Taxation, and Social Contracts.

I have stated in the past that taxes are inherently a form of theft, and social contracts are a bunch of bullshit. After thinking on it further, I was wrong.

Let's start with taxes. If you are an anarchist, you believe all government is bad, and all taxation is theft (you cannot run a government without some form of taxation). Many people believe libertarians are anarchists. Some are. Most aren't. I am not; I believe government has a legitimate function; to protect your rights from others, and protect others' rights from you.

The place where taxation becomes theft is when it involves taking your money for the purpose of giving to others. What's the difference, you ask?

Well, first you have to understand what I mean by rights. We have come to associate "rights" with "needs" or even "desires" as in "I have a right to food, shelter, basic medical care, TV, affordable transportation, etc." These are needs, or desires. I do not believe on any respect that they are rights. All rights are freedoms *from* something, not something being given to you for free.

You have a right not to have your things stolen.
You have a right not to be forced into slavery.
You have a right not to be cheated or lied to in business.

I could go on, but these are rights to *not* have things done to you. And that is what government should be there to do. Defense of the borders? Good role. Policing the streets? Good role. A system of courts to administer justice, and jails to house the lawbreakers? Good role. These are all legitimate. And they require taxes.

So no, I don't think taxation is inherently theft. But when it comes to government providing goods and services, then yes. I think it is always theft. Every time. And any government program which involves providing goods and services is funded by theft.

Are all government programs bad things? By no means. I love the space program. I drive on our highways. That doesn't change the fact that I believe they are illegitimate, funded by theft, and should never have been administered by the government. I also believe that the free market (were we to have one) would provide much, much better.

Even the government programs that you love, that I love, if they provide goods or services - even these the most statist among us would admit are hopelessly inefficient, bloated, and poorly run. Government by its very nature is wasteful, since it spends money not its own, generally on people not its own. There is no and can be no incentive to provide efficiently.

So what percentage of our taxes is theft? I don't know; I'd have to
A) analyze our budget exceedingly closely, and
B) trust that the numbers provided are accurate
and neither of those seems like a winning use of my time. But on a guess, I'd say probably 95% of our tax dollars are theft, taking money from one person, then giving it to somebody else, after taking a cut.

When the mob does that, it's despicable. When the government does that, it's somehow supposed to be better. Not in my opinion.

But just because taxes are generally theft, or usually theft, or almost always theft, doesn't mean it's ALWAYS theft, or even inherently so. Where the money is used makes a difference in legitimacy.

So, that takes us to social contracts.

Now, here it's a matter of terminology. Most people use "social contract" to mean something that is accepted by society, and is considered okay because of majority rule. I reject that. The majority is usually wrong. And when I find myself in the majority of almost anything, it makes me immediately question whether I know enough to have a valid opinion.

People will use the term "social contract" to signify a vague thing that allows them to get whatever they want, or feel is just. Nowhere do they have a copy of this social contract. Nowhere can they define this social contract. But they'll use it to push for Universal Health Care, Gun Control, Prayer in Schools, banning Gay Marriage, or any other pet cause they believe either has a majority behind it, or that they believe is a moral imperative.

Again, I reject this. If you cannot show me a contract that I have agreed to live by, it does not exist. If there is nothing spelled out in black and white that I have agreed to, it does not exist.

So what social contract do I believe in? For there is one. I have agreed to it. I have sworn to uphold it. I have studied it extensively. I think it is one of the finest contracts ever devised. It is called the Constitution of the United States of America. By living in this country, I agree to live by its constitution. It is not vague. It does not permit the fickle wind of public opinion to change its fundamental principles.

If this country were to return to the social contract signed on September 17, 1787, we would once again take our place as the champions of freedom that we once were. We could return to the prosperity that freedom brings. And we would be freed of most of the theft that our government currently engages in.

The United States? Really?

Eight years ago today, we faced an unprecedented assault. And as a nation, we came together in a way that I had never witnessed in my lifetime. Even through the horror and loss, it seemed like the birth of something new, a patriotic fervor and pride that could wipe away the tarnish of our increasingly corrupt and bankrupt country.

On that day, who was not proud to be an American as we watched the firefighters giving their lives to try to save others? Who was not proud to be an American when they heard the story of flight 93, sacrificing themselves to prevent more deaths? Who was not proud to be an American when the Red Cross said they didn't need any more donors, because so many had stepped up?

