I like to drink, go around, and do whatever I want

Well, that's what Bill O'Reilly says about Libertarians in one of his segments with a Russian woman that knows the meaning behind words.
Bill, you can have your protection, I just want my freedom.

p.s. I may want to do whatever I want, but just because I want to doesn't mean that I will.

Good for Russia and Israel

I just saw on Russia Roday that there won't be a need for a visa for Russians visiting Israel for 90 days or less. Good for them, now only if there was no need for visas, but it's a good start. Hopefully this idea will catch on.

Tax the Rich!

I get the argument behind the idea. The rich can afford taxes more than the poor. Of course, I think taxation is theft. I think it's a legalized form of slavery. If I'm taxed on 10% of my income I'm a slave for 1/10 of the work year. If I work 10 hours per day, I'm a slave for an hour. But slavery is slavery even if only for a mere moment...is it not?
So, what if I make $80,000 per year and my neighbor makes $100,000. Let's say for simplicity's sake, I don't get taxed (don't want to screw up the math). Let's say my neighbor has to pay 20%. Well, looks like we're on equal footing, right? He had to go to college longer, and probably a better one, so he's not getting a very good payoff.
Then my other neighbor makes $130,000. What if after taxes he makes "only" $75,000. You know, he can afford it.
So a simple question I have to ask: Why should I bust my butt to work hard and make a lot of money when I may make a little bit than a guy who doesn't work as hard and didn't have as good of an education?
Taxing the rich a lot kills ambition.

The Private Sector and Government

Suppose we had a company that made disinfectants, floor cleaners, bleach, etc.
Suppose this company decided to water it down in order to save money, but passed it off as the pure product. Certainly the government would intervene. Certainly people would more or less call for their heads.
Well, why is the government exempt from this treatment? I'll admit, if government screws up enough, the other party may win next election (but that an be anywhere from tomorrow until 4 years from now). What if it's part of the system though? Like the federal reserve.
A company watering down it's cleaning products is like the fed printing money. They're watering down the value of the dollar. No one seems to mind though.

A prayer to the state

RNC time!
The invocation was quite partisan. I understand wanting to pray for a certain type of leader. I sure do, so I understand people praying for party X or Y. May not agree with their choice of candidates, but I understand.
It's okay to pray for good leaders. Of course, I think NOTA would be a good leader, but I'm not going to slaughter people for praying for Obama or McCain.
But what happens when it becomes politicized? What happens when slogans are tossed into a prayer? Well, I throw up, that's what. Country first should never, ever, be in a prayer to God. Perhaps the state, but never to God who cares more about if you served the poor and fed he hungry than if you served or fed the state.
A prayer for service to the state? Instead of praying that people give up their interest to serve the state (as if politicians aren't power hungry and self-aggrandizing), we should pray that more people give up their self interest to serve God in the priesthood. Or serve the poor through charitiy and volunteering.
And what is wrong with self interest? Often self interest brings good things. For example not many musicians play music to contribute, or serve, to the culture. Yet they serve society, for better or worse, through their self-interest.
Let's put the spiritual side of things away for a moment. Let's say I donated $100,000 to a charity to have an award named after me. Is that $100,000 worth the same if I did it annonymously? Of course! It may be selfish to do it so I can have something named after me, but the ends will be the same!
There's something scary about the melding of the Church and State. Especially when the state becomes the Church!

