Old people hate it when kids drink.

Why? Probably these old people are jealous because beer pong didn’t exist when they were kids in college. And why didn’t beer pong exist when the old people were in college? Lack of imagination? Free time was spent in church? Fire hadn’t been invented yet? Who knows. Who cares. All I know is that the old people need to get over it.

Let me be clear, college kids tweak me off as well. Not only do I live in a college town, I work on a college campus and I live in riot central. I’ve biked to work past the burnt couches in the street.

But, the scenery is great. For those of you who are slow, I mean the girls.

College kids are young, stupid, ambitions, naive, idealistic. That’s why the Obama movement is focusing on them. Let ‘em have their fun. In 4 to 6 years they are gonna be in a cubical farm pushing paper so the CEO can get rich. Their daily dose of fantasy will be telling the boss to take this job and shove it. Then they will go home to loud kids, a spouse they don’t like and dog shit all over the yard and fantasize about blowing their brains out.

So let ‘em have some fun.

But no. The colleges aren’t going to allow that it seems. If there is anything colleges hate, it’s people having fun. Yes, and free speech too. And marijuana. And Republicans. And naturally, libertarians.

Anyhow, get a load of this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-08-24-student-conduct-offcampus_N.htm

Let’s examine some passages from this article.

University of Washington police work with Seattle officers to patrol the area north of campus thick with off-campus housing including fraternities and sororities. Boston College goes further by sending a college official off campus to look for parties and students breaking the law.

Boston College is sending a “college official” out amongst the city to actively look for students breaking the law? What the fuck? Is this “official” a police office?

An assistant dean of students at Seattle University does something similar via the Internet. A number of parties were shut down this past year after Glen Butterworth spied a page on Facebook publicizing the events. The private university has put its students on notice that cyber-patrolling will continue this year.

This kids is why you keep your stupidity off the internet. However, are you people comfortable living in a society where some ass hole who works for the college you attends can tell you what to do on your time when you are not on college campus? Where are all the feminazis with their cries of “stay out of my vagina!” Apparently it’s okay to be up in their lives, yards and homes. Just stay out of the vagina. As if anyone would want to be in a feminazi vagina . . .

Some universities take their discipline policies a step further. At Duke University, the campus code requires students to report misbehavior by their fellow students to campus officials, no matter where the students find themselves.

Now you gotta love this. The “campus code” (what the fuck is that?) “requires students to report misbehaviour by their fellow students”. What the fucking fuck! Students are required to spy on each other? What happens if you don’t turn in another student for “misbehaviour”. And what constitutes misbehaviour? This what what the young people also known as “the future of America” are being taught? What kind of nation are they going to create? You think things are fucked up now, wait until these stupid little indoctrinated bastards are in positions of power. Bend over, here it comes.

But wait, here’s another one:

http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2008/08/08/drinking

How ’bout these

The University of Florida is poised to ban drinking games, marking the latest in a series of crackdowns on the kind of booze-infused tomfoolery that’s long been a staple of college life.

Under newly proposed regulations, Florida students — on or off the campus — would be prohibited from “excessive rapid consumption” of alcohol. The policy specifically bars “drinking games,” as well as “alcohol luges,” which are carved ice blocks that serve as frozen pathways for liquor shots.

 

Patricia Telles-Irvin, Florida’s vice president for student affairs, said the university’s existing regulations were already designed to curb binge drinking. The proposed changes, however, are meant to target specific high-risk drinking activities, she said.

 

The regulations also forbid keg standing, an acrobatic drinking feat where students are inverted over a keg, with legs held aloft, as they guzzle straight from a tap.

Do I have to explain what is wrong with this? Are you people really that stupid? Oh wait, yes you are. The U of Florida is going to prohibit “excessive rapid consumption” of alcohol off campus. Not only are they

“This generation really wants us to be more specific, and we’re trying to be as clear as possible about what we mean,” Telles-Irvin said.

Let me translate this for you. “This generation is composed of a bunch of stupid sheep who will allow us to shit in their faces and take away more and more of their freedom,” Telles-Irvin said. And how about Telles-Irvin. A hyphenated last name. Fucking feminazi. Don’t get in her vagina, but she is going to get all up in your personal business. Oh but wait, you’re a sheep. You don’t care. You’re too stupid to care.

Florida isn’t alone. As Time magazine reported last month, drinking games have been banned at the University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Tufts University.