On that day, I was sad at the loss. I was furious at the attackers. And I was proud of my country.

I don't think I've been proud of my country since then.

I know, I know - I have heard that if I don't love this country, I should just leave it. And that brings me to my post title. Are we really the United States? If so, what are we united about?

Pre Civil War, the States were considered sovereign, and signatories to a constitution resembling an alliance more than anything else (an oversimplification, of course). The literature consistently referred to these United States. Afterwards, with the solidification of centralized federal government, we were referred to as the United States. A subtle, but important difference.

But both Pre and Post Civil War, there were common things that united us as a nation. A love of liberty. A distrust of government power. A respect for individual accomplishment. A tradition of self-reliance. Stories of Johnny Appleseed, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin. A musical heritage that came later to include not just patriotic songs, but cowboy music, folk songs, dixieland, ragtime, and jazz. Easter. Christmas. Thanksgiving.

Now, what unites us? A quarter of this country celebrates Cinco De Mayo. The rest don't even know what that is. Thanksgiving and Christmas have become co-opted as commercial entities with no real meaning (if they're even mentioned. Easter has gone into hiding, except as a time to eat chocolate. Mmm... Cadburry eggs.

I can't think of a single thing that we agree on as a country. And just as telling, there's something that I think is more prevalent now than ever before; hate. It's not enough to disagree anymore. Now you have to have hatred for the opposition. You have to call them names. You have to imply that they are idiots for daring to disagree with you.

And you have to lump people into easy political categories whether they fit there or not. And if they're in the same category as you, you have to support them, whether or not you agree. If they're in a different category, you hate them. And everything they stand for.

Politically, I can't think of anything that unites California with Texas. Massachusetts with Alabama. New York with Montana.

So I ask you, in all honesty - what unites these states now? What do we have that we should be proud of right now that we all share? This isn't rhetorical - I'm searching for an answer here.

Now, to go back to something that I wrote earlier... If I don't love what this country has become, why don't I leave it? Because pride in my country is not the most important thing to me. My family lives in this country, and nothing tops that. I have a career in this country that I love, and the only thing that tops that is my family. And I have hope; hope that when the house of cards comes crashing down, we can rebuild something better. Something built on say, the Constitution of the United States.

But for now, are we united anymore?

The Limits of Power

I've been trying to mostly avoid the political issues, as they can get somewhat tiresome. But I just read an excellent essay by Anthony Gregory titled "Obama, Bush, and the limits of Power," and thought it worth passing along.

Two key paragraphs:

Constitutions alone cannot limit government. The overwhelming bulk of what the federal government is engaged in, from imperial wars to drug prohibition, from Social Security to Medicare, is unauthorized by the Constitution, and yet they persist. What matters ultimately is the Constitution in the hearts and minds of the people. So long as the American public supports unconstitutional actions, such actions will commence. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, as Jefferson noted. The Constitution spells out great limits on the government, but without the support of the people, the document loses its teeth.

and

...given the stark similarities between both political parties, at least in their leadership, as well as the nature of government itself, it will not do for folks to condemn Obama as Big Brother and a would-be dictator while simultaneously defending torture, more war, and the Bush administration; nor does it make sense to oppose Bush and all he stood for while virulently backing Obama, who's brandishing Bush's executive power grabs, continuing his foreign policy, bailing out the same financial interests and seeking to control more areas of our lives. Can a reorientation of the American public, along more coherent ideological lines, be achieved? If ever there was a time for us to make our case, now is it.

It is not a Republican vs. Democrat problem. It is not a Right vs. Left problem. It is a freedom vs. government power issue. It seems like more and more are waking up to this reality... But it is too early to see whether enough are coming to terms with this to make a difference.

Thought for the day...

I am not a conservative.

I am not a liberal.

I am not a moderate.

Why is it that these are my only societally approved choices? Why are all others considered ridiculous, fringe, kooky, or irrelevant?

In Defense of Sonia Sotomayor...

Words I thought I'd never say.

Yeah, I am opposed to pretty much everything Sonia Sotomayor stands for. But she's caught some flack from conservative circles for her lack of defense of the 2nd amendment, specifically saying that she doesn't think it keeps individual states from creating their own laws that restrict the rights of gun owners.

