Abraham Lincoln Was Wrong

No not about slavery. Please. That would be insane.

Let me explain.

Having dropped out of the race for President, I had been busy doing what I love, seeking out companies that would do harm to the American people. Much of my time was spent purchasing products that are clearly ill conceived death traps and demonstrating their danger by applying them to myself. Most people are frighteningly unaware of how sharp Top Ramen is and how, if jabbed into one's eye, it can be extremely painful.

While recuperating from my toils (my opthamologist put me on strict bed rest for 3 weeks while my cornea healed), it gave me an excess of time to study the news and to reflect upon it. And I thought a great deal about the supposed rift that has split the American people.

According to one source, The country is nearly evenly split between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. The electoral college votes are nearly evenly split between Mr. Obama (263) and Mr. McCain (242). It would seem that in either case, a great many people will be disappointed.

Pundits claim that we are a country divided, that the election pits the old against the young, the poor against the rich, the conservative against the liberal and the qualified politician against the bizarre soccer mom.

This is ridiculous.

There is only one schism that separates us and it has done so since 1861.

The one between the Union and the Confederacy.

Let us examine what the outcome of the upcoming election might happen to be if Mr. Lincoln had not imposed his will upon the south and allowed them the freedom to secede. I am including in my list of Confederate states the seven states that declared their secession before Lincoln took office (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas), the four states that declared their secession after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter (Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee), the two states with rival secessionist governments (Missouri and Kentucky), the three border slave states (Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia) and the two states claimed by the Confederacy (New Mexico and Arizona).

In the north, Mr. Obama would win by a landslide (245 to 68). And in the south, Mr. McCain would be winning by an even greater margin (174 to 18).

We can have one nation divided or two nations that are unified.

We, as a people, fully supported the self determination exercised by the many soviet bloc nations during the 1990's. Why would we deny that right to our brothers in the south?

It is time to right this terrible wrong.

I submit that congress act immediately to allow, or perhaps insist, that the Confederacy's original request for secession be granted.

We in the north would lose many things - NASCAR, boll weevils, Coca-Cola, hurricanes, grits, Lynyrd Skynrd tribute bands, the ability to compel women to disrobe by merely providing them with colorful beads, and The Blue Collar Comedy Tour. Those in the south would lose everything else.

It is a small price to pay so that we can all have the president we deserve.

Think about it.

On Turning Foreigners Into Americans

Many foreigners hate our government.

So do I. Most thinking people would.

But some misguided foreigners also hate America. And I believe that is only because they don't know better. They only know America by the actions of our government. Those of you who have met our government, either in an official capacity or socially, at a party, say, understand why they might come to that conclusion. First impressions, I have heard, are very important and if your first introduction to America is through America's government it is very likely that you would conclude that America is a smug, annoying, deceitful, inconsiderate, self-righteous, close-minded buffoon. I know I would.

So how do we help these people to understand that deep down at their core they too are as American as Apple Pie, Chevy Trucks and Neil Sedaka?

Sell them things. American things.

A good step in that direction was recently noted in an article from CNN. Titled "U.S. exports cigarettes, bras, bull semen to Iran", details the efforts being made every day to convert Iranians into Americans by selling them items that reek of American values such as perfume, golf carts and fur clothing.

Now I do not mean to suggest that by merely selling them these things they will become like you or I. At least, not like myself. If you are materialistic and stupid, which you have a significant chance of being, then there is a distinct possibility that they could become like you. But selling them these goods will not make them like me and that is the goal, of course.

True, this will not be sufficient. But it is a significant first step. If we can lure them into becoming consumers of American goods then we can, over time, begin to sell them more and more complicated items. Any idiot can successfully use a cigarette, bra or bull semen, but it takes a good deal of education to be able to successfully utilize an iPod, Xbox 360, or F-22 stealth fighter. Once we can convince these foreigners to enroll in one of our universities, where they will learn to appreciate intense thought, hard work, television and Pabst Blue Ribbon, then we will have succeeded in creating a world where we are all the same and there will no longer be a need to be tolerant of those different from us. Not that I was tolerant of those who are different, but I did find it annoying when people would criticize me for that. I hate people like that.

Think about it.

Kudos To You, John McCain

I am not an attractive man. I am fully aware of this fact.

I am old. I am antisocial. I lack any hint of charisma.

This does not bother me. I am not one to be swayed by image.

I feel that I have found a kindred spirit in John McCain.