In Awe of the Almighty God-State

MSNBC's post speech coverage is great. I'm sure there were more state-worshipping statements, but I was busy watching Family Matters.
Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rev. Eugene Rivers just went through the Litany of Saint Lincoln. Michelle Obama, glory to her name, is a descendant of slaves. Reverend Rivers mentioned America is unique, and great, because the North and South had a war and other nations didn't.
His truth comes marching home indeed.
Deacon Matthews mentioned how he hates Hollywood for making the south sypathetic. That's right, he wants to portray them as the devils they apparently were. Let Hollywood help those Sherman apologists, because not one Southerner was good. Let them be portayed like the germans portrayed those apparently hook-nosed greedy jews. Let them be portrayed as those monkey-like Japs our government so lovingly did.
What was the result? Six million people of a relitively small religious group murdered. Six million more of Jewish and Gypsy ancestry slaughtered. Tens of thousands of Japanese annihilated with an intrinsically evil weapon.
Deacon Matthews should know this.
Even if the Jews were trying to take over, is it ever right to commit a genocide? If the Japanese's spirit was strong, is it righ tto crush it by wiping out two cities?
Slavery is immoral. Humans can not be another's property. And yet the ends don't justify the means. Sherman's march was total warfare, which is immoral.
How can a man, supposively a worshipper of the Prince of Peace, glorify war instead of peace? There can be no mistake, they worship the state. Matthews is the Deacon to the reverend. And Olbermann is a promising young acolyte.
These false teachers called on hollywood to portray the Confederacy as an evil on the level of Hitler and the Union on the level of Saint Michael. And yet both sides seemed to be in the wrong. One advocated slavery while the other advocated statism.
Finally, Olbermann said that the CSA rebelled against the Union and were insurrectionists. If Lincoln didn't invade the South, there would have been no war. The South didn't want to take over the north too.
Everyone has a right to leave a country, whether a state/province, region, city, neighborhood, or individual. Why do I say people worship the state? Look at secessionist regions in the world. They treat each one as a schism if they aren't pro-US. South Ossetia and the CSA? No, they must remain within the one true faith.
On the other hand, they treat pro-US regions like the Church would if a protestant group asked to come home. Kosovo? Let them have their freedom!
It's one thing for a religious group to protest a schism since there is a true faith. It's another for a country sincce there's no one true country.
Although the South embracing slavery was reprehensible, there was something noble about it. It had a more Catholic/Anglo-Catholic culture. An air of dignity, a natural social structure (minus slavery of course), and a more easy-going attitude. The North? Although more "advanced", it was so much more irrational. Just take a look at the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
What was once a cultured society became the stereotypical Southern culture of today. When the northerners moved south during reconstruction, they brought their anti-Catholic and state-worshipping attitudes with them.
Indeed, the Civil War was the first of your modern wars-destroy life and property to bring around a good, then spend millions and billions on reconstruction.
The spread of state worship eventually led to America's nationalism which plagues Liberty to this day. The north fought for the slaves' Liberty, yet it was ironically the death of American-style Liberty.

A Frenchman Tells the Truth

Not that I'm calling the French liars or anything. I mean, just look at the blog address!
Today on Fareed Zakaria: GPS (a very good show, from the few episodes and segments I've seen), the host interviewed a Frenchman and a German. The former said Barack Obama was an idealist and a realist, while the neocons are extreme idealists. Then he said Barack was a mixture of a neocon and Kissinger.
Take it from a man with a clear head, a rational man. Obama is no Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich (though I disagree with him on Darfur), or Cynthia McKinney. He's just going to start more wars that are more directly linked to the "war on terror" and genocide
Watch out Pakistan! Watch out Iran!
Turns out that entire nations are terrorist nations if they don't do enough in the eyes of the leviathan. And never mind about possible civil wars if moderates start attacking extremists. The legionaries will come to the rescue!
Yep, we should just kill the people instead of the source, mainly the American Hegemony.
I mean, I think you'd be pretty ticked off if someone decided to stay in your back yard or porch and threatened to shoot you if you tried to get them out, right?
Didn't the colonials have a revolution because the redcoats tried to have sleepovers?

In God We Trust?!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/

Interesting topic. "Should the motto 'In God We Trust' be removed from U.S. currency?"

So, I wonder what our options are?

Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

No no, it isn't.

No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.

Wait, these are my only choices?

Guess I ought to just view the results then

Vote to see results

...oh.

I'd say it shouldn't mainly for the "patriotic" significance. I trust in the Prince of Peace. I trust in God. However, the politicians trust in Mars it would seem. I don't want their perverted worship of a false god, the god of war that they masquerade as the one true God, to be proclaimed from my near-worthless money. Not to mention it implies some sort of Divine Mandate that a Chinese Emperor could only dream of.
Of course if we had gold coins it wouldn't matter much what was printed on it since an American coin would be worth the same as a nigerian coin with the same gold amount. Hell, it could be privately minted with the atheist atom symbol.
(Heck even though I'm not one, I'd probably try to hunt one down)

Too Much Choice?

http://climate.weather.com/articles/overload2008.html?from=hp_fe_link

I get what they're trying to say. "The more there is, the more likely you're going to miss out on something." and "The more there is, the more likely you'll buy things that you wouldn't have otherwise gotten."
When in reality, they're saying (or implying) "Listen to us, we'll provide everything you need and you should be happy."
Variety is very good. For example, A&W root beer is better than Mug, Stewarts, and Olde Brooklyn. However, Olde Brooklyn is the best if taken in moderation (very strong taste). If that's all we had, I'm sure I would hate root beer. Mug has better cream soda than those other companies. I like Pepsi better than Coke, AC, and a plethora of no-name brands. I like my hamburgers well done. My french fries curly and by a certain brand. I can go on and on. I'd also type my shoe preferences, but there's not much variety in the sandal family than brown.