 

Craig Thompson, president of Florida’s Interfraternity Council, said he’s “skeptical” of the proposed regulations. While Thompson says he supports efforts to curb binge drinking, he’s worried about administrators poking into the personal lives of students, even if the university is well intentioned.

 

“Right now my concern is that if there’s going to be regulation that it’s going to be policeable, and they’re not just adding rules to add rules,” said Thompson, who is 22.

 

The university already bans fraternities and sororities from having kegs in their houses, but the new keg ban and other regulations would apply to students living off the campus as well. Telles-Irvin, however, says she’s not going to become a modern-day Eliot Ness, knocking down doors to bust up beer pong games.

 

“We’re not going to be policing anybody,” she said. “I can assure you of that.”

It’s nice to see that someone is worried about administrators infringing on personal freedom. But how ’bout “We’re not going to be policing anybody”? Does anyone believe that shit? Of course they are going to police people. Otherwise what is the point of making the regulation? And they will have to investigate what students are doing in their own homes, otherwise there is no way to know if the regulation is being violated.

Think about this. King George II comes on TV and says “The federal government is going to make it illegal to read any book not approved by the Republican Party of the United States. But we are not going to be policing anybody.” Would you fall for that? If you are a college student maybe you would?

Of course maybe I shouldn’t get so worked up over this. After all I have long maintained that the stupid people are deserving of slavery. Who am I to stop the sheep from taking one more step in the wrong direction?

Reason Magazine had a great article in it a few issues ago. “The Cult of the Presidency Who can we blame for the radical expansion of executive power? Look no further than you and me.” You should read the whole thing, but I wanna mention a few parts here.

“I ain’t running for preacher,” Republican presidential candidate Phil Gramm snarled to religious right activists in 1995 when they urged him to run a campaign stressing moral themes. Several months later, despite Gramm’s fund raising prowess, the Texas conservative finished a desultory fifth place in the Iowa caucuses and quickly dropped out of the race. Since then, few candidates have made Gramm’s mistake. Serious contenders for the office recognize that the role and scope of the modern presidency cannot be so narrowly confined. Today’s candidates are running enthusiastically for national preacher—and much else besides.

 

In the revival tent atmosphere of Barack Obama’s campaign, the preferred hosanna of hope is “Yes we can!” We can, the Democratic front-runner promises, not only create “a new kind of politics” but “transform this country,” “change the world,” and even “create a Kingdom right here on earth.” With the presidency, all things are possible.

How true this is, and it shows what is wrong with our whole concept of “The President”. People expect him to be a preacher, a source of inspiration, a miracle worker. They assign superhuman power to the President. Uncountable numbers of people think for example that the President “controls the economy.” This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. “The economy” is comprised of the actions of every person and business entity in the U.S. and the input/output of every country in which we engage in some form of economic trade with. The President does not control this. Only a stupid person could hold such an idea in her head.

The chief executive of the United States is no longer a mere constitutional officer charged with faithful execution of the laws. He is a soul nourisher, a hope giver, a living American talisman against hurricanes, terrorism, economic downturns, and spiritual malaise. He—or she—is the one who answers the phone at 3 a.m. to keep our children safe from harm. The modern president is America’s shrink, a social worker, our very own national talk show host. He’s also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth.

Yup, there it is. And who made the President into this? You dumb-asses. That’s who. You constant need to be taken care of, provided for, coddled, babied. You constant whining for someone to change your underwear for you and wipe your ass. That’s how we got here.

A little-remembered vignette from the 1992 presidential race underscores how far we’ve traveled from the Framers’ unassuming “chief magistrate”—and how infantile our politics have become along the way. The scene was the campaign’s second televised debate, held in Richmond, Virginia; the format, a horrid Oprah-style arrangement in which a hand-picked audience of allegedly normal Americans got to lob questions at the candidates, who were perched on stools, trying to look warm and approachable. Up from the crowd popped a ponytailed social worker named Denton Walthall, who demanded to know what George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and H. Ross Perot were going to do for us.“The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with…and not the wants of their parents,” Walthall said. “And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the three of you to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it.”