Mr. McCain recently commented on Barack Obama's celebrity stature, noting "He's the biggest celebrity in the world". I concur with many of his observations. Mr. Obama is popular, attractive, charismatic and eminently likable. He appears "presidential". He evokes "support". He seems "electable".

Why should this be important?

Neither I nor Mr. McCain fit the popular view of what a president should be. We are both easily irritated, crotchety old men. Neither of us can be bothered by the niceties of etiquette or manners or diplomacy. We are not interested in compromise or cooperation or listening or being open minded.

We don't care how we appear.

I know that many people believe in such things. One poll, notes the "enthusiasm gap" between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama. While Mr. Obama's supporters are excited about the prospect of their candidate being elected, Mr. McCain's supporters do not really care all that much.

Should that matter? I personally do not care about my supporters and I would not expect them to care about me.

We are men of ideas. At least, I assume that he is. I know that I am. I have excellent ideas and that should be enough. I don't know any of Mr. McCain's ideas, but I am sure they have some merit. Particularly those that match mine, if he has any.

So Mr. McCain, I applaud you. Stick to your guns. Make no effort to appease the masses and improve your image. You may not seem like a president. You may seem more like that uncle that one only sees on special occasions and then only every few years that makes everyone uncomfortable and you hope and pray that no one says anything that sets him off and you take all the liquor to the neighbor's house beforehand so that he won't start drinking and you won't have a repeat of that last Fourth of July picnic when the police came.

Think about it.

Iraq - A Model Of Fiscal Responsibility

The American government is apparently incapable of managing its expenses in a responsible manner. But it is not impossible to do so. We need look no further than our neighbor to the east, Iraq. According to a recent news article, despite the great challenges that nation faces, they have been able to amass a sizable surplus of 79 Billion dollars.

How did they do it, you might ask. Simple. They lack the ability to spend it. Without the vast numbers of trained buyers, managers and accountants that the United States has at its disposal, the Iraqi government simply can't spend money at the same breathtaking rate that we have become accustomed to.

What can we learn from this? By simply firing all government buyers, managers, and accountants, we can quickly and easily cut our expenses. I am sure that some well meaning neighbors (I am talking to you, Canada), would sympathize with our situation and pay for those things we are unable to pay for ourselves. After a few years of occupation by the Canadians, when we have managed to pay off our debts, we can then blame them for our troubles and request that they leave. A simple, yet proven, approach to money management.

Think about it.

A Solution To Our Current Economic Crisis

Irresponsible.

I can think of no better word to describe it.

I find it unfathomable how our current administration can be so irresponsible when it comes to the economy. A six year old can understand the concepts necessary to support a viable fiscal policy.

Simply put, you can't spend money you don't have.

I will try to help you understand the magnitude of the problem. As of June 30, 2008, the United States owed $9,492,006,000,000. That's nearly 10 trillion dollars. To put this into terms that most people can understand, consider that there are 116,011,000 households in this country and each earns an average of $60,528 per year. Put another way, every person in the country owes 135% of their annual salary. So if you make, say, $50,000 per year, your share of the national debt is $67,500.

You owe a lot of money.

Now, in order to explain this further to you, I am going to use a little rudimentary math. If it is beyond your capabilities, I suggest you go back to elementary school and pay attention this time.

This is unsecured debt, much like you would put on a credit card. If you did have it on a credit card, you would be required to pay interest every month on it of 135% X 12 X18% / 12 = 24% of your monthly income. You would also have to make a minimum payment, which is typically 4% of what you owe. This yields 135% X 12 X 4% = 64% of your monthly income. So the total you would have to pay is 24% + 64% = 88% of your monthly income towards paying off your share of the national debt. That doesn't leave much left for you.

Now I may not be a trained credit counselor, but I know common sense and common sense dictates that you should declare bankruptcy.

Every last one of you.

There is only one reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this.

When I become President, my first official act will be to declare bankruptcy for America.

America has a debt problem. America has borrowed far more than it can afford to pay back. America has proven that it cannot be trusted to handle money responsibly. Our bankruptcy laws exist to deal with these kinds of situations. We should take advantage of them.

Now there will be repercussions from this act. America will no longer be able to borrow money. Considering how irresponsible America has been, this is a good thing.