Choose between soda sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup or cane sugar, flavored artificially or naturally, colored pink or red or green or blue or purple.

Of course, there's a difference in taste between cane sugar and h-f corn syrup. Artificial or natural. And, hey, who wouldn't like to pick their favorite color?
Here's where it goes from "dang that's sure cool" to "Wait, what?"

The notion transcends simple consumerism. It also is the dilemma facing whoever wins November's election. With options beyond our great-grandparents' dreams, is freedom of unlimited choice really a freedom at all?
In a universe of unprecedented static, how can an American leader lead?

The author obviously doesn't realize that before the 20th century, the major parties were made up of a coalition of smaller parties. If we have so much choice, why do the two parties have a virtual monopoly on the political landscape? Without unlimited freedom of choice, a leader would actually lead. Republicans get behind a Republican as long as he doesn't break a few cardinal laws (mainly war, though to a lesser extent taxes and social issues). Democrats get behind a Democrat most of the time. Imagine if the whole nation got behind a president, like they eventually did with Roosevelt and eventually Wilson too? That experiment was very successful.
The whole article is a contradiction of capitalism.
Why is it on "Forecast Earth"? I wonder if it's a jab against oil and non-green technology. Of course, like the hypocrites they are, they'll argue for more choice until a green fuel becomes as popular. Then suddenly...

Thank Goodness for Bottled Water!

I've heard plenty of people complain about consumerism in the United States. We're a consumerist cuture. Is that really all that bad though?
The main example I usually hear is the selling of bottled water. "Why should water be sold? It should be free!" "It's a precious resource God gave to us!" "We need it to survive, something so valuble shouldn't have a price."
And yet food is sold. Isn't it also valuble and necessary for survival? Tap water certainly isn't free since you have to pay the government for it. So, it's morally wrong to give a corporation money for water, but it's fine for the government to charge for it? Of course, I forgot, most people worship the state, so the state is the final arbiter on morals (assuming someone from your preferred political party is in office).
So, the only bad thing about bottled water seems to be a fuzzy moral line.
What is the good that is always overlooked?
Well, it helps in droughts, right?
And during disasters, it'll be there long after water stops flowing and you run out of emergency water.
While jogging, you could pick up a bottle.
Flavored water is always good if your tap supply happens to taste really bad. Or even when it tastes good.
No need to worry about terrorists doing anything funny to the water
Buying in bulk usually is much cheaper, so it's good for picnics.

Of course, there's plenty of other uses for bottled water, but these are the ones off the top of my head.

Russia-Georgia

The media is finally reporting on the war between Russia and Georgia. The media has automatically taken Georgia's side since, y'know, the Russians are always evil.
We hear of an alleged Russian bombing of an apartment building, but they attacked an ammo dump that was next to the apartments. Apparently good guys build highly destructive military installations next to residential areas, right?
There was a lot of talk of democracy. Okay, I'll bite. The South Ossetians want to be free from Georgia. They might want to join Russia or they might want their own country. I don't know, but I do know they don't want to be part of Georgia. Don't they have a right to leave if they feel like it?
Let's assumed the countries were different. Let's say Israel was a part of an arabic country. Let's also say that Israel decided to leave this nameless country. They voted to, but not everyone seems to recognize it. The arab country, over a decade later, decide to shell Jerusalem. Fourteen thunred are dead. Would the US not attack? This is the same situation. It seems like the Georgians started it all, yet they're the heroes. They shell a city (destroying about 80% of it) and they're martyrs. The Russians destroy an ammo dump next to an apartment builing and they're evil.
Now the press reports that the Russians are invading the heart of Georgia. The Georgian president declared war on them. He wants a cease-fire not even a day later.
I'm writing this because I'm utterly amazed at the hypocrisy of the two mainstream candidates and Americans in general. If Russia does it, it is evil, but we can go into any country we want and it's okay.
I understand this is the way politics works. I guess I should just laugh since it's so glaringly obvious it's actually a bit funny.

Heroic!

