So I ran across this little gem on facebook today.... after my dumbfounded- ness wore off, I couldn't resist getting in my two cents

I am a woman and I say this is NOT feminism.

First of all, men can get raped too. So you're sexist, chica. Suck on that.

Secondly, this sign seems to presume that the university is blaming the victim (and evidently the female victim) for being raped. People do bad things and the university is trying to help individuals protect themselves. Should they also teach a "don't steal" class and then take all the locks off of the dorm room doors? How about a don't "murder class" and hand out grenades to the students.

Can't we save the so called "feminist" rants for things that are legitimately women's issues? You're making us look like helpless, ignorant, idiots.

Proud?
That's what I keep seeing all over facebook. People are proud of their 2012 vote for President Obama. Look, I get it. No one really liked Romney. Even Romney supporters didn't really like Romney, so you voted against Romney but you're PROUD of your Obama vote?

This is a guy who:

• Renewed the Patriot Act
• Signed into law the NDAA
• Supports the TSA and the federal reserve
• Has doubled the debt in 4 years to almost 100% of our GDP
• Has had over a trillion dollar deficit for the past 4 years with no realistic plan to change
• Failed to end the war in Afghanistan and followed president Bushes' pull out policy in Iraq (and wanted to leave troops in after the Dec 2011 date).
• Maintained 4 years of double digit unemployment (counting those who are underemployed or whose benefits have dried up because they have been out of work so long)
• Coincidentally "saw the light" on gay marriage just before election season. 

 And that's just off the top of my head....Is 'proud' really the word you want to go with?

Marriage Problems?

In light of the recent North Carolina referendum that outlawed same sex marriage and civil unions through a constitutional amendment, I think it is time that I weigh in on the very sensitive issue of same sex marriage. Let me start out by saying that I am a Christian. The kind that goes to church every Sunday, reads my bible many times a week, and attends a regular bible study. Let me follow that up by saying that I have had many gay friends who I was and am still quite fond of. From a libertarian viewpoint, I think the issue of gay marriage is mishandled at nearly every turn by both sides. With so much wrong with the discussion around this issue, I struggle to format a flowing coherent argument but I’ll give it my best shot….

First off, let’s set one thing straight. Anyone can get married. Marriage is a promise between you, your loved one, and your god. I am frustrated with couples who say they would like to get married but cannot or will not until the US government recognizes gay marriage. It’s not about the government. It’s about the vows that two individuals make to one another in affirming a life together.  That said, in our current system there are certain benefits granted to couples whose marriage is recognized by the state and federal government that gives incentive to include gay marriage into our legal system. This is a legitimate and important concern however, this leads to my next issue.

Where are the gay marriage advocates when it comes to polygamy or even siblings getting married?  After all, they are an even smaller minority than gay couples and are consenting adults who could use every argument that gay marriage advocates use in arguing for its legalization. Let me clarify that this is not an argument against gay marriage. I believe consenting adults should be able to do as they please but I find it disheartening how many people are jumping so adamantly onto the “legalize gay marriage” band wagon and blowing themselves for ‘fighting for the minority’ while failing to lift a finger to fight for even smaller, less represented minorities.

If I had my way, governments would have no place in marriage. No licenses would be issued to married couples and individuals could marry as they saw fit and recognize the marriage of others as they saw fit. But alas, such individual liberties are not even possible within our current system… SO here is how I feel about government sanctioned marriage in our current system. We should replace it with civil unions. Whether gay, straight, or other, couples (or groups) who chose to pursue a life together could be issued civil unions by the government and marriage would be a purely private endeavor. This would allow the so called “rights and benefits” that current married couples enjoy to extend to unconventional couples (or groups) who choose to spend their life together. No one would be forced to feel like they are condoning something violates their conscience and on the flip side, unconventional couples would not receive different government treatment than traditional ones.  Sadly, I hear very few individuals striving to find a solution that would provide fairness for all without trying to force either the pro or anti gay marriage viewpoint on everyone.

The "Cassie Tax Plan" unveiled

The "Cassie Tax Plan" unveiled

For the past few months I have been rolling around what I like to call the “Cassie Tax Plan”. That’s right, I came up with it. It’s my very own 9-9-9 plan, only better. Here’s the general idea: The Cassie tax plan would be a flat tax, but no one pays any tax on the first 20,000 dollars of income. So if you make $20,000 or less, you pay nothing. If you make $30,000, you pay a flat tax on $10,000. If you make a million dollars you pay a flat tax on $980,000. You get the idea? There would be no exemptions, no breaks, no loopholes. No more congress creating selective tax breaks catered to their friends and favorites.

Now, the next question is how high would this flat tax need to be in order to raise an equal amount of revenue as the current income tax system? I had the same question so I did some quick calculations (these are based on numbers I found online and are rough calculations so bear with me). Skip to the next paragraph if you don’t care about my calculations

According to http://www.usdebtclock.org/ the US government collected somewhere around 1,096,000,000,000 last year.

According to the same source, there are 113,347,186 US income taxpayers.

Assuming they all make at least $20,000 there would be a total of $2,266,943,720,000 un-taxable dollars.

Taking the US 2011 total personal income of $12,981,740,848,000 and subtracting the above number we end up with $10,714,797,128,000 in total taxable dollars. Dividing that by the total amount of money collected through the income tax last year and we end up with 9.77 or just under 10%.