One wonders how some of the more irascible presidents of old would have reacted at the sight of a grown man burbling about childish necessities to the prospective national father. Yet under the hot lights of the 1992 campaign, Ross Perot said he’d cross his heart and take Walthall’s pledge to meet America’s infantile needs, whatever those were. Bill Clinton, being Bill Clinton, pandered. And Bush 41 spluttered through his answer thusly:

“I mean I—I think, in general, let’s talk about these—let’s talk about these issues; let’s talk about the programs, but in the presidency a lot goes into it. Caring is…that’s not particularly specific; strength goes into it, that’s not specific; standing up against aggression, that’s not specific in terms of a program. So I, in principle, I’ll take your point and think we ought to discuss child care—or whatever else it is.” That wasn’t just an example of the Bush family’s famous locution problems; it’s hard not to stammer when faced with the limitless and bewildering demands the public places on the presidency.

Somebody fucking kill me. This fucking long-haired freak-ass social worker piece of shit should have been put against a wall and shot. Instead three supposedly grown men running for President got down on their knees and kissed his hairy hippie ass.

Here is how I would have answered the question:

“What you can expect from me, as your symbolic father, is a nice ass whipping. I don’t mean a little swat where your butt turns pink for a few moments. No, I mean a good ass beating until blood runs down your legs. You see, so long as you live under my roof and I’m the one filling your needs then you are going to live by my rules. I’m going to take you money and property, physically and emotionally abuse you and fuck your daughters if they are good looking. When you grow up and move out, that is to say, when you become capable of providing for yourself, then I will leave you alone. But you can come home to visit every April 15^th. I’m still going to need your money to care for the children who haven’t left home yet.”

Die hippie! Die!

To understand is not to excuse: No president should have the powers President Bush has sought and seized during the last seven years. But after 9/11 and Katrina, what rationally self-interested chief executive would hesitate to centralize power in anticipation of crisis? That pressure would be hard to resist, even for a president devoted to the Constitution and respectful of the limited role the office was supposed to play in our system of government.

In the current presidential race, none of the major-party candidates comes close to fitting that description. Aside from the issue of torture, there’s very little daylight between John McCain and George W. Bush on matters of executive power. For her part, Hillary Clinton claims she played a key role in her husband’s undeclared war against Serbia in 1999. “I urged him to bomb,” she told Talk magazine that year. In 2003 she told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “I’m a strong believer in executive authority. I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority.”

Barack Obama has done more than any candidate in memory to boost expectations for the office, which were extraordinarily high to begin with. Obama’s stated positions on civil liberties may be preferable to McCain’s, but would it matter? If and when a car bomb goes off somewhere in America, would a President Obama be able to resist resorting to warrantless wiretapping, undeclared wars, and the Bush theory of unrestrained executive power? As a Democrat without military experience, publicly perceived as weak on national security, he’d have much more to prove.

“I urged him to bomb”? Was this before or after the sniper fire?

No matter how you look at it, thanks to you spineless, needy, pussyfied citizens out there we are all fucked.

Read the whole thing at:

http://reason.com/news/show/126020.html

I love America, but there is no doubt our government is out of control. The accusations that we have become an empire are not unreasonable. Take a look at all the countries we have troops in across the globe.

Where does this map come from? The web page for Armed Forces Entertainment.

I shit you not. Now if another country established military bases on our soiled Americans would be pretty pissed off. Yet we have no understanding why they don’t like us in other countries.

A good look at this map might help your understanding. It’s time to have the troops doing what they are suppose to do. Defend America. Not Korea, Germany, Ecuador, Kosovo (thank you Klinton) or Saudi Arabia.

Here is the article which I mention in STO #52 about the dumb bitch who went a whole year without a cell phone and discovered that she could actually talk to people without the cell phone.

My year without a cell phone: can’t imagine being totally unplugged for an entire day? Shape found one woman who did it for 12 months.

Ya know, there was a time when people went for an entire life without a cell phone. Hard to imagine isn’t it?

Fuck you and your cell phone.

Stating The Obvious will now be posted here in addition to the Stating The Obvious page on the Cynical Libertarian site.

26 MAY 08: (time 54:20): STO #52. click here for streaming MP3 or right click here to save the file to your computer: Shove your opinion up your ass, that way your head has something to keep it company. I am The Great One, Himself! Fuck you. I was sucked back into the world of theatre, but I have escaped. Everyone in theatre is a fucking Democrat. Yuck.

Republicans are actually more into sexual experimentation than Democrats.