Some congressman just talked down to Bernanke and the government for bailing out Freddie/Fannie. I even think he advocated taking powers away from the Fed. Good for him! Unfortunately, he was ridiculed a little by Dodd. Ah well, that's to be expected. Rome burns as caesar...cracks jokes?

Bastille Day

I was a bit busy yesterday (okay, not really, I forgot to write in this, alright?).
Thank goodness the Neocons hate the French, otherwise they would also celebrate. After all, the jacobins were the prototype of the neoconservatives.

Vive le Roi!

Another "stimulus" package?

Watching the most dangerous man in America, Bernanke, and it sounds like one is coming soon. Printing all that money and bailing out Bear Sterns is what caused gas to become this "high."
What's happening now? Probably another and yet another bailout. The jackals and their priests (the media) are going to tell the jackasses to believe it's the speculators' fault. They will cheer as they get their "free" money.
Unfortunately, the media always reports that pricces are rising. In reality, the dollar is plummeting.

Edit: Forgot to type this. I said that gas would hit $5 per gallon. I was half joking. But now.....

The solution to oil prices is right under your nose

The only problem is that the Fed's cheerleaders are making you look in hiding places rather than down.
On Fox a few minutes ago the panel was talking about, surprise, how to make gas more affordable. Do we attack supply or demand? Do we drill offshore? Do we drill in the shale? So we open our reserves (which is going to be the death of everthing we love. I'll explain in a later post)?
Of course, they never bring up the real problems. The main one is inflation. No one wants to entertain the idea since it's Mad Ben Bernanke's fault and there's almost nothing anyone can do. No, instead of identifying the problem, they want to be gods and be able to do something. They could, but it won't amount to much as long as the Federal Reserve is still around.
The rebate checks we all loved are a big part of the problem. We want things now, but most people didn't see what they couldn't-it fixes things now, but makes it worse in the long run.
There is a secondary problem. Our import from Canada is very impure. It takes a lot to refine it into useable fuel, which costs even more money. So Conservatives and Liberals both want more domestic and "non-terrorist" (read non ay-rab) oil. Where do they get it? Well, here, and Canada. I'm betting the government is going to give oil companies money to drill here. So no matter what, money will be wasted because we can't give those muslims our precious, sacred money.
And yet the blame is falling on speculators and the very Arabs I think we should trade with more.
Neo-Mercantilism, here we come!

Edit: The point of this post was basically "Not much can be done about inflation, so enjoy the ride and hope the government trades with 'our enemies'".

New Blog

For those interested in Catholicism and religion in general, I will post here.

Subsidizing TV

I haven't seen much in the way of the DTV 2009 deal. Basically, everyone is going to be forced to get digital TV. Fret not though! The government will give you up to $80! That's right, it's basically the community paying for people to get their entertainment. People with compatible TVs and and digital cable are paying anyway. People without TV are paying. Sounds fair? Of course not! Here's a gem.

Broadcasters are transitioning to digital to provide important benefits to consumers. Because digital broadcasting is more efficient, broadcasters require less of the airwaves to provide a better television viewing experience. Once the DTV transition is completed, some television channels will be turned over to fire and police departments for emergency communication and others will be auctioned to companies to provide new wireless services.

Is it better? Maybe. The sound can be better and the picture can be clearer. It can also display the wrong colors and get compressed. Yeah, at times it could be like watching youtube. It's also harder to channel surf since theres a bit of buffer time.
More disadvantages from Wikipedia

Similarly, video recorders for analog signals (including both tape-based VCRs and hard-drive-based DVRs) will not be able to select channels, limiting their ability to automatically record programs via a timer or based on downloaded program information.

Also, older handheld televisions, which rely primarily on over-the-air signals and battery operation, will be rendered impractical since the proposed converter boxes are not portable nor powered with batteries.

This one upsets me. Don't mess with my radio.

Portable radios which feature the ability to listen to television audio on VHF channels 2-13 would also lose this ability, while television stations which formerly broadcast on Channel 6 (with analog FM audio on 87.75 MHz) would no longer be heard on standard FM broadcast band radios. These stations would lose the ability for commuters to listen to their broadcasts.

I hope I'm misreading or misunderstanding. I can't play my old games? I'm betting roms won't be legal after this too.

Were any new TVs to contain only an ATSC tuner, this could prevent older devices such as VCRs and video game consoles with only an analog RF output from connecting to the TV. Connection would require an analog to digital converter box, which is the opposite as what is currently being sold. Such a box would also likely introduce additional delay into the video signal. Fortunately, analog inputs suitable for connection to VCRs have remained available on all current digital-capable TV's.