She's right.

The constitution was always intended to be a restriction on the role of federal government, NOT state. The idea of the founding fathers was that the states would be sovereign, and members of a voluntary union. This was considered clear until the Civil War, when Lincoln decided to eliminate the voluntary nature of that union. And yes, if you disagree, be prepared to have some documentation, because I can provide plenty on my side. No? Okay, just scoff. Ignorance is bliss like that.

After Lincoln, there started to appear more and more amendments to the constitution asserting the role of the now sovereign federal government over the subjugated and subordinate state.

But this doesn't relate to the 2nd amendment. It was specifically aimed at the federal government. You can read the words of the people who wrote it - it was clear as day in its purpose to them, and should be to us. And strangely, it seems like it was clear as day to Justice Sotomayor.

Now if only she'd get around to reading the 10th amendment... *sigh*

Bob Basso as Thomas Paine

Welcome back, huh?

I go away for a week or two on vacation (incredible - more on that soon!). And when I return, what do I find?

Obama has announced his choice for Supreme Court Justice; Sonia Sotomayor. A fair, unbiased choice it is, too *cough, cough* (both female AND hispanic - double score, Political Correctness!). And I quote from the lady herself:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

For those of you who have no issue with that statement, let me rephrase it and see how you feel about this:

"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

Would that strike you as a good candidate for the Supreme Court?

The trouble with Health Care...

Okay, everyone is jumping on board the new Health Care for Every American train. Somehow, if we just put the government in charge, they'll fix everything (that they broke), and we'll end up with free health care for everybody, and we'll be happy healthy people singing kumbayah beside unicorns farting rainbows.

First off, show me one thing the government has taken over from private business that has shown improvement. One.

Second of all, repeat after me: "there ain't no thing as a free lunch!"

Okay, so you say I don't know what I'm talking about. Europeans and Canadians have Universal Health Care, and it's better than Viagra and a set of blonde twins! Well, I'll save the facts about that for another post (hint; it ain't as good as you think it is), and refer you to someone who indisputable knows what he's talking about: Dr. David McKalip.

He has posted a transcript of his testimony before the Pennsylvania House Health Care Policy Task Force.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

While in my first practice at San Francisco General Hospital, I saw the many shortcomings of a government run hospital. Even with dedicated professional health care staff, the constant budget shortfalls, debt and politically motivated regulatory burdens drained the hospital there. Patients waited weeks to go to rehabilitation units while patients in private systems went in days. Repeat patients never took responsibility for their own health — always assuming that the public system would be there for them. I went to San Francisco a young liberal and left two years later a disillusioned doctor.

and

Many utopian dreamers are motivated by the best of intentions and envision that the best way to achieve high quality health care is to create a system by which the government will control all health care spending and ensure that it is equitable, efficient and proper. They are basing their approach on an economic philosophy that has failed many times in history — one of collectivism and central economic planning. Many of those advocating such a system believe that if an elite group of all knowing and benevolent planners control spending, that nothing but good will result. Unfortunately this had never been the case as evidenced by the fall of the Berlin Wall, the lack of property and individual rights in societies under dictators, and recent examples of failing government-run school systems in America with a never-ending supply of money.

Those advocating single payer systems don't understand that what made America great was not centrally planned economies.

He goes on to destroy pretty much every myth concerning the beauty of single payer systems (there really aren't any, if you look closely), and the horrors of free enterprise managing health care (there are many horrors, but every one is lesser than the result of centrally planned efforts).

For every one of you that thinks Universal Health Care is good, but don't want to argue with me cause I'm just an ignorant musician, read this article. Then see how you feel.

And so it starts...

Actually, it didn't start here. But it's starting to become apparent. The government is beginning to become more blatant in its excesses - civil, not just fiscal. If you can watch this and still believe that we live in a free country... If you can watch this and believe we do not live in a police state... I do not know what to say to you.



As Anthony Gregory at the Campaign for Liberty put it,

The Act's defenders denied it was ever abused (although the first man imprisoned under it was an innocent man punished despite his judge not thinking he deserved the sentence). Now the Act is being turned against ordinary Americans, and even teenage homeschoolers:

This latest outrage just demonstrates why government can never be trusted with any powers that compromise its constitutional limits. Even if you somehow trust the administration currently in power, that can change every four or eight years.