America needs to learn how to handle money better. Create a budget and stick with it. Create a savings plan and put away a little for a rainy day, like another world war, a pandemic, or Armageddon. Save money by shopping at Costco or thrift stores instead of Lockheed Martin. Try to reestablish a good credit record by using a credit card with a low limit to buy something inexpensive, like Cuba.

America isn't bad, it has just made some bad decisions and needs some help. Should we hold this against America? No! We should give America a fresh start. We shouldn't let it completely off the hook though. America has to shape up. No more stupid choices. America, if you're not sure, ask. Europe has been around awhile. Get some advice there. We have some very nice neighbors. Ask them for help. I'm sure they'll be helpful and supportive. If not, it's good to know now rather than later who your friends are. Maybe next time Canada throws some loud party late at night you won't have to put up with it and can just call the

police. But tell them not to say who called them. Or say you're Greenland. America doesn't want to wake up to eggs or graffiti all over Montana. Nobody wants to clean that up.

Think about it.

On Campaigning, Raising Money, and Lunch

I am upset.

I find it outrageous that I have to spend money in order to simply get people to vote for me when it is clearly in their best interest to do so. I am not running for President for myself, I am doing it for the American people. So why won't they just listen to me and save all of us a great deal of trouble.

I understand from my staff that we are not doing as well financially as they would like. Our main fund raising site has not been as profitable as was hoped. So, while contemplating this situation, I ran across an article detailing how an individual spent 2.1 Million dollars in order to simply have lunch with another individual.

I was shocked. I cannot fathom why anyone would spend that kind of money to just eat a meal with someone. I could certainly offer better lunch companionship at a more reasonable cost than that. As I have no friends I have a great deal of pent up "chatting" that I would be happy to share with my lunch mate. I'm sure that I would be extremely interesting. I find myself interesting. I'm sure others would too.

I am offering to have lunch with anyone for the very reasonable price of $2,300 (the maximum individual campaign contribution). I will even pay for my own meal. You may choose the restaurant, but it must be within walking distance of my home or you must provide transportation. If you wish to drive, you can go no more than 25 MPH or 5 MPH below the speed limit, whichever is lower (speed limits are set dangerously high in this country, a condition that I will rectify, once I am president).

The restaurant must offer pancakes, grilled cheese or toast. If those items are not available, it would be acceptable to stop somewhere else first in order to pick one of those up for my meal beforehand. It may also be possible to request that my assistant, Tree Sing, prepare one of those for me, but she has been highly unreliable in this area lately, claiming that she is not my assistant but is instead, my Public Relations Consultant, or some such thing.

I prefer a booth to a table and I will not sit on the same side as you.

You could bring others, but they must also contribute $2,300. And I will only talk to the two people on either side of me and, possibly, the person sitting across from me, if the restaurant is quiet and the table is narrow. Others who join us should plan on finding other things to entertain themselves during the meal which do not make any noise, like reading.

Think about it.

On The Disappearance Of Bees

There is a tragedy in the making recently that has not received the attention that it warrants. While much has been made of the cost of gas or our failing economy or global warming, little has been said of the plight of our nation's bees.

Our bees are disappearing at an alarming rate. According to one news article, bee populations are dropping at frightening pace of approximately 30% per year. Soon, we will have no bees. It is time to put an end to this.

But what is the cause of this phenomenon?

Our bees have finally succumbed to the same malady the rest of us have.

Low morals and an inability to follow through on their commitments.

According to Wikipedia, these disappearances demonstrate a "complete absence of adult bees in colonies, with little or no build-up of dead bees in or around the colonies", yet the queen is still present and there remain adequate food stores.

These bees are not dying. They are leaving.

Why are they leaving?

Because they are men and men are, as they say, pigs.

In a bee hive, the vast majority of the bees are male and are expected to do the work needed to maintain the hive. The lone female is the queen. She does nothing other than lay eggs and eat.

In our society today, there are few men who would tolerate such a situation. Why should we expect bees to act otherwise?

I blame our men.

Men in our society have lost the ability to do anything but satisfy their selfish desires. Have fun! Find an attractive female and perform recurring sexual acts with her! Our men have fallen for the media promulgated image of feminine beauty which rewards the petite. Queen bees are enormous. What else can we expect of a male bee under these conditions?

In order to stop this problem, our men must set an example. Work harder. Settle down. Eschew pleasure. Find a fertile woman willing to allow repeated impregnation. It is not enough that the Mormons are already doing this. The rest of us must do our part as well.

Think about it.

