Death to Penn State Football

His name is so hated by me, I do not think that his name deserves full acknowledgment. I heard news today that his honorary bronze statue at Penn State was jack-hammered into obscurity by workers. As in few other cases, in this case the saying truly applies: good riddance to bad rubbish.

If someone wishes to set up a charity booth where one can, for a small contribution to abused children, urinate on said “hero”, I shall be first in line. His employee and buddy inserted his excited, erect penis into the anus of underage boys, enjoyed orgasm, and ejaculated his semen into the colon of said innocents. He knew.

He knew.

He knew, and voluntarily protected the SOB.

It is foreign to my beliefs as a Buddhist to wish death upon any person. Nevertheless, I am familiar with prison behavior that endangers other prisoners who have crossed certain moral boundaries. In this case, whatever his fate, I shall not shed a tear or say a prayer for JoePa's pal (whose name, likewise, does not merit mention).

I understand very well that more than a few American males worship said SOB as all that is good in sports and youth and football and all that jazz. In this case, I suggest that you (not to mention the NCAA and Penn State) seriously reexamine the true meaning of morality and humanity.

To throw gasoline upon the fire, the family of said SOB should be ashamed and embarrassed by their blood relations to this monster who protected another monster.  His blood relations should be in the vanguard of contributing to a fund compensating said victims; somehow, I doubt that this will come to pass.

Anyone who thinks even in the back of his mind that this is in the least bit defensible needs to seriously reexamine his attitude about humanity. In my world, anyone who is in sympathy with either of these 2 demons deserves the same fate. True: living, breathing evil exists in our world today: witness these 2 representatives.

What is Up With North Korea

Forgive my mirth, but it is difficult for me to think of North Korea as any different from an episode of South Park. Kim Jung-un is an inexperienced, 28 year old pipsqueak certainly not equal to grasping the levers of power of an iron-fisted absolutist dictatorship designed by the ultimate authoritarian Kim Il-sung. Fortunately for stability's sake, Jang Song-thaek is the veteran, wily fox behind the throne.
There is some thought that the South Park refugee, having being heeled in the decadent western society, will bring economic reform (a la Chinese Communist Party) by seizing control of the government from the military. I would not bet your next paycheck on this, even though I am reasonably sure that the Kim family firmly controls the military.
On the good side, here is one of the most positive things about the South Park Dictatorship the I have read recently from Reuters:

Beijing leaders are thought to have been pressing Pyongyang to do more to reform the economy, worried that a collapse of the North could send refugees streaming across its border, and cause the loss of a strategic buffer to South Korea and the large contingent of U.S. troops which help protect it. 

It would make me happy if this bit of optimism were true, but somehow I doubt it. In the true tradition of hereditary dictatorship, it will be the same-old-same-old. From the Red-Chinese-Communist point of view, N Korea is a useful loose cannon, the looser the better. If the issue in the article really was true, Hu Jintao would simply close the border: problem solved.

An Islamic Primer: Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria

Lesson #1 - Sunni vs. Shia

There is a deep fissure in Islam: the mutual hatred of these 2 groups is greater than their contempt for The Great Satan (US) or even Israel. That is why Iran (Shia) tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador (Sunni) rather than the American or Israeli ones. The conflict lies in who inherits the religious authority from Mohammed: his religious council (Sunni) or his family and descendants (Shia). The vast majority of Muslims worldwide are Sunni, making Shia a powerful yet small minority. Yes, this is a terrible oversimplification, but it will do for a start. Unless you understand this dichotomy, you will never understand the current complexities in Syria.

Lesson #2 – Hamas and Hezbollah

Hezbollah, who is Syria's powerful proxy in Lebanon and largely controls the latter on behalf of the former, is Shia. Hamas, who controls the Gaza Strip and constantly shoots rockets into Israel from there, is Sunni.

Lesson #3 – Syria: Sunni or Shia?