You ain't my bitch...

Have you ever wanted to hear the President of the United States saying "You ain't my bitch, nigga - buy yo own damn fries!"?

I never knew I wanted to until I heard it. It's from an audiobook version of his "Dreams from My Father" narrated by Da Man himself.

Check it out here, or here.

*sigh* My day is complete. Blam!

Jon Stewart, you are officially...

Bill Whittle's Bitch.

In an on air debate with Cliff Mays, Jon Stewart made the assertion that Harry Truman was a war criminal for dropping the bomb on Japan. This is something I've been hearing more and more in the last two years or so.

Now, in all fairness, Jon Stewart made an apology a few days later:

And I may have mentioned during the discussion we were having that Harry Truman was a war criminal. And right after saying it, I thought to myself that was dumb. And it was dumb. Stupid in fact. So I shouldn’t have said that, and I did. So I say right now, no, I don’t believe that to be the case. The atomic bomb, a very complicated decision in the context of a horrific war, and I walk that back because it was in my estimation a stupid thing to say.

Still, maybe he should watch this video, just in case he decides to say something stupid again.

I'm actually considering subscribing to Pajamas TV just to support the dissemination of excellent videos like this.

Now, I don't agree with everything Bill Whittle says; his unwavering support for John McCain is hard for me to grasp. He also seems to think that the Republican party stands for freedom and limited government (equally hard for me to fathom). Still, he produces thought provoking material like this other video about media bias, and this blog entry about America's growing attitude of entitlement.

Definitely worth checking out.

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths

Came across this awhile back on "Psychology Today."

Why most suicide bombers are Muslim, beautiful people have more daughters, humans are naturally polygamous, sexual harassment isn't sexist, and blonds are more attractive.

By: Alan S. Miller Ph.D., Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D.

An interesting read, though most of it seems pretty damn obvious to anyone who is willing to look at reality vs. politically correct utopian ideals.

A Century of Bipartisan Tyranny

Over at Campaign for Liberty, Tom Mullen has written an incredible essay on the destructive nature of "bipartisanship." It is worth a careful read, no matter your stance on politics.

Here are a couple of excerpts:

"Americans are tired of partisan bickering. They are looking for their representatives in Washington to put partisanship aside and get to the work of the American people."

Statements like this have become a mantra over the past few decades. Like Democracy, "Bipartisanship" is now held up as an ideal and an end in and of itself. It would seem that no matter how ludicrous or destructive a policy might be, it must be just and beneficial if both major political parties agree that it should be law.

And a personal favorite:

The seminal moment was, of course, the bloodless coup of 1913. During the first year of the Wilson administration, the federal government established the income tax, the Federal Reserve System, and passed the 17th Amendment. All of these changes were indicative of the change of philosophy in Washington about the role of government. No longer was the government's purpose to secure individual rights, as the Declaration of Independence said it was. Instead, the role of government was now to achieve societal goals of social and economic equality and a world safe for democracy -- all at the expense of individual rights.

[emphasis added]

Of course, the author believes that Americans will rise up and kick out those who perpetuate this debacle. I am not so optimistic - it seems to me that most Americans happily welcome their new overlords, as long as they are promised free stuff (Health Care! Higher Wages! Less Work! Better Retirement! All for free!). It doesn't matter that the government has never, will never, and can never fulfill these promises. People don't want equal rights - they want equal results. And whoever promises those - those will be who gets elected.

However, I love being proven wrong in my pessimism, and maybe this will turn out to be one of those times! But I'm not holding my breath.

Hate Crime?

I have always been opposed to the concept of "hate crimes" - either an action is a crime, or it is not. If it is, the intent does not make the action worse or better. If I assault you, the damage is the same whether I do it because you're pretty, ugly, white, black, too thin, too fat, too gay, too straight - it's still assault! (unless you like it, in which case it's cause you're too masochistic!)

Needless to say, this lack of political correctness on my part finds itself in the minority these days. In an unsurprising turn of events, Obama asked for a federal hate crimes bill to be sent to him. The House approved one, sent it to the Senate today.