On Urban Sprawl, Global Warming, Health Care Costs & Getting To Know Your Neighbors

The problem with the politicians in Washington is that the only solutions they seem to be able to come up with are more complicated and cause more problems than those they are intended to solve. The typical bill introduced to congress weighs more than the average newborn, and is just as intelligible.

Our representatives in Washington have lost the ability or the will to think.

It requires an effort to create an elegant solution to a problem. It requires thinking to find a simple solution to a problem.

As Blaise Pascal once wrote, "I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter."

Our politicians lack the time to make their bills shorter.

I do not. I intend to devote lots of time to doing very little.

I have plenty to time to devote to writing bills that are simple, to the point, and fix a myriad of problems. If elected I will see to it that fewer bills are passed and those that are passed are short. Perhaps even tiny.

For example, I will introduce legislation that makes it a crime to live in an area without mature trees. That's it. This simple law will make a better America. Better than a thousand complex bills could ever do.

Why would anyone want to live in a place without trees? Take Texas, you might say. I won't. I won't take Texas and no person should ever have to. No person should have to live without trees. It is unnatural.

By requiring that people only live in areas where there are plenty of large trees, we effectively stop the destruction of nature for new developments. Builders would be motivated to save trees rather than cutting them down, as they would not be able to sell their homes otherwise. Urban sprawl would come to an end as it would take decades to grow trees of sufficient size to make new areas habitable. Global warming would be reduced as we planted trees to allow new neighborhoods. Trees reduce the need for air conditioning and the energy consumption resulting from it. People would find it pleasant to walk around their neighborhoods, getting exercise and reducing health care costs. And while walking they would meet their neighbors and they could chat about things that people chat about. Such as trees. I understand that many people do that.

Joyce Kilmer may have said it best when he said, "I think that I shall never see, a poem as lovely as a tree". Joyce went on to say a number of things about trees, mostly of an erotic and disturbing nature, referring to their bosoms and mouths on breasts, but that is beside the point. Even though Joyce had an unhealthy attraction to our leafy friends, it is still true that a single tree can solve a multitude of problems. Not the kind of psychological problems that Joyce apparently suffered, but problems nevertheless. By mandating that trees be available to all, we ensure a better future for everyone.

Think about it.

On The Price Of Gas

I hear a lot of complaints lately about the price of gas. I suppose that if I drove a car myself, I would be more familiar with this issue, but that does not mean that I don't have a solution to it.

I do.

Theoretically, nothing ever costs too much money. If something gets to be more than it is worth, people begin to use less of it, or find an alternative. Economies are cyclical. Prices rise and fall in response to demand, which itself rises and falls in response to price. There is a natural interaction between these things which tends to fix problems and make things work.

Unless something unnatural prevents it.

There was a time when monopolies were allowed to flourish and they interfered with the natural flow of the economy. But steps were taken to prevent them.

Yet we still find that some things, such as gas or homes, continue to rise in price and become unaffordable to the common man.

So there must be some other unnatural thing that is preventing these things from cycling back.

What could that be? I will tell you.

Rich People.

Rich people are unnatural. If a caveman, say, accumulated significantly more wealth (whatever wealth means to a caveman) the other cavemen would eventually kill and eat him and distribute his possessions fairly amongst themselves. That is natural.

If there were nobody around who could afford gas at its current price, then its current price would fall. That is natural.

Rich people can afford things that the rest of us cannot. Rich people make it possible for items to reach prices which are unnatural. Rich people make life more costly for the rest of us by enabling these unnatural prices. Rich people cause more problems than they are worth.

Once I am in office, I will rid this country of the wealthy. Not by killing and eating them (which would result in various other problems that could actually be worse) but by my proposed tax scheme which would increase the tax rate to 100% for excessive income (over 10 times the median income).

Imagine, if you will, a world where everyone is just like you. That is, if you happen to be much like me. If you are, it will be a wonderful world where people are nice to you and do not snigger behind your back because you don't have enough money or dress well enough or lack the social confidence to order for yourself in a restaurant rather than having your assistant do it for you. That is the sort of world I want to live in. If you are not like me, then perhaps you should attempt to be more like me in order to fit in to this future world better. For your own sake.

Think about it.

Why You Are So Stupid

Perhaps I should clarify a bit.

Not all of you are stupid. Just the vast majority of you. And it is not that you are extremely stupid, although some of you are. And it isn't entirely your fault that you are stupid, although you must take a good share of the blame.