An idiot when to Africa and had to live a whole year without a cell phone. Wow . . . I remember when everyone went without a cell phone all the time. I fucking hate cell phones! What the fuck is wrong with you people. I hate text messaging too, especially when I’m talking to you. How rude are you? And put your fucking cell phone on vibrate when you go into a meeting. The bitch learned that she can talk to strangers instead of talking on your cell phone all the time. Wow! But wait, it gets better. Without her cell phone she learned to show up on time because she didn’t have a cell phone to call and say she would be late. You are a FUCKING LOSER BITCH!!!!!! Having a cell phone is not an excuse to be late. Having a cell phone is not an excuse to disrespect other people by wasting their time. But wait, it gets even better. She starting to, when using a land line & calling card, “actually listen to everything the person on the other end was telling me.” Why don’t you write a fucking book bitch!

“I didn’t have sex with *that* woman.” Hillary Klinton, under sniper fire. Too bad they didn’t get her.

Shape Magazine polls are some scary shit. You people should not be allowed to vote. Should tanning bed be banned? 24% say yes. Fuck me. “Anything that’s been linked to skin cancer should be banned.” Really? How about the sun? Should designers be allowed to hire underweight runway models? 36% say no. I am The Great One, I don’t have role models. Should over-weight travelers be required to buy an additional airplane seat? How do really fat people wipe their asses? Should energy conservation be mandatory? 79% say yes.

The snowpack in Colorado this year was 120% of normal. Global warming? My ass. If you want to be carbon neutral, kill yourself.

You can’t link marijuana to lung cancer because the government will not allow anyone to do any scientific studies with marijuana.

The kids in California are some of the dumbest in the nation, and dumber than the ones in Texas.

I have faith that the Democrats can lose an election to McCain.

I don’t get the whole body mutilation thing. Sticking metal in your face and getting tattoos is not going to make you more attractive. You are still ugly.

53% of Americans depend on the government for their living. The richest 1% paid 36.9% of all federal income taxes. I’d call that a “fair share”. The richest 5% of all tax payers pay 57.1% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 60% of wage earners (43,000 a year or less) paid 0.9% of all federal income taxes. When are the fucking poor people going to pay their fair share?

In the Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 2, Winter 2006 is an article entitled Effects of Discriminatory Interview Questions and Gender on Applicant Reactions by Alan M. Saks and Julie M. McCarthy of the University of Toronto.

Toronto. Canada. There is the first indication that something is wrong here. Anyhow, they did some research on discriminatory questions during job interviews. That data isn’t what I’m interested in however. What I find so interesting is what constitutes “discriminatory” questions. Here is their list of interview questions which contains four discriminatory questions:

What is your date of birth?

What is the nature of your previous work experience?

What kinds of things do you look for in a job?

Have you ever been arrested for a crime?

What do you consider to be your greatest strengths?

Do you have any handicaps?

What university subjects do you like the most?

What qualities should a successful manager possess?

Do you have any future plans for marriage and children?

What do you think you have to offer a company like Dandy Toys?

First, let’s overlook the fact that these are some terrible interview questions, discriminatory or otherwise. You would not learn much about a job applicant from this question set. But that wasn’t the point of their experiment. The discriminatory questions are:

What is your date of birth?

Have you ever been arrested for a crime?

Do you have any handicaps?

Do you have any future plans for marriage and children?

Let’s take these one at a time.

What is your date of birth?

You can’t ask this during an interview, yet once someone is hired they are going to be forced (if they want the job) to fill out numerous forms on which they must put personal information (to include the date of his birth), they will be forced to fill out health insurance forms on which they must put personal & potentially embarrassing information. If this person is really lucky he will have to piss in a fucking jar while someone watches him and that piss will be tested, the results of said test may put him in jail for years. But you dare not ask the date of his birth during the interview.

On top of that, isn’t it fairly obvious when you are talking to another person, face to face, approximately how old he is? Certainly you can’t usually figure out his exact age, but you can tell someone who graduated high school 3 years ago from someone who will be retiring on social security in 3 years.

Age is considered discriminatory primarily because of fucking old people who think that just because they’ve been alive for so long they are now entitled to all the things they couldn’t earn out of merit. If I am going to hire someone and invest lots of time and money in training this person I don’t want to hire somebody who is going to drop dead in 5 years.