Changes in signal reception from factors such as degrading antenna connections or worsening weather conditions may gradually reduce the quality of analog TV. The nature of digital TV results in a perfect picture initially, until the receiving equipment starts picking up noise or losing signal. Some equipment will show a picture even with significant damage, while other devices may go directly from perfect to no picture at all (and thus not show even a slightly damaged picture).

Yes, forcing everyone to go digital really is good, right? Here's something that really worries me.

Some signals carry encryption and specify use conditions (such as "may not be recorded" or "may not be viewed on displays larger than 1 m in diagonal measure") backed up with the force of law under the WIPO Copyright Treaty and national legislation implementing it, such as the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Long hair is destroying America!

First, I was abducted by aliens. Well, that's my best excuse. Sorry to any lurkers for the lack of updates. Been working on my website though. Yeehaw. Anyway, the show continues.
I'm watching Fox now and the anchor/radio host is picking on some kid (11 I believe) with long hair. It goes past his shoulders. Now, I don't have short hair. It's also not long. Heck, I can't grow long hair without it looking like a total mess. If mine is short, my head looks huge. Absolutely huge. So, my hair helps my head look smaller.
I'm all for people having long hair if they choose (obviously, it's not hurting anyone). The woman said when he goes for a job interview, people might think he's a slacker if it's still long.
I think a fairly close shave looks trashy on a lot of people while long hair could look incredible. Slicked back in a ponytail, combed, whatever. It's not that hard to make long hair look presentable.
Another one of her points was something about the line between boys and girls was being eroded in America or something. God help us all! People aren't wearing that stereotypical 1950's buzz cut or something you might see in the corporate world!
Jesus probably had long hair, and Samson most certainly did. St. Louis IX had long hair. So long for her point.
Finally, she asked what else the mother lets him choose. She said his clothes in the morning. This is pretty good. The only reason children rebel the way they do (in m opinion) is mainly because parents don't want to give thir kids more freedom as they hit puberty. Choosing a hairstyle (and a nice one at that) is a good starting point.

Speaking of lightbulbs...

From a facebook group:

When it comes to the environment- no, your civil rights are NOT more important than steps being taken to save it. Guess what you Republican nitwits, this planet is dying because of humans, I'm all for extinction of the species via not propagating the next generation. Humans don't deserve this world, which provides us with food, water, oxygen and sunlight; costing a little bit more for a lightbulb which may impact the environment positively, even one iota is the LEAST we can do. Mercury is fine by me, get rid of those damn children and fetuses wasting the resources.

You people make me nauseous.

Now let's change that up.

When it comes to national security- no, your civil rights are NOT more important than steps being taken to save the country. Guess what you Democrat nitwits, the terrorists are growing because of so called civil rights and peace, I'm all for the murder of Muslims to stop terrorism. We don't deserve liberty, which provides us with death, terror, destruction and a weakened country; giving a little bit of freedom which may end terrorism, even one iota is the LEAST we can do. Tyranny is fine by me, get rid of those damn freedoms and liberties making us less safe.

You people make me nauseous.

I wonder if she would be up in arms about that. Though only one person, this may represent a greater number of people. The radical anti-freedom group have control. As long as us pro-freedom people are not radicalized (i.e. free markets), they will win.

The Green Movement Encourages Internal Strife

I read an article on Lew Rockwell's site outlining the dangers of fluorescent lightbulbs. Pretty scary stuff. Then I decided to do a bit of research.
If the government doesn't overturn this socialist act, we're going to be forced to pick any of the following:
1. Fluorescent. We have one in the hall. I can say that the lighting is sort of blue, and worst of all, it attracts little bugs. Of course, if it's for the environment, it's alright to have your house as one huge bug zapper. Ever hear of redemptive suffering? Yeah, suffer for the state and you'll end up getting more green heaven points. (maybe tax breaks since the government wants you to believe its a god)
2. LEDs. I have a few LED flashlights. They aren't nearly as good as traditional flashlights. We have an LED spotlight on the garage. It just makes everything glow pretty creepilly. Being a nerd though, I love LEDs. I found some lightbulbs that cost about $35 and end up costing about $10 in energy over it's lifetime. Apparently, it's equivalent to a 45 watt bulb. It's not the same and it's incredibly expensive, but it's the next best thing.
3. ...Incandescent lightbulbs? Well, according to that Wikipedia article, the government is banning bulbs between 40 and 150 watts. So I'm going to assume that 30 Watts are going to be sort of popular. People may end up with 2 to compensate, but it's not the same, so they may just use 3. Of course, 200 watt bulbs are a-okay too! I'm going to bet that's so the government and "special interests" can keep them. Eat your soup while we eat cake, right?