Advertising causes stupidity.

You have been trained, over time, to be stupid, by advertising. Advertising trains you to have a short attention span, to not question what you are told, and to rely on your feelings when making decisions, rather than your mind. In short, it trains you to not think.

If one hundred years ago you were to offer a product that contained nothing but water, sugar, flavor and bubbles and charged 100 times what the cost of the ingredients were, you would, at best, be laughed out of town. More likely, you would have been shot.

If ten years ago you were to offer a similar product that left out the sugar, flavor and bubbles, leaving nothing but water, yet still charged the same amount, you would, again, most likely be hurt very, very badly.

You are not only stupid, but you are becoming more stupid at an alarming rate.

It is in your power to reverse this trend and become less stupid.

I, myself, am not stupid. I do not view advertising. I do not watch television. I do not read newspapers or magazines. I do not use the internet. I do not watch movies. And when outside of my home, I generally keep my eyes closed. It takes a bit of effort, but it is worth it. I am smarter than you.

For those of you too weak to avoid these temptations, I propose a ban on all "pushed" advertising. I have no problem with advertising that people seek out. If a person wants to know which beverage will cause them to be more attractive, popular, outrageous or centered, they should be able to do so. But I would ban all advertising that simply accompanies other information. Advertisements could only appear on shopping channels and all other television channels would be advertisement free. Of course, television would no longer be free and you would have to pay an exorbitant fee to watch your "Gilligan's Island" reruns, but it would be worth it.

Think about it (if you can).

On The Economy

There are a number of misguided individuals who believe that every effort must be made to reverse the apparent trend of the economy toward a recession or ("gasp") a full fledged depression.

Poppycock.

Bring it on, I say.

A depression is a natural response to an unhealthy economy. It is nature's way of saying, "There are too many idiots among you who haven't the faintest notion of what money is for".

A depression isn't a symptom, it is a cure.

There is a belief that those that have money have earned it. That they have contributed to society in some way and thus should be rewarded. I agree that this can be true. But many who have money have it only due to the fact that they were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time and have no more made any contribution to society than Commerce City is a nice vacation destination. Those that have the skill and motivation to earn money by what they give to others will regain what they have lost. Those that can't will be working at King Soopers.

Depressions are nothing to fear. For many, we are and have been in a depression for years. They are called "poor". For them, a depression would change nothing. It is the wealthy that would be most affected by a depression. History is written by those in power. Our current view of the "horrors" of the last depression were written by those who do not care if it happens to others, but cannot stand the thought of having to deal with the challenge of having no money themselves.

Depressions have a way of bringing out the best in people. People turn towards each other and help their neighbors during a depression. In the absence of material possessions they begin to create their own entertainment. There is a reason they called it the "Great" depression. Look at the contributions in art and culture that were created at that time - Duke Ellington, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Jackson Pollock, John Steinbeck, "Gone With The Wind". The 80's were a time of great economic prosperity. What did they bring us? The Pet Shop Boys.

Think about it.

What Are They Trying To Hide From Us?

I am sure that it will come as no surprise to my devoted readers that the current administration is not always very forthcoming with information regarding the inner workings of the government. I would even go so far as to suggest that my readers have come to suspect such conduct as the standard operating procedure for this administration.

I have, over the years, learned to find out what others wish hidden. One cannot successfully bring those companies which ignore the safety of our citizens to trial without having learned a thing or two about bringing to light those facts that others wish to be in the dark.

There is a tremendous tool available to us that can expose those secrets the government wishes to deny us.

Census data.

That is correct. There is a wealth of data in those numbers and any properly motivated and educated individual can find them.

Take, for example, Roseland, Indiana.

The vast majority of you have never heard of Roseland and most of those that have will assume that there is nothing special about that town.

But those people are wrong.

If you glance at the census data for Roseland, you may notice an interesting fact:

Roseland is 82.6% women.

Yes. For every man in Roseland, there are 4 women.

And there is more. The median age in Roseland is 21.1 years old. 66.9% of the citizens are single. This is a town full of young, available, and, in all likelihood, attractive women.

What is the government trying to do in Roseland?

There is no natural explanation for why such a thing would happen. There must be some plan by the current administration to gather and exploit nubile females. There is little information coming from Roseland in this matter.

There was, though, an incident that revealed much of what their plan is. Apparently an argument ensued between the only two male members of the Roseland town council. Perhaps this was some hormone induced mating ritual, vying for the largest harem. Who can say? The subsequent result of this event was that the only female member of the council was removed from office.