And old people, don’t give me this shit about your “life experience” and how wise you are. Really? Old people are smart? You mean like the voters in Florida? What about all the old people who get screwed out of their life savings by con artists? Some guy calls you on the phone, tells you that you’ve won a prize and all you have to do to collect is give him your bank account number, social security number and birth date, and you do it. You are wise? I fucking think not. Go drool on yourself.

As more and more of the population of the United States closes in on retirement age they are going to become nothing other than a welfare burden. Every working tax payer is going to have to support a 78 year old drooling fool in addition to supporting a 20 year old welfare mother and her 4 children. Paying the living expenses and health care cost of all these old people is going to be great for the national deficit as well.

Oh, and why the hell are you old people driving? Get off the fucking road. Old people should not be allowed to drive.

McCain.

Typical old person.

Need I say more?

Next question.

Have you ever been arrested for a crime?

Not until she pisses in that bottle she hasn’t. So you can’t ask her if she’s ever been arrested, but during the application interview she had to sign a form agreeing to a background check. And a credit check. And she has to piss in a bottle.

This is just the interviewer being a pussy. Instead of asking the applicant to her face if she is/was a criminal he will go behind her back to find out. Instead I’ll ask other people if you are a criminal. I will invade your privacy and probe into your past and make you piss in a jar while someone watches you. Somehow this is considered honourable and normal in our society. How fucked up is that?

I work for the government of Colorado. Once we hired a child molester. Our H.R. Department hired a rapist who used his access to employee records to find targets. Good thing we aren’t allowed to ask people if they’ve every been arrested for a crime. I’d feel terrible had either of those people been discriminated against.

Oh, and I had to undergo a FBI background check. Which I passed. How I passed is beyond me.

Third question.

Do you have any handicaps?

Because I, the interviewer, am too stupid to notice the wheelchair under your ass.

In the Age of Victims everyone has a handicap. What with the American’s with Disabilities Act everyone (except for unmarried, heterosexual white men who have jobs and no children) is handicapped.

Alcoholic? Protected!

Sexual harasser (non-white man)? Protected!

Kleptomaniac? Protected!

Old? Protected!

Can’t focus on a task (ADD)? Protected!

Like to sleep at work? Protected!

Pyromaniac? Protected!

Bad attitude? Protected!

Emotional problems? Protected!

Medicated? Protected!

No matter what is wrong with you, your are protected. The people who are not protected are all the others you have to work with. They will have to suffer for your problems. No protection for them.

Classic example. Where I work we have an individual who has been called out on sexual harassment at least twice that I know about, and is known by everyone to make lewd remarks to female customers and staff. By “known” I mean that all of us have seen him do it. During meetings he flips the finger at other employees and has told other employees “fuck you” on multiple occasions. Once one of our female employees simply said “good morning” to him and he responded “fuck you”.

How does he get away with it? He’s protected. He’s black, old, crippled and an alcoholic. He fills four, count ‘em four, quota slots. He can get away with anything. This is the end result of creating protected groups of people. One protected person can fuck over a whole lot of other folks.

Now, having pointed all that out, you shouldn’t ask the question that way (do you have any handicaps). What you ask is “do you have any medical conditions which would prevent you from performing the duties associated with this position?” That works much better and doesn’t sound so condescending.

If they say “no” but really do, then the person lied during the interview. Terminate and move on.

Obviously I’m concerned about people getting the impression I am condescending. You can tell that can’t you?

Final question.

Do you have any future plans for marriage and children?

In other words, do you have any plans in the future to take long periods of leave from work during which time other people will have to do your job for you? Are you intending in the future to not come to work because your children are sick? Will you be taking time off on a regular basis for school related activities? Will you be running out in the middle of the day leaving other people to pick up what you drop in order to take care of your children?

Look, if you wanna make babies that’s great. The world needs babies. Babies require breeders. Good for you. If you wanna job that’s great. The world needs productive employees. But stop trying to do both. I don’t give a shit if you are a liberated woman. Now, if this is a job where no one has to clean up behind you and do your job for you while you are off doing the mother thing that’s different. But I’ve worked with mothers. I’ve seen it first hand.

They show up late, leave early and always have some excuse why they can’t pull the same hours and load that everyone else pulls. As a single, heterosexual, white man with a job I don’t get time off to fuck women (which is required for making babies) so why should women get time off to take care of babies. Making babies is a choice. It’s a fucking choice! It’s Pro Choice. That is not a baby, it’s a choice! Women have total control over their reproduction. Birth control, morning after pill, abortion, adoption. And for many women you have an additional tool which will prevent you from getting pregnant. It’s your personality. In spite of what you think there are very few men interested in having sex with you.