This is a rather complicated question, and the source of most of Syria's civil war unrest. Bashar al-Assad, Syria's current dictator, is from a small and obscure sect: Alawite, which is nominally Shia; sadly, the country is mostly Sunni. He is frequently accused of suppressing and murdering his Sunni opponents, especially in the current civil war. Then there is the issue of a suicide bombing of a Shia splinter group that opposes Assad (perpetrated by Assad loyalists, no less), not to mention complaints that Iran (Shia) is supporting a group (Alawites) that is suppressing other Shia groups. There are also Kurds, Druze, and Christians to consider in this complicated soup.

Lesson #4 – Turkey, Iraq, Jordan

These are Syria's neighbors. Refugees are massing on Turkey's border, and she is not happy about the whole situation. Turkey, nominally Sunni but mostly secular, is supporting Syrian Sunni rebels; with the Russian-assisted shoot down of one of its military jets by Syria, she could intervene on the rebel side in a conventional war. When it comes to Iraq, there has been some recent criticisms that both W and Barack fumbled the ball: there were significant US military assets on the ground in Iraq; a half-hour's Humvee drive into Syria by a battalion or so could easily have toppled the Assad regime. As to Jordan, I must admit to having a brain fart.

Final Exam – Russia and Iran

Both of these Assad allies are shoveling rockets, gold bullion coins, seasoned insurgents, small arms, big arms, military sophistication, attack helicopters, naval battle groups, and burqas into Syria as fast as their fat little arms will go. Although the UN has declared the uprising as a legally protected civil war, Russia has vetoed Security Council resolutions to support the rebels via sanctions against an evil, oppressive dictatorship.

Question: why?

Cheat Sheet: Russia is desperate to keep the sympathetic Assad regime in place in order to protect its rights for its Black Sea Fleet (BSF) at the warm water Syrian port of Tartus, a convenient massing point to counter the US Sixth Fleet, which sticks in the old-Soviet craw.

For Iran, Syria is merely a convenient munitions dump in its eternal struggle against the evil Jew.

What Makes You Such an Expert?

Well, nothing, actually. I am neither Druze, Coptic, Christian, Jewish, or even Muslim. As a Buddhist, I do not have a horse in this race (or so goes that old saying goes). My only criticism in all this morass is the needless taking of human life.

Have a nice day.  

Foie Gras Ban? You're Kidding, Right?

Newsflash (not) – California is the weirdest place on the planet.

Overfeeding Animals Is Not A Crime

I am personally friends with more than one or two domestic felines and canines who are terribly overweight. Yes, this does decrease the lifespan of said pet, and the owners know it. When they (the animal, not the owner) hear any kitchen appliance that might sound like a can opener or the crinkle of a paper bag, they will happily come running.

This is, more or less, the same reaction of water fowl (being raised for foie gras) when you shake their bucket of grain.

Yes, they use a funnel to pour the grain down the animal's mouth. Still, it is difficult to think of this as cruelty if you have ever seen it.

The Political Ulterior Motive

The activists behind this curious law are crazy: crazy like a fox. It is their credo that 'meat is murder', and they are deadly serious about it. Banning foie gras is merely the opening salvo of a long term effort to totally ban the consumption of animals, and they picked something that is relatively easy to pass legislatively. That this peculiar law passed muster is certainly a feather in their cap, and they are planning the next move as we speak; we will know of it in due course.

OK, Maybe It Is A Good Thing?

On the other hand, this peculiar law has resurrected a tried and true American institution: the speakeasy. It is fun to go to an illicit event or special place that only those 'in the know' can get in, and enjoy something very special and very illegal. Plus, there is a brand new black market for duck/goose liver? What fun!

Do You Work Hard? Are You Smart? Obama Just Insulted You

I love Americans: they work hard, work smart, and often become wealthy; they are the best such on the face of the earth. If this applies to you, congratulations: take the time to enjoy the fruits of your labor once in a while.

In an ill-conceived speech (or perhaps a rare moment of veracity of his opinions), Obama has just told you that you did not become wealthy or famous or successful because of your own gumption: you have what you have because he and the gov't machinery that he controls gave it to you. If you have not grabbed your pitchfork and torch and are marching to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, then you are not paying attention (or maybe you are just too busy working hard or being smart and cannot spare the time).

Excuse me, Barack Hussein Obama (you certainly are not my president, so refuse to use the title; in my world, you earn this title): you and your governmental forces have absolutely nothing to do with the wealth of Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, or even Mitt Romney. This is so obvious, that I will not labor the point.

