of America is worried that its failure to pay out about $50 billion in bonuses to top employees will cause many of them to leave the company.

Reportedly, the Bank worries that executives have "built a lifestyle" around the expected bonus and failing to deliver will cause dramatic harm to their lives.

Remember, that Bank of America received TARP money that the U.S. taxpayer must underwrite thanks to the Bush administration.

This should piss everyone off.

Here's my solution: Let the executives get mad and leave. Let's see them find other jobs in this economy. They'll feel the pains of fewer prospects that many others now feel.

Also, if these executives are so profligate in their spending that they cannot make it without excessive bonuses, then maybe they're living beyond their means. Not really a good sign for bankers.

Banks need to share some of the pain.

Congressional Republicans are fighting against job creation! Are you kidding me?!

Everyone has first hand experience with the economic downturn. Either by losing a job or knowing someone who has.

I bring this up to draw attention to the Congressional Republicans. These bozos are doing everything to stop a stimulus package (that contains no earmarks mind you) that directly affects an industry employing over 5 million people. This is 5 million jobs!

This particular industry is unduly sensitive to downturns in the economy because people stop buying this industry's products when money is tight.

The stimulus package has allocated $50 million for this industry. The industry has an efficient and well-designed system for moving that money into the hands of its primary producers.

The problem: The Republicans are calling it pork and want to stop it. In it's place they want more tax cuts--that haven't worked thus far--but that disproportionately benefit those with jobs and money, viz., the wealthy.

What industry am I speaking of? The Arts.

$50 million would directly impact an industry in a transparent way (the NEA is open and public with its grant awards, unlike private corporations...) creating jobs that would that redound to the benefit of society, while creating even more jobs.

Fund the Arts and create jobs--it's simple.

GOP still using the tax cut snake oil.

This op-ed sums up my general feeling about the GOP.

John Boehner, in a stunning display of switcheroo, came on television and said the bailout is borrowing from our children and grandchildren.

Huh?

This is the same thing Democrats have said about Bush's policies for years--policies Boehner happily supported when it helped his wealthy constituents.

The GOP touts tax cuts as the solution to everything. In days of yore, Snake Oil salesmen claimed their remedies would take care of everything too.

The problem with tax cuts is that people actually need taxable income in order to benefit from tax cuts.

The U.S. is shedding jobs so fast that the revenue stream from taxes is drying up faster than any tax cut would offset as a benefit.

The GOP needs to new religion other than tax cuts. It hasn't worked and it won't work while Americans have no jobs to make income.

Tax cuts haven't spurred economic growth. So where does that leave us?

Stimulus. But this time, the stimulus should be spent at the lower end of the economic spectrum rather than at the top where the wealthy get their share first.

Racist groups make racism more palatable by using innocuous names. Trouble.

I came across this hate group website and thought it important to point out one simple thing common to bigots and morons.

They engage in conflation so as to gain the benefits of ticking people off while denying what they're doing. Bunch of pussies if you ask me.

Specifically, this group calls itself the innocuous sounding Council of Conservative Citizens. The Southern Poverty Law Center keeps tabs on them, especially since Obama was elected.

Sounds benign until you read their racist bullshit. They're entitled to their opinion, but there's no escaping the racist aspects of their views. It's even worse if you go to their state Chapters, viz., Alabama.

Their view is that all problems stem from Marxists, Left-wing, elitist (read: educated) whites and the non-whites who support them.

Despite the obvious conflation of Communism with Liberalism (They're not the same unless you're trying to deceive people..), these bozos, do everything but wear white robes and salute Hitler.

Everything but open association with traditional racist groups is what distinguishes these groups. By a process of gradual habituation, they make racism more palatable.

If that weren't the case, then they'd have the balls to be honest with their name and their agenda.

Haggard's Church is part of the problem.

When stories like this occur, I scratch my head at the utter hypocrisy of those who preach morality while wearing the cloth of religious faith.

I have no truck with relations between consenting adults.

When one of those adults profits, both financially and in public esteem, by pointing fingers at the failings of others--failings he suffers from himself, then I draw the line.

It's fine to speak of forgiveness. It takes a big person to ask for it. It takes a truly contrite person to deserve it. It takes an even bigger person to give forgiveness. But only a fool forgives when contrition is only a means to an end.

Mr. Haggard's church bought into the whole forgiveness doctrine with him. They crossed the line of integrity when they paid hush money to a young man exploited through Haggard's authority.

This situation speaks volumes about how far off the path of righteousness some travel--in the name of maintaining a religious organization.

I don't go to church because of this sort of garbage. Many people avoid church for similar reasons--they can't get passed to elevation of the organization over the faith itself. Churches historically place institutional survival over individuals; they also subordinate the doctrine they peddle to the immediate needs of the institution.

New Hope is no different. It's the perennial failing of churches.

Now I ask you: Does it serve the faith when, through hypocrisy and condonation of it, a church maintains itself at the expense of driving so many others away from faith?

Uh, oh! Dirty magazines culpable in prostate cancer.

I read this study and the only thing I could say to myself was:

"Oh crap!"

There isn't a guy out there who can ignore the findings of this study.