How Do You E-File a Vial of Piss?

States Adding Drug Test as Hurdle for Welfare -NY Times 10/11/11
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

First of all, there are many ways to receive money from the government aside from "welfare" which is a word that should be barred from the English language as it is far too much of an umbrella word. The welfare that most people gripe about was eliminated in the 1990's in a bi-partisan act led by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Virtually all cash benefits are targeted to children, the severely disabled and the elderly. You can't just sit home and 'collect a check' - that is a complete falsity.

Second of all, government money goes to almost everyone ... should we drug test everyone that gets a mortgage interest deduction? Corporate subsidies? SBA loans? Maybe those people are also 'using the money to buy drugs.'

Stupid.

Lastly, when will people ever realize that 'starving the beast,' whether that 'beast' is a drug addict, an uninsured sick person or a hungry adult literally means that you are casting those people to the street. The street that you live on.

So I ask those who are only interested in themselves: Where would you like those in need to go? What will you do when the needy have sleep outside your door or are forced to break your windows to steal food? Would that make for a better world to you?

It's so damned stupid. And I for one am really sick of it.


- Gary Waldman 10/11/11

'Direct Representation' Won't Help

In any endeavor, when a fundamental paradigm is found to be wrong, the only reasonable course of action is to replace it. I therefore propose a federal budget largely built on a new paradigm of "Direct-Democracy Earmarks" — the people themselves directly selecting the departments and programs to be funded. Every adult citizen would independently allocate an equal share of total federal discretionary spending.  
by Fred Drumlevitch
www.FredDrumlevitch.blogspot.com
October 3, 2011

Well, Mr. Drumlevitch, I can only applaud your enthusiastic calls for such 'direct' democracy even though the Constitution calls for a 'Representative Democracy' so your idea will take a major, major amendment to implement. And that is never going to happen.

Worse yet, it won't help. The 'bought' politicians will still have complete control with your system because, well, who chooses what the public gets to vote on? Someone has to present the proposals in the first place which means that the Congress will still have complete control over spending. Nowadays even our representatives only get to vote on bills that the 'leadership' support and put before them. 300 congressmen could support a spending bill, but if the Majority Leader & the Speaker don't put it to a vote, it isn't going to happen.

There is only one answer to your quest for more direct representation. Get The Money Out of Politics. It is the poison that enables a tiny fraction (the 1% most fortunate) of the population control our government.

Gary Waldman 10/7/2011

Hello, I'd Like to Rent Niggerhead, Please?

10/3/2011 NY Times Comment #106 - The name long predated Perry's membership. It was folk-historic; you can't rewrite history. He didn't name it and it was changed. He doesn't own the camp.

OK. He didn't name it. The name long pre-dated his membership. OK.

Would you rent a leisure property named Niggerhead? Jewhead? Faghead? Spic-head? I wouldn't. Nope. No way, no how. Even if I could someday 'paint over' the name. Nope. Wouldn't want to either be associated with that in any way, nor pay money to anyone who did.

Maybe if it were the only possible way for me to have a roof over my head. But for 1,000 acres of hunting land?

Sorry. Not important enough a deal. And I don't consider myself nearly 'squeaky clean' enough to run for President.

- Gary Waldman 10/31/11