Hope. Change. Special Rights and privileges for everybody but the white man. Cause we've been oppressing you too damn long. It's payback time.

Lamar Smith had this to say in opposition:

"All violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted," Smith said. "Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system -- 'equal justice for all.'"

"Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim," Smith said. "It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime."

I find myself agreeing with a Republican. This very well might be a sign of the apocalypse. Well, all I can say is, can there be special protection for scrawny crackers? If we *have* to dole out special rights and privileges, I want some!

Nobody is above the Rule of Law in THIS country!

Unless of course, they work for the government. Case in point: Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke.

This from the Wall Street Journal:

Bank of America Chairman and CEO Kenneth Lewis testified under oath in New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's investigation in February. During the testimony, Mr. Lewis told prosecutors that then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke instructed him to keep silent about deepening financial difficulties at Merrill Lynch.

In case you didn't know it, this is called coercion to commit securities fraud. It is quite illegal. For a more in depth look at this, here is what Mike Shedlock had to say about it:

I suspect Lewis he will be forced out as CEO whether he is indicted or not. Certainly he deserves to go. The more serious issue is the appearance of coercion by Paulson and Bernanke.

Please note that Cuomo's letter states "In an interview with this Office, Secretary Paulson largely corroborated Lewis's account. "

As far as I am concerned, Paulson just pleaded guilty.

An Opinion article (also from the Wall Street Journal) had this to add:

The political class has spent the last few months blaming bankers for everything that has gone wrong in the financial system, and no doubt many banks have earned public scorn. But Washington has been complicit every step of the way, from the Fed's easy money to the nurturing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and since last autumn with regulatory and Congressional panic that is making financial repair that much harder. The men who nearly ruined Bank of America have some explaining to do.

The name of that article says it all - "Busting Bank of America: A case study in how to spread systemic financial risk"

Trust the gov. They're here to help you. And they'd never break their own laws, right? Right?

Bueller? Bueller?

That's okay. We can rest assured that Obama, being the Man who will Change Washington, will not sleep until these men are brought to Justice and pay for their crimes! It's gonna happen. Really.

Papers, please...

To those who don't believe we are living in an increasingly police state, read the following story about TSA agents harassing a Campaign for Liberty official. Be sure to listen to the audio - it is astounding (and infuriating).

On the tape, Mr. Bierfeldt is asked repeatedly where he works, where he obtained the money and why he was in St. Louis.

In each instance, Mr. Bierfeldt asked whether he was required by law to answer the questions.

"You want to play smartass, and I'm not going to play your f--ing game," the TSA official said.

Mr. Bierfeldt continued to refuse to answer, asking whether he was compelled by law to do so. The officers accused him of "doublespeak" and "acting like a child."

"Are you from this planet?" one officer asked.

The officers threatened to handcuff him and turn him over to the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration for questioning.

Now, the big question many have is whether he was retained for the amount of money he was carrying, or for his obvious support of Ron Paul. It doesn't really matter: neither one is illegal. At least, theoretically. Neither one is supposed to be cause for harassment. At least, theoretically.

TSA agents are largely untrained, generally incompetent, and given too much authority. As a result, many of them behave as thugs. And most people go along with it.

I highly encourage everyone out there - record every encounter with the law. If it comes to your word against theirs, you will lose. If you have proof, there is a small chance that your rights will be upheld in the long run.

In the short run? Cross your fingers, read about American history, and dream about the time when we were a free country.

Ah, so THAT'S the problem!

Yeah, even as The Onion mocks the Media's continuing obsession with portraying Obama in nothing but the most glowing beautiful light, CNBC is reportedly worried about being too hard on the poor, downtrodden president:

THE top suits and some of the on-air talent at CNBC were recently ordered to a top-secret meeting with General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt and NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker to discuss whether they've turned into the President Obama-bashing network, Page Six has learned.

"It was an intensive, three-hour dinner at 30 Rock which Zucker himself was behind," a source familiar with the powwow told us. "There was a long discussion about whether CNBC has become too conservative and is beating up on Obama too much. There's great concern that CNBC is now the anti-Obama network. The whole meeting was really kind of creepy."

You know, GE - that warm, cozy comfortable feeling enveloping your head doesn't change the smell of ass. I'm just saying.