So, sir, put that in your pipe and smoke it (oh, wait, you smoke like a chimney but with cigarettes; forgive me-do they still make those machines where you can make your own cigarettes? Surely a heavy smoker like you ought to know).

Condoleezza Rice for Mitt's Veep? Big Mistake: she is a solid Lib

Even if the rumors are not totally true, the fact that Rice is even on the short list should dispel thoughts once and for all about if and when Mitt will reach out to conservatives. This would be a good time for conservatives to run out to the grocery store for a six-pack of longnecks and a bag of Doritos.

• First, she is in the pro-abortion camp: she has never stated that she thinks that abortion is wrong and ought to be as illegal as drowning your children by driving your car into a lake.
• Second, she has never criticized welfare or high taxes or our governmental nanny state. When she has pronounced on this at all, she has expressed mild support for transfer-of-wealth gov't programs.
• Third, Romney is tilting at polls. He has calculated that having a woman and a black as his VP choice will win him votes and increase his support in the black community and soccer moms, just enough to win, and to-the-devil with conservatives (I defy anyone to name one instance where Mitt has reached out to the Tea Party). Her position on the domestic political spectrum is irrelevant.

I challenge her foreign policy credentials: I have my doubts these are as strong as some give her credit for. She was W's NSA honcho during his first term, and SecState during his second. I am firmly convinced that his seemingly obtuse understanding of the Middle East conundrum and futile military/international political initiatives can be laid firmly at Rice's feet, who to this day probably does not understand what the 'global caliphate' is or how it determines Islamic national behavior on an absolute basis. I doubt that she has read the Koran or understands that the position of women therein is akin to that of chattel and not just a political stance that is subject to cajoling for change. Projecting a confident, cool, sophisticated persona during media interviews is not the same as understanding the dynamics of Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists or Communists or Tibetans or North Koreans or anyone else. Henry Kissinger, John Bolton, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick are my idols: Ms Rice was clearly under-qualified as NSA guru or SecState, and more so as hypothetical VP. These are not offices where on-the-job-training is advantageous to the United States of America.

If you will excuse me, I need to go to the medicine cabinet for an antacid.

Taiwan, We Apologize: You Are A Sovereign Country

Calling upon my political credentials (such as they are) as a failed, ex-candidate for the US Congress, on behalf of the current and previous Presidential administrations and the American People, I officially apologize for the mistreatment of your country: Taiwan.

A Bit Of History

For you young 'uns, let me tell you how things used to be in the dark ages. In the early 70's, I had just become a sentient being as a teenager getting ready to vote in my first election. It was a great scandal when President Nixon and his SecState Kissinger opened diplomatic channels to Communist (Red) China.

At this time, it was a ridiculous foreign policy fiction that the the tiny island also represented mainland China under control of the Communists, as we did not recognize Communist control of the mainland China. Just as today, it is equally ridiculous that US foreign policy does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country.

Taiwan Deserves UN Membership

When you observe the existence of Taiwan over the years, there is no doubt that Taiwan is a sovereign entity. As such, there is no rationale to deny her a seat at the UN. Viewed upon the stream of human history, we ought not to deny Taiwan her own destiny.

I beg the powers that be: grant Taiwan full UN membership.

PRC and ROC

Both the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC), Communist China, and the Republic of China (ROC), Taiwan, are deserving of our respect. They are clearly sovereign countries controlling their individual destinies, for better or worse. Both ought to have seats at the UN.

Why PRC Hates ROC

From the sympathetic sino viewpoint, ROC (and Tibet ICYW) are merely errant children, sullen irredentists, who will eventually see the light and come home again and hug their proper masters. Here, any action that furthers this eventuality is justifiable.

The Taiwan Carrier Battle Group

Living within spitting distance of a hostile neighbor bent on hemispherical hegemony, surely ROC deserves whatever military force they can afford: anti-ship missiles (to counter the nascent PRC blue water navy), our best anti-ballistic-missile system, state of the art air force (ditch those idiotic F16; they should have the F22 or F35 or whatever our air force is calling them, or at least the latest generation of F18 Super-Hornets).