The Democrats claim to care about the little guy. When they attack business, it sure seems like they are, right? Well, who employs the little guy? Business, government, and themselves.
First they came for big business...
Let's see what the act includes:

Increased CAFE standards. Automakers are required to boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg (14.8 km/l) by 2020. This applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks".

Automakers must spend money to increase fuel standards. Businesses (both big and small) must spend money to offset these costs.

Improved vehicle technology and transportation electrification. Incentives for the development of plug-in hybrids.

More money being spent by the failing automotive industry. Indeed, it may boost it a bit at first, but the cost of manufacturing all these cars and parts will take a massive toll. More jobs go overseas. Incentives may "warrant" congress to raise taxes.
And plug in? Well, so long for a lower electric bill!

New conservation requirements for federal vehicle fleets.

Gasp! The government making itself do something?!

Increased production of biofuels. The total amount of biofuels added to gasoline is required to increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022, from 4.7 billion gallons in 2007. The Energy Act further specifies that 21 billion gallons of the 2022 total must be derived from non-cornstarch products (e.g. sugar or cellulose).

So long free markets, hello sugar shortages and more farm welfare. More tax hikes. All in the name of self-sufficiency (nationalism)

Requires roughly 25 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from 2012 through 2014. This effectively bans the sale of most current incandescent light bulbs.

Goodbye free markets...I hardly knew you.

Requires roughly 200 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, or similar energy savings, by 2020.

I don't even want to think how its going to raise to 200% in 6-8 years. Will this mean lightbulbs will cost even more? Sure, incandescents technically cost more, but it's over years, not all at once. Even less money in our pockets because of green socialism.

New initiatives for promoting conservation in buildings and industry.

Oh hey, initiatives! More taxation to encourage environmentalism! Nevermind my socialism statement, hello economic fascism!

Requires all lighting in Federal buildings to use Energy Star products.

Wow, second time the government put itself into something. All right! And they'll do this with stolen money!

New standards and grants for promoting efficiency in government and public institutions. New and renovated federal buildings must reduce fossil fuel use by 55% (from 2003 levels) by 2010, and 80% by 2020. All new federal buildings must be "carbon-neutral" by 2030.

And how do they do this? With taxpayer money! Yay!

Accelerated research and development of solar energy, geothermal energy, and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies.

More subsidies, more taxes.

Expanded federal research on carbon sequestration technologies.

More subsidies, more tax.

Green jobs - creation of a training program for "Energy efficiency and renewable energy workers".

How are they going to do this? Taxes! Government creating jobs is another sword in the heart of capitalism. Seriously, I'm going to miss it.

Energy transportation and infrastructure. New initiatives for highway, sea and railroad infrastructure. Creation of the Office of Climate Change and Environment in the Department of Transportation.

More taxes and...what's this? Another department?! Well, there we go! They have a foothold to further regulate.

Small business energy programs, offering small businesses loans toward energy efficiency improvements.

Loans, eh? They'll eventually have to pay back even more, so it hurts the business in the long run. More taxes. Is it me or are they starting to attack the "little guy" directly instead of indirectly?

Smart grid - modernization of the electricity grid to improve reliability and efficiency.

Well, the grid is pretty screwed up. More taxes though? I'm thinking yes. More efficient and reliable? I'm thinking less output and capacity instead of fixing blackouts. Well, it's for the environment, damn it!

Pool safety - new federal standards for drain covers and pool barriers.

This is a headscratcher. Regulating pools? Obviously, the cost of owning or going to a private pool will rise, public pools will need more taxes.

To the 108 that voted against it-God Bless you. To those that voted for it-I'm sorry, you're misguided. To the president-never talk about free markets again you traitor.
Who will they tax? Well, the rich of course. They have the money to pay for it, right?
Then they came for the rich...
One day, you may be considered rich because you make as much as a rich person does after taxes.
Then they came for me...
Just a step closer to the government's dream-an ultimate fascist or socialist state where business is in bed with the government or the leviathan consumes all business like the parasite it is.