Well, as long as experts are in charge...

Before the TARP bill got passed, I wrote both my senators and my congressman, urging them not to pass the bill. One senator voted against it, as did my congressman. One senator voted for it, and sent me a very smug form letter telling how it was the greatest mostest patrioticest thing he'd ever done for his country, and though I had misgivings, I should trust the government to make the hard choices. He went on to say the the money was so safe, because of all the protections built in to make sure it was used wisely. Also, he assured me that he had read the bill carefully - even though it was public knowledge that NOBODY had read the entire bill when it was passed!

Well, I guess I should've trusted him; after all, it's not like the government just spent $78,000,000,000 too much for the stocks they bought!

We will of course ignore the fact that the banks were forced to sell the stocks against their will.

But it's a good thing they passed that TARP bill all right. We sure needed to nationalize our banks to save our capitalistic way of life.

Now we need to pass the next package, really, really quickly - according to the ever brilliant Nancy Pelosi, every month we don't pass an economic stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.

And that, my friends is tragic.

Anyone got a fiddle? I smell something burning.

Good reading...

Though I occasionally disagree with his conclusions, Justin Raimondo's stock keeps going up and up in my book. He has an interesting way of cutting through BS, and the habit of exhaustively backing up his claims.

Though an early Obama supporter, he has since become soured on our Comrade-In-Chief. Here's a very interesting article he just wrote:

The Audacity of Hype

The mainstream media, particularly on television, has lost all sense of objectivity and proportion, and their reporting of the president-elect's doings has taken on a distinctly Soviet air. "Our Glorious Leader Picks the White House Dog" is the emblematic headline of a servile fourth estate. The political atmosphere is positively eerie: amid calls for "unity" and attacks on "toxic" language that is "divisive," there is an odd uniformity of thought similar to the virtual unanimity that gripped the nation in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Groupthink is all the rage, and the media has joined in the fun.

CNN, in a strange fit of usefulness and taking a break from prostrating in front of Obama, decided to host a series of articles about the GOP's struggles. They made the mistake of giving a slot to Ron Paul, who proceeded to tell the truth:

The GOP should ask why the USA is on the wrong track:

The questions now being asked are: Where to go from here and who's to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party?

Too bad the concern for the future of the Republican Party had not been seriously addressed in the year 2000 when the Republicans gained control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

Now, in light of the election, many are asking: What is the future of the Republican Party?

But that is the wrong question. The proper question should be: Where is our country heading? There's no doubt that a large majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong track. That's why the candidate demanding "change" won the election...

...After eight years of perpetual (and unnecessary and unconstitutional) war, persistent and expanded attacks on our privacy, runaway deficits, and now nationalization of the financial system, Republicans are going to have a tough time regaining the confidence of the American people.

One refrain we've been hearing non-stop from the media is how the "conservatives" lost the election, or how Palin ruined it for McCain. Bullshit. The people who hated her were already celebrating their puppy-love for Obama.

Mark Sanford wrote a pretty telling article on this:

Conservatives didn't lose election, GOP did

Beyond the presidential race, it goes without saying the Republican Party took a shellacking nationally. Some on the left will say our electoral losses are a repudiation of our principles of lower taxes, smaller government and individual liberty. But Tuesday was not in fact a rejection of those principles -- it was a rejection of Republicans' failure to live up to those principles.

And last but not least, remember that bailout program? The one that was going to save us? The one that was necessary to buy up bad stocks? Turns out that the money isn't going for that at all. Instead it's going to forced nationalization of banks, regardless of their solvency.

Paulson changes course

In a stunning turnabout, the Bush administration Wednesday abandoned the original centerpiece of its $700 billion effort to rescue the financial system and said it will not use the money to purchase troubled bank assets.

What's this? An expensive government program, forced upon taxpayers despite overwhelming opposition to it, now changing course and not doing anything that it was promised to do, or intended to do? Unheard of! Not in America! Why, this is outrageous, illegal, immoral!

Wait, which government program are we talking about, again?

Synchronized Debating

For any of you who feel that the presidential debates were worth watching... Who thought that it was an actual debate, vs. a carefully scripted chance to expound talking points from previous speeches... Who didn't realize it was the same tired rhetoric over and over and over again...

Just watch this.

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.