A town with over 80% female population with no female representation in their government?

Something sinister is happening in Roseland.

And is it merely coincidence that the town's name sounds strangely similar to Roswell?

Think about it.

I Took A Break

While I generally do not find a need to rest from my efforts to find and punish those companies which do damage to the citizens of this nation or, more recently, my campaign to become the next President of the United States, I did indeed do just that the other night. My assistant Tree Sing, suggested that I enjoy some popular entertainment at a nearby theater. Actually, she did not so much as suggest it as deceive me by telling me that she was taking me to a press conference. When we arrived, I was sorely tempted to drive myself home, if I could, in fact, drive myself. Alas, after my accident those many years ago I find that attempting to drive a car at over 20 MPH causes me to whimper noticeably. According to Tree, revelations of this sort will help to humanize me and improve my image. If that is what the people want, so be it.

I am, however, glad that I stayed.

We attended a comedy show in Denver entitled "Convention?" at the Avenue Theater. It was highly entertaining. It depicts a behind the scenes look at the political process of campaigning for President. The show is, as they say, "improvised", meaning they could not be bothered to create a script. It was, nevertheless, quite amusing.

The show was created by Misters Chris Gallegos, Brian McManus, Ben Reed and a Ms. Meredith Winfield. The show featured a number of performers including:

• Galloway Albright
• Carl Anderson
• Kathleen Boland
• Dave Karasik
• Amanda Kennedy
• Keith Rains
• Yvette Rebik
• Rick Rothenberg
• Shannon Wood Rothenberg
• Mark Shonsey
• Sam Tallent
• Betsy Vajtay

And I believe they even went so far as to procure the services of a "lights" person, by the name of Matt Fogel.

Bravo! Kudos to you all.

Their show runs every Tuesday at 7:30 through August. I heartily recommend it.

Now, back to work.

I'm No Quitter

My so-called "opponents" have suggested that I quit the race for President.

Their logic is deplorable.

They use the fact that my polling numbers are pathetic. They are ridiculously low and indicate that very few people have even heard of me, let alone are willing to vote for me. They suggest that for this reason, I should drop out of the race.

It is a fact that I have not been doing well in the polls. But this is exactly the reason why I should stay in the race.

Both of my "esteemed colleagues" would, if faced with the same dismal results, would quit. They have both made it clear by their suggestion that I do the same, that they would absolutely drop out under the same conditions.

They are both, in a word, quitters.

Is that the kind of president people want?

When the going gets tough, the quitters get going. The tough stay.

Do you want a president that gives up? Do you want a president that changes his mind simply because what he's doing isn't working? If recent history is any indication, Americans want a president who will stick to his guns no matter what the cost. That is the kind of president I will be, not some wishy-washy quitter, like those other people.

Their claim that I should quit is absolute proof that they should quit. Their demand for me to drop out is clear evidence of the inevitability of my eventual election.

I rest my case.

Think about it.

On Taxes

Why do we have taxes?

Some would say it is to pad the purses of those in Washington and their big business cronies that they are beholden to.

It is difficult to refute this.

Certainly, this is what our current government has chosen to do with the money that they collect from us. But that is not what our founding fathers intended.

There is another purpose.

It is to assist the downtrodden among us. To lift up our brothers and sisters who have fallen on hard times. To bring us all together by making us more equal, monetarily speaking.

Our current and recent former administrations have failed terribly at this. The disparity between the poorest and richest of our people has grown far beyond what our founding fathers could have imagined. If our founding fathers could be here now, they would be vomiting with disgust. But it is not Dramamine that we need. It is a solution.

First, I propose that any family making less than the median household income ($48,201.00 in 2006, according to the US Census Bureau), not be required to pay any taxes whatsoever. Those that make less than the rest of us should not have to pay for our needs. If you take a friend to lunch and he makes less than you, it is natural to pay for it. I myself have never taken a friend to lunch, but I understand that this is a common practice.

Second, the tax rate would increase progressively from 0% for someone making the median income to 100% for someone making 10 times that ($482,010.00). All income in excess of that amount would go to help others.

Nobody needs to make more than that.