So based on these calculations we could have 10% flat tax with the first $20,000 exempt and still meet if not exceed the current amount of income tax collected. This would provide those in the most dire financial situations with very low taxes without creating an unfair system that punishes the more affluent. Sure you’ll be giving up one or two tax exemptions that you were taking advantage of, but your tax rates will be so much lower that, odds are, unless you are tremendously wealthy person with a fantastic accountant who is an expert in deductions, you will ultimately keep more of your income. With one fell swoop we can end the squabbling about everyone paying "their fair share". Of course this small experiment only calculates income tax but we could presumably, expand this idea to include other federal taxes and revolutionize the tax system.

the REAL prune Juice

the REAL prune Juice

After a disappointing super Tuesday, I have to vent. You have 4 republican candidates to choose from. One said that he if he was elected, we would have a US moon base by 2020. Another said that he hopes that we are murdering  Iranian scientists. The third has changed sides on every issue so much that I can hardly find a quote to espouse his opinions since by the time I publish this, they will probably have changed. And the forth...well that's really what this is all about. The fourth.  The fourth predicted the housing crisis and the recession.  He has been so consistent in his views that you could play interviews from his 1988 run for president that would still accurately represent his views today. He has NEVER voted to increase the debt ceiling. The fourth was the only man in congress out of 435 members to vote against the patriot act. He is the only candidate speaking out against war with Iran (and ironically he is the only one who has actually served in the military). But you have pushed him to the bottom of the poles behind candidates whose only positive qualification is to provide fodder for SNL writers.

So just remember, when our soldiers are fighting and dying in Iran, that you had a chance to vote for peace. Remember, when our currency collapses and we see hyper inflation that cripples our economy, you were warned. When our enemies attack us during our weakest hour because we have been occupying their country for decades,  it shouldn't come as a surprise. When our government becomes so oppressive that you cease to feel free, remember that you could have done something about it.

...But you were too busy. You were too busy squabbling over your government hand outs. Or perhaps you were too busy to pay attention to politics at all. And it will be too late. Your chance was today and you. missed. it.

"Rights" or wrong

"Rights" or wrong

A while back, during the 2010 health care debate in Washington, I wrote an article discussing what a 'right' is. Given the current ruckus about the national "right" to birth control, and the Virginia ultrasound mandate, I thought it would be appropriate to further explore the definition of this tricky word.

The declaration of independence famously explains "that [men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  The bill of rights found in the constitution expands on  this outlining the right to free speech, the right bear arms, the right to trial, etc. When examining these rights,  we find that they are, without exception, protections against government violation of the initial "god given" rights.  i.e. all of them are liberties that we are born with and are only limited by oppressive power.

Recently however, many have argued that government services are needed to ensure our rights are upheld. The birth control debacle is a perfect example of this.  The left is arguing that women's rights are not protected unless "free" birth control is provided as a part of our insurance coverage . This is a dangerous misunderstanding of rights and goes far beyond the idea of god-given rights.  Imagine if we took that methodology and applied it to the right to bear arms saying that because we have the right to gun ownership, guns therefore must be financed and provided for the citizens in order to uphold our rights. There would (justifiably) be a tremendous outcry against this, but it is exactly the same concept. Saying that the right to have or own something somehow equate so the right to have it provided for you gives the government an unlimited mandate to provide anything and everything for its citizens.

At a time when semantics and word games are used to manipulate public support for otherwise non-senseical legislation (patriot act anyone?) we must carefully protect the use of the word 'rights'. After all, if the term is used to identify any and every perk that legislators think up, it will cease to hold is distinguished meaning and our true liberties will become nothing more than a list of wants and desires subject to the whims of Washington.

Baby Battles

Baby Battles

As a woman, and someone who is regularly skeptical of the republican platform I felt compelled to weigh in on the birth control debate that is raging in Washington. For those of you missed it, the Washington Liberals are trying to force businesses, including religious organizations, to purchase health insurance for their employees which covers birth control, saying it's an issue of preventative care for women. The republicans are arguing that the mandate is a violation of religious liberty.

First and foremost let's get one thing straight. This issue is not about preventative care for women. Access to affordable birth control is not an issue in the current system. Most insurance already covers prescriptions including birth control with a co-pay of around $10 for generics and women's center's such as planned parenthood provide affordable options priced based on income for those without insurance.  So the idea that access is some sort of big issue is completely fabricated.

But if it's not about women's health, then what IS it about? Well I'm glad you asked. If you want to find out what this debacle is really all about, simply look at who benefits. Big Pharma stands to reap enormous gains from having their drugs fully paid for by insurance companies. Never mind the fact that it will increase insurance costs. Never mind the fact that, without cost competition, few individuals will chose a less expensive generic prescription over brand name, driving up costs making it that much more difficult for the uninsured to afford birth control. Yes, let us just ignore those pesky little facts.

If our lawmakers are so very concerned about preventing pregnancy, why are condoms and vasectomies not covered? Shouldn't men also have the power to prevent unwanted pregnancy or do our ddemocratic overlords think that only women should be expected to behave responsibly when it comes to sex? So much for gender equality. 

Democrats have done a fantastic job of framing this issue as though anyone who opposes forcing insurance companies and employers to fully finance birth control somehow hates women and responsible family planning. But when you strip away the charade and talking points, we can see this supposed philantriampic effort is really about liberals own pocket books. We are facing massive deficits, the erosion of civil liberties, can't congress find something better to do with their time and our money?