According to a recent AP article, John McCain took in $405,409 in gross personal income in 2007 (not including the millions his wife made). That included $23,157 in Social Security payments. WTF?!?!?! Read the rest of this entry »

Everyone, from the man on the street to the major candidates for political office, are wondering what we can do about gas prices. They say there's no short-term fix. They propose drilling off the coasts and in Alaska all of which would take 5-10 years to deliver any oil. They propose sweeping changes to the way we make cars, all of which would take years for the re-designing, testing, and re-tooling. No one brings up the quickest fix...

Strengthen the dollar. The value of the dollar against foreign currencies has dropped 30-50% over the past few years. In 2003, the Euro was worth as little as $1.12. Today it's worth over $1.56. If the dollar was as strong today as it was when the Euro was worth $1.12, that $133.60 per barrel for gas would be $95.91 a barrel, and if gasoline moved apace, that $4.17 per gallon gas would be $2.99.

Yes, we need to rein in the speculators and bring these markets out into the light of day to prevent manipulation, but the quickest way to fix things is to strengthen the dollar against foreign currencies. That will bring down the prices of all imports, not just oil, lowering prices at the pump and at the supermarket.

An immediate way to strengthen the dollar is if the Fed raises interest rates. They say that it will slow economic growth, but look at what the cost of oil is doing to inflation, consumer confidence, and a number of other of major economic drivers. Lowering the price of oil by strengthening the dollar will do more good for the economy than the interest rate boost will do harm.

In short... stronger dollar = lower gas prices. Why isn't this being discussed with the fervor that offshore drilling is?

So, I was reading this story about these pastors who are trying to challenge the political endorsement restrictions of section 501(c)(3) of the tax code which provides tax-exempt status to churches and other non-profit organizations.

One of the rules under that section of the tax code is that these organizations cannot officially endorse or oppose a candidate, try to influence legislation, or engage in propaganda. And this is entirely fair. In theory, if this organization wasn't tax exempt and had to pay taxes on its income, I would benefit by paying less taxes or getting more services, therefore as a tax payer I am supporting this organization's tax-exempt status. Essentially, the taxpayers have made a compact with non-profits (and churches) to say "you don't get involved in politics and we'll subsidize you by making up the tax revenue that is lost via the tax-exempt money you collect."

It's so funny how the conservatives tend to talk about "entitlement" programs when their "core constituency" seems to think it's entitled to do whatever the heck it pleases. These churches that are challenging the political provisions of 501(c)(3) are under the mistaken belief that they're constitutionally entitled to tax-exempt status.

Nope. That's a privelege, not a right. The taxpayers have agreed to let you off the hook they place themselves on, but they've put some conditions on it. If you don't want to agree to those conditions, you're free to do so without penalty, but you have to pay taxes. You're not getting a right taken away, but surrendering a privilege.

And yes, candidates do come speak at churches, but that's under an equal time rule like broadcasters have to follow. If Obama goes to speak at a church, that church has to give McCain an equal chance to speak there if he wants to.

It just galls me what huge shmucks these pastors who are challenging this law are. They may claim to understand God's law, but they have no concept of the law of man and can't get it through their thick skulls that the tax exempt status of religious institutions is not guaranteed in the constitution, and just as we tax Muslims and Christians the same, we can tax Dry Cleaners and Churches the same. And with a Supreme Court that went for the habeas corpus rights of Guantanamo detainees despite being stacked with conservatives, do you honestly think they're going to re-interpret the First Amendment that "liberally" as to read a tax-exempt status for religious enterprises into it?

I understand you have a political opinion and that it is informed by your faith, and to the extent that you carry it out as a private citizen, I say "more power to you." But when you violate the conditions of your church's tax-exempt status from the pulpit, I say "double dumbass on you, you deserve to lose your priveleges."

Sharon Stone recently suggested that the earthquakes in China might be karmic payback for the crap China's been pulling in Tibet. And when she did, people lost their minds. People have been calling for boycotts, claiming she's an idiot, claiming she's evil, claiming she's insensitive, and basically suggesting in various degrees how wrong she is. But is she wrong?

“I’m, you know, not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans, because I don’t think anyone should be unkind to anyone else. And so, I have been very concerned about how to think and what to do about that because I don’t like … that. And then I’ve been, this, you know, concerned about, oh, how should we deal with the Olympics, because they’re not being nice to the Dali Lama who is a good friend of mine. And then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma? When you’re not nice that the bad things happen to you?”

I know a lot of people are ridiculing Sharon Stone for this, but any of them who do and then claim to be a member of one of the Abrahamic religions that considers Moses a prophet and believes in the biblical story of the Jewish exodus from Egypt is a dyed in the wool hypocrite.

Come on. Did some grain merchant in Alexandria really deserve to have his firstborn son die because Pharoah wouldn't let the Hebrews go?

We totally accept God decimating a generation of Egyptian males because of bad policy decisions by the king, yet we pooh-pooh the idea that the earthquake was a punishment from God (or some supernatural power) for China's treatment of Tibet and its people. The parents of all the children who died in all those school collapses had no control over the central government's actions or policies in Tibet, but neither did the Alexandrian grain merchant have influence over Pharoah's actions or policies regarding the Hebrews. He still lost his son, didn't he? Why should all these Chinese parents be any different?

Can it only be a punishment from God if it's predicted by a guy in a robe who looks like Charlton Heston? We obviously believe that the citizens of a nation share the guilt for the acts and policies of its leadership and deserve to bear the brunt of God's wrath. If not, we would reject the book of Exodus. Wouldn't we? Are the plagues upon Egypt now something we can conveniently ignore? Do we really get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible we want to believe? How do we justify a faith in scripture if we only believe the parts we like?

I'm not saying she's right, but that she *could* be right. Although there have been people predicting a punishment from God upon China, no one predicted this particular one. So whether it's God or chance is still up in the air. But for those who would claim it's God, if you believe in the Bible, then you have to admit there is precedent for it.