I know that there are naysayers among you who will claim that this will "hurt" the economy. Poppycock! According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Expenditure Survey, nearly half of all money spent in 2006 was by people making less than $70,000. Only %16 of the money spent was by those making $150,000 and above. If every person making more than $300,000 disappeared from the face of this earth, we would hardly notice it, fiscally speaking. And I personally would not miss them at all. If I wanted to spend my time with people, I'm sure that I would prefer to spend it with people who make approximately the same amount of money I make, not some rich people who think they're better than me and criticize my clothes or call me names behind my back or to my face or mistake me for some servant and say, "young man, please bring my Bentley around and take me to the club where I can play polo with my good friend Warren Buffet and laugh at your appearance". I'm not young.

Think about it.

On Immigration

They have things backwards.

Our so-called "leaders" have suggested that a solution to the "problem" of immigration is to allow "guest workers" to come freely to our nation and work, but not to live here.

This proves, yet again, that those now ensconced in Washington have no idea what this country needs.

Why would we want people to come here, take our jobs, fill our streets during commute traffic, and create longer waits at our lunch spots and coffee shops rather than becoming contributing members of our communities?

Did those who were here when the Pilgrims arrived on our shores offer them work permits? No. They welcomed them into their homes. They invited them to dinner. They offered them their women. That is what neighbors do.

If it was a good idea then, it is good idea now.

All people should be welcome to come here and work, but only as long as they are also willing to move next door, join us for a meal, and date our children.

They must become members of our communities before they can work here.

And this should be not only a national policy, but it should be applied at state and local levels as well.

If it is a good idea there, it is a good idea here.

We should all work where we live. I am sure that there is not a single person among you who would not prefer a brief walk to work than the typical long drive. No more freeway congestion. No more pollution. No more sending our money to the oil barons and petrochemical corporations who care little for the quality of our lives (and who, incidentally, do not live in our neighborhoods).

I propose that people not be allowed to work more than one mile from where they live. There may be a brief time during which most people will need to find new jobs closer to their homes. But there should be plenty of jobs available once "foreign" workers are required to vacate those jobs.

There will be some disruption to our lives, but the long term benefits clearly outweigh the brief costs.

Think about it.

On The Environment

I am in favor of it.

We need an environment. Without one, where would we be?

And where would the environment be without us? It would be the proverbial tree falling in the forest. If there is no one around to use the environment, essentially it simply does not exist.

I am in favor of protecting our environment. But only to the degree that it protects people. People come first.

As a Secular Humanist, I believe that the basis of all that matters are people. We must do everything we can to protect people. And we must protect the environment that we live in.

Trees are not in and of themselves worthy of protection. Trees don't have feelings or opinions or responsibilities. But trees serve people and for this reason they must be protected.

Protected for people, not from people.

Should we be allowed to cut down trees? Of course we should. But in a responsible manner. Should Big Business be allowed to harvest trees without proper controls? No! Trees exist for the use of everyone, not just unthinking corporate pirates. Everyone should be allowed to cut down as many trees as they like, as long as they use them for their own benefit, or the benefit of others.

I propose that we establish a Department of Trees, where people can submit petitions for tree harvesting. Build a house? Of course! Generate heat? Yes. Waste a tree merely for some archaic "religious" ceremony? I don't think so.

This is only the beginning. A new era of responsible stewardship of OUR environment is upon us. An opportunity to fully utilize the resources that the multiverse has given us is at hand. Do not throw this chance away.

You know what to do.

Think about it.

On Vegetarianism

I am not a vegetarian. Some ask how I can reconcile that with my concern for the environment and my belief that we should do all we can to reduce consumption.

I believe in utilizing the resources we have at hand.

The Multiverse gave us animals. They are there. Use them.

But use them wisely. And use them completely.

Have you ever tasted Tripe? Sweetbreads? Tongue?

Disgusting. Thoroughly and utterly appalling.

But they exist for a reason. To be eaten.

So eat them. And if you can't bring yourself to do so, don't come crying to me for help.

I'm busy eating.

On The Protection Of Consumers

It is the act of consumption itself that is the gateway to danger.

While stopping big business from acting irresponsibly is first and foremost my primary goal, I would be remiss to ignore the other avenue towards the protection of the consuming public.

Stop it.

Stop consuming. Reduce consumption. With every purchase there is the potential danger that comes with all products.

The "scientists" freely use statistics to convince us of their "truths". But statistics do tell us one thing. More samples means more danger.

If I buy a toy that has a one in a million chance of harming my child, then if I buy one million toys, he will most assuredly be harmed.