did i just pay for your yacht?

Recovery.gov data

$218,206,202,543 awarded
$85,703,541,778 funds received
750,045 jobs created or saved reported

is anyone doing the math on this?... they have awarded $218 BILLION and made 750 THOUSAND jobs... that is the US Government, your tax dollars, paying $290,924.15 PER PERSON to create or save their job... has this not sunk into your heads yet?... they are actually saying, even admitting, that they are paying an average of a QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS to create a single job... and the government, our government, is okay with this!

but... let's take a breath... step back and consider the bigger picture... some of that money goes to create the business which then hires the people... perhaps there's a market which needed capital to tap into, thus the created job provides a useful service, creates a product, and provides long-term employment, thus generating sales tax, income tax, Social Security, etc... you have to spend money to make money... i get that...

or... you could give $50,000 each to 4 million people and call it a day... they'll spend it.

or... you could buy a house (average of $200,000) for each of 1 million people and call it a day... they'll pay taxes on it.

the point is, the "Recovery" is just another way to take money from all of us and give it to some of us... if this were a capitalist system, the people who took a financial risk reaped the benefit (or suffered the loss)... good thing we don't live there! (for humor impared, that's sarcasm!)

just for fun, check out the Gross Domestic Product over the last couple years... call me stupid, but this fiasco has been during a Democrat controlled Congress... prior to that, things were pretty good...
http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm
and the manufactured growth appears to be failing, too... but that's just me being an optimist.

i'm offended = make a law

Special Olympics: Rosa's Law

i'm sure i'll be thought less of for saying this, but do we really need a law passed rebranding mental retardation as "intellectual disability"?... really?... a LAW?

Merriam-Webster defines retardation as slowness of development or progress... disability is a restriction, disadvantage, or impairment... yet the offensive term is the most benign... if you have a retardation, you have a slowed progress... your progress hasn't stopped, just slowed... but if you have a disability, you are impaired and restricted... you're at a disadvantage... a disability often means you cannot succeed... retardation just means it may take longer to succeed...

but i'm not blind to the cause of this law... mean and hateful people have used the term "retard" as a pejorative... there are hundreds of examples of this... many of them, even i am hesitant to utter... or even write on the internet... normal, often technically correct, words are deemed offensive... mainly due to people, whom we would typically disdain anything they might say, using the words in an attempt to hurt other people...

now, so not to offend, the term "retarded" is off limits... to quote Charlie Brown, "Good grief!"... do we really need to make a law every time someone gets offended?... at what point do we make it official and deputize the Thought Police?...

i would say that practice is retarded, but that would imply progress... this law is intellectually disabled.

Don't ask, don't tell - what's your option

here's a subject i'm loath to discuss... homosexuals... it's not that i have issues for or against them... but it always becomes a personal discussion where feelings get hurt and no resolution is found... but this is becoming the topic of many mainstream issues, and i feel this needs some light put upon it...

today's topic is "gays in the military"... again, a sensitive subject for many on both sides... "straights" oppose it for various reasons, many of them of personal nature... gays support it for opposite reasons, but these reasons are also very personal... so, let's discuss one portion of the issue, without trying to get off into any quasi-moral or religious debates... let's discuss fraternization.

fraternization: fraternus - "brotherly"; to associate on friendly terms; mingle, consort, mix
Dictionary: fraternization

the military has a severe dislike of fraternization... typically, it is meant to discourage favoritism or discord between officers and enlisted personnel... however, with the introduction of females into the military, fraternization has taken on a much broader meaning... members of equal rank, but opposite sexes, are segregated... while their MOS may be the same, and they may work hand-in-hand, they do not mingle, mix, or consort with one another (fraternize) outside their work scopes... in more plain terms, they don't bunk together...

this is not to say they don't date... members of equal rank may see one another socially... however, the military does not promote by social-group... if you are promoted to a rank above your significant other, you have placed yourself in a position where favoritism may be shown, one to another... this is natural between partners; this is illegal to the UCMJ... what yesterday was harmless, today is a court-marshaling offense...

fraternization between equals can still cause disorder and havoc in a military regiment... there is nothing wrong with well qualified women being in front-line positions... if they can do the job, let them do it... but how do you handle the known issue of fraternization?... by placing two (assuming heterosexual) people of the same gender in life-or-death situations, they naturally form a strong bond... what happens to that bond when they are opposite gender in the same situation?... that bond can easily progress to more... and then decisions of the two are compromised... they are no longer soldiers, but lovers... loyalties can get confused...

the simple solution to such a complex issue is to keep the genders separate... but what can the military do when gender is removed?... what do you do when your brigade has GBLT members?... at what point does the personal choices of some become greater than the good of the whole?... i'm not going to argue whether it's a personal choice or not... let's assume for this argument that it is a genetic/physical manifestation... fine... what do you do about having homosexuals serving in quarters?... working/fighting/bunking together?... do you attempt separation, like they do with male/female soldiers?... is there a "gay brigade"?... (a horrible term, but it keeps bouncing around in my head)...

separation doesn't solve the problem of fraternization... it actually compounds it... it places soldiers in a situation where fraternization is difficult to escape... where, at some point, it may become "normal"... the military unit is no longer fighting for God and Country, but for each other... it breeds dissension in the ranks of the unit... will a sargent send his/her lover out on point, or to charge a fortification, or first into a tunnel?... when does fraternization between individuals endanger others?...

and to touch on the "personal choice" issue for a moment, at what point does the Transgender get introduced?... i'm not talking those who have medically reconstructed themselves... but those who have decided that they prefer the garb of the opposite gender... do they get special treatment?... do we issue unisex uniforms?... and if we do, does that mean that the heterosexual females give up their right to their femininity?... or do we put the men in kilts and have a Scottish Brigade?...

the issue at hand is greater than even what i've discussed here... it's all well and good that homosexuals want to be treated equally and fairly, but what do the rest of us have to lose to give them this modicium of equality?...

and where do we stop?