The US Navy has a plenitude of retired assets: floating museums (Hornet), mothball fleet (Coral Sea), and grannies (Missouri). Surely it would not be economically unreasonable to refurbish these old gals and make them seaworthy again? OK, granted, they are technologically a few decades obsolete, but surely, having them is better than not having naval assets at all? Surely more than a match for PRC's halting naval building exercises?

Mitt's Veepstakes – conservatives, do not get your hopes up

At this point in the 'run for the oval office', it is rather traditional to speculate profusely and uselessly about whom each presumed presidential nominee will choose for his/her vice.

Who Mitt Will NOT Choose

It is conventional wisdom that Mitt has to connect with the Conservative base. Therefore, he will choose appropriately for his running mate.

Not.

If he wished to endear himself to Conservatives, he would pick Rubio, Santorum, Ryan, or even Walker. If he wished a sharp political operator who has experience effectively pulling the levers of Congressional power, he would choose Newt.

If he wishes to pull a rabbit-out-of-his-hat (this is a family website, and the previous sentence is not the original one I had in mind), he would a-la-McCain choose Jindal or Haley.

He will choose none of these. He clearly has more disdain for conservatives than that for liberals.

Who Mitt Will Choose

He will pick someone who, like himself, is a plain-vanilla moderate and amenable to ABC News/George Stephanopoulos (who, I remind you, was Clinton's White House Chief of Staff). Therefore, I predict that he will choose: Pawlenty, Portman, Jeb, or Christie.

No, I Am Not Happy

IMHO, Mitt is a weak-kneed panty-waist (can I still use that phrase w/o being pejorative to someone? It is difficult to keep track of those things these days) who will lose rather handily to Barack Hussein Obama this fall. He needs to learn that to win, he has to give us a reason to vote for him; posing as a practical, cool-headed alternative is a recipe for defeat (just ask Dole or McCain). He has to convince us that he wields Excaliber and is on a quest to slay the Liberal, Fire-Breathing Dragon. This, clearly, is not in Mitt's blood.

Am I Wrong?

We shall see: witness his upcoming choice for veep.

Mitt? We Chose The Wrong Presidential Candidate

It has now been 6 days since CJ Roberts and The Supremes issued their ruling on Obamacare, which accelerates the decay of our Constitution rather than propping it up.

I have been on the sharp lookout for evidence of response by the Republican presidential candidate heir apparent.

I am still waiting.

The ruling represents a fatal chink in the Liberal armor. During the primary, there were any number of Republican candidates who would have, at this point, sold their soul to obtain Excaliber, and slay the Liberal Dragon once and for all.

Instead, we have a doormat, curled up on the floor in a fetal position, hoping and praying that this 'Obamacare stuff' will blow over quickly so he can get back to hawking the Establishment message. When I was younger, we called this sort of politician a 'Country Club Republican'.  

A New Constitutional Taxation Proposal – Capitation Tax

US Constitution: Article 1: Section 9

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

My thanks to Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation. They were key players in the unfortunate failure to overturn Obamacare. He is one of the few political pundits who knows of which he speaks, as he is the only one I know of who is a practicing Constitutional lawyer.

He is the only person who has admitted that no one knows what a 'capitation' tax in Article 1, Section 9, really is, because it has never been exercised.

I herewith propose to create a brand new 'capitation' tax.

• ALL federal taxes are immediately abolished (payroll, death, excise, corporate, income, etc.).
• To replace the lost income, each person living in the US (including illegal aliens) will be responsible for paying his/her share of Federal Gov't income.
• The amount per person (including minors) shall be $7,329.
• As per the Constitution, the amounts shall be based upon the most recent census.
• This amount shall be assessed to the state of residence and not individuals.
• It is the responsibility of each state to collect and remit the assessed amount.
• The individual state may impose any tax they deem proper to raise their assessed tax.

Get Out Your 99¢ Calculator

• Total US population: 313,848,170
• total federal taxes 2011: $2,300,000,000,000.
• Divide the latter by the former, and you get the total tax collection per person:
• $7,329

Happy 4th of July...