In spite of what you read in Cosmopolitan, you can’t “have it all”.

And boys, don’t think you are exempt. Men with kids are just as much of a pain in the ass. Then you end up getting a divorce and either get custody or child support. If it’s custody then you’ll be gone taking care of all these child related issues while I do your job for you. If it’s child support I’ll have to listen to you complaining about it all the time. It’s you fault ass hole. You fucked her. Why do I have to get punished? I didn’t bust a nut. The child ain’t mine but I still have to pay for it.

These are questions which are considered discrimination in our society. Notice how the last three are designed to set up situations in which other people are punished for the actions (past, present and/or future) of the person that we are trying so hard not to discriminate against.

What kind of sick fucking joke is this?

. . . and other piece of shit foreigners.

Pitching his message to Oregon’s environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to “lead by example” on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.

No, apparently “leadership” is asking permission from third world countries to live your life.  If Black-Bamma wins the election expect to see laws limiting how much you can drive and how hot/cold your home can be.

Expect it . . .

Duh.

Yet again science provides evidence of what normal people have always known. People with behavioral problems own dogs with behavioral problems. Living in Colorado where many people have dogs I’ve seen this first hand multiple times.

Results: Owners of dogs with a behavior problem scored less favorably on 20 of the 23 personality scales measured. Additionally, owners of dogs with behavior problems scored significantly lower than owners of dogs in the control group on some of the personality scales that comprise the CPI. Two of 23 scales, namely “dominance” and “capacity for status” showed significant differences at the P = < 0.01 alpha level.

Conclusions: This study confirms and extends the observations of the authors and other researchers that owner personality and the expression of canine behavior problems may be associated. In particular, the findings indicate that more confident, independent-minded persons are less likely to be confronted with a canine behavior problem, such as dominance-related aggression, fear aggression, or separation anxiety.

You can read the whole thing at: Comparison of Personality Inventories of Owners of Dogs With and Without Behavior Problems

    When the United States treats fat people the way it treats smokers.

New Zealand leads the way:

British citizens Rowan Trezise, 33, and Richie Trezise, 35, are living apart as she tries desperately to shed the pounds needed to comply with New Zealand guidelines that immigrants maintain a healthy BMI, or body mass index.

BMI is a weight-height ratio that estimates percentage of body fat. The New Zealand Immigration Service requires all applicants to undergo a complete medical examination, which includes body size measures like “waist circumference.”

The regulations were supposedly put into place for budget reasons. The country’s health care system cannot afford to open its doors to overweight immigrants, a spokesman for New Zealand’s Fight the Obesity Epidemic explained to the Daily Mail.

Over half of New Zealand adults and nearly one-third of New Zealand children are already overweight or obese, according to the group. Those figures are expected to rise, as are the health problems associated with being overweight, such as high blood pressure and diabetes.

Richie Trezise managed to trim two inches off his waistline, the Daily Mail reports, bringing his BMI down and allowing him to take the first step toward the couple’s dream of resettling in New Zealand.

Rowan Trezise is alone at home and still struggling.

In an interview with the paper, Richie Trezise admitted his wife is having trouble losing the weight — a difficulty which may force the couple to abandon their overseas plans and stay in the U.K. for good.

They’ve set Christmas as their deadline.

Seriously, should we be allowing fat people in restaurants?  I think not.

I put in a bit of time (just a bit) on the John McSame 2008 website.  Looks like he is concerned about my access to health care.  I really feel better now knowing that a 714 year old rich white guy is looking out for me.  Here is how McSame is going to fix the “problem” of health care:

  John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.

A refundable tax credit, sent directly to the insurance provider.  Hey, how about just making an additional deduction on the tax form?

Under McSame’s system, I’ll send $2,500 to the government, then if I get health insurance, and if that insurance is with a company the government deals with, the government will send that money to the insurance company.  So what really happens here?  The government now creates a new department specifically to deal with  transferring my money from me, to the IRS, to the insurance company.  It would be much to simple to allow me to transfer the money from myself to the insurance company.

Of course, if I controlled my own money, I might not spend it on what McSame wants me to spend it on.  I sure am glad McSame isn’t like the Democrats.