I have split my blog and so in the process have created another blog for Parley and Prate.

It's now hosted at Wordpress, so go to http://parleyandprate.wordpress.com.

...what the candidates write on their little tables during a debate.

I'm watching McCain's and Obama's faces as they write with their sharpies during the last debate, and if their expressions are any indication, they are writing something like this:

"Is he ever going to let me talk?!"

"I might kill this man later."

"You didn't answer the question, moron!"

"The American people can't be buying this..."

"What a --------."

We need some parents like this.

"Please send my son to prison! He's a freaking lazy moocher who won't get off his butt and get a job!!  Oh, and beat him with a cane!"

As Mr. Burns would say..."eeeeexcellent."

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE49G43O20081017?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews

For all of you confused about the 2009 digital transition, here's a video that may help. But go to the bathroom first, I don't want you wetting yourself.

I have had several people ask me what exactly Barack Obama says that's socialist. I think that they think that I'm throwing around the word "socialist" the same way you might throw around the word "bastard" - that it used to mean something, but now it's just an insult. It's not - it's a way of thinking about economic and social policies. I never really get to explain myself, however, so here it is, in a nutshell.

Why Barak Obama is a Socialist

From Wikipedia:

Modern socialism, running currently under the guise of the Democratic Party in the United States, originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage of "hope and change" between capitalism and communism. Socialists, including Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Hussein Obama, whole-heartedly share the belief that capitalism by nature concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society, and therefore is evil and unfair. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism and communism are the economical belief that the best thing for a country, economically and socially, is a policy best described as "share the wealth." If someone makes too much money (the government decides how much is too much) then they take it away and give it to someone who doesn't make as much (in the form of cash or services or whatever). If you agree with that policy, then you are a socialist. If you believe that the best economic policy is to leave people alone and basically let them earn their own money and do what they want with it, you are a capitalist.

Now, from a social standpoint, socialism (where it gets it's name) sounds a lot better, right? Practically speaking, however, it never works out well. The people who earn the money don't feel the desire to work hard anymore, as much of their money is just going to be taken away and given to someone else. The people who get the money don't feel the desire to work hard anymore, as they are going to be taken care of no matter what you do. It happens every time - when a nation turns to socialism, its economy collapses. And we're not talking about Wall Street Bailout collapses. We're not even talking Black Tuesday collapses. We're talking fall down and NEVER GET UP AGAIN.


From an economic standpoint, it makes sense why this doesn't work. The rich people aren't just evil capitalist greed mongers hording money in a cave somewhere, as pictured above. They invest in the economy, creating jobs and more wealth. There is infinite wealth, but someone has to create it. If you take away the money of the rich people, the entrepreneurs, they can't make anymore. The economy slows to a crawl, withers, and dies - and, like a parasite, takes it's host nation with it.

Okay, okay. All of you foaming at the mouth that I would cite Wikipedia as an accurate source for any information, take it as tongue in cheek and here's a real source for you: Britannica.

Socialism: social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

For those of you who don't get what you just read, or skipped it entirely (you know who you are), let me break it down for you. In free market capitalism, if you work for money, then you own it. In socialism, if you work for money, then everyone owns it.

"But Obama isn't trying to own your stuff!" Okay, let's look at an example. Bill, Joe, and Mike all live on the same street. Mike goes and gets a job and buys a bike. He rides it to work and to the pool and to the gym and to hang out with his friends. One day Joe comes up to him. "Mike, you're done with the bike. Time to let Bill have a turn." Bill gets to ride the bike for a while. Joe steps in again. "Bill, your turn is up. Time to let Mike ride the bike." Mike rides for a few days, when Joe comes back. "Mike, you're done. Bill's turn." Now tell me - who owns the bike?

Taxation is not supposed to work like it works now. It's supposed to be more like a membership fee. If you want to join a gym, you pay a fee, get a card, and get to use their equipment, exercise machines, showers, air conditioning, building, etc because you paid for that right. Some people might pay more than others - senior citizens, for instance, might get a discount - but basically everybody pays and gets to use the facilities. That's what government taxation is SUPPOSED to be. Just paying for government services. But what if you went to your gym the next time you wanted to renew and they said, "That'll be $500," and you said, "What?! It was $350 last year!" And they said, "Well, yes, but you make more money this year. Edna Mae is going to pay $200 and you're making up for it." Do you see where I'm going? When you take that out of context of a gym membership and make it the government, then you no longer have the obvious option of just walking away and not joining the gym. You can't just not join the US. You live here, you have to pay it. Which means it's forced. And when it is no longer about paying for services you use, but about redistributing your wealth to other people, that is a socialistic economic policy. Because the government is controlling your assets, not for a service that you will use, but for wealth redistribution. It's the very definition of socialism.