Housewifeistan

Obama: "You can only smoke pot if you are me"

2009-04-21T21:36:00.007-04:00

I am seriously pissed. I have been loosely following the California medical marijuana case involving Charles Lynch, especially with the sentencing coming up on April 23rd. For the record, I have never smoked pot nor do I have any interest in doing so (if I had a medical condition that marijuana could help, I would certainly consider it). I am extremely saddened by what is happening to Mr. Lynch. A quick background: Charlie Lynch operated a medical marijuana dispensary in California, following all state and local laws, and now faces a minimum of 5 years in prison for distributing drugs.

Lynch is one of the countless casualties of an idiotic and tragically long-running war on drugs. His shop scrupulously followed Golden State laws and when he opened his shop in Bay, local officials attended the ribbon-cutting ceremony.

God King Obama's DOJ decided to screw Mr. Lynch

The Justice Department announced over the weekend that it will not intervene in the case of Charlie Lynch, the California man convicted on federal charges of drug distribution despite the fact that his business was legal under California law. The federal judge in Lynch’s case had postponed Lynch’s sentencing to inquire if the Obama administration might want to back off, given Attorney General Holder’s recent statements about not prosecuting medical marijuana distributors who are complying with state and local law.

So much for hope and change. This is even more disgusting in light of the fact that our current president once used marijuana in the past. Why hasn't he gotten into trouble for his illegal drug use? In the California case this isn't recreational drug use we are talking about but rather medical necessary treatment.

There is an awful lot to be pissed about concerning Obama (I'll get to the DC voucher stuff next). I only hope the marijuana decrim and medical marijuana activists who supported Obama realize the error of their ways. Come on people - libertarians (and Ron Paul) have supported a sensible drug policy for many, many years. Why can't you all pull your heads out of your asses and think before you enter the voting booth? And take these stupid stickers off your frickin' hybrids and beat-up minivans already (or at least change that "H" to a "D").

Sorry for the pissy post - I have a cold and it's late and I *hate* Obama supporters for their disgusting hypocrisy.

Except for bombing

2009-03-16T21:20:00.005-04:00

I am new to the study of economics, but over the past year or so have tried to pay more attention to economic woes of the country. With all the the troubles that their citizens are in, a few cities and states have decided to give price controls another try after many miserable failures. Since God King Obama is our Demander-in-Chief, maybe the fundamental principles of economics will have changed. From this article

"In a free market system," Glaeser said, goods go to the people who value them most; in a price-controlled system, goods go to whoever is lucky enough to get them. As a result, people hold on to rent-controlled apartments even if they barely use them."
But sponsors of pending U.S. price and rent control legislation dismissed such theories.
"The housing affordability crisis trumps any theoretical recommendations of economists," New York State Assemblyman Jonathan L. Bing, a sponsor of many of the rent-control provisions pending in New York, told FOXNews.com.

Theoretical? Well, I found the following example from later in the same article to be quite...not theoretical:

"In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city -- except for bombing," said Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a former socialist who has been researching rent control since the 1960s.
"In New York City, the Bronx basically fell to pieces because of rent control. You even had the extreme of landlords burning down their houses."
The South Bronx lost 40 percent of its housing stock in the 1960s and '70s, largely due to arson. Many buildings were suspected to have been torched by the landlords themselves, who found that their buildings were literally worthless: There was no way to make a profit due to rent controls, and nobody would buy a building that could not make a profit. Burning the building allowed them to collect insurance money and pay off debts.

The "except for bombing" part sounds pretty real to me.

Why can't she just bear arms instead?

2009-02-28T21:00:00.009-05:00

I have been hearing way too much about the First Lady's "arms" the past few days. I might give a shit if they were talking about firearms, but really, can we lay off word play involving Mrs. Obama and guns? I'll bet $600 (the cost of my next purchase) that Mrs. Not-proud-of-this-country-unless-you-elect-my-husband-Obama has never actually fired any sort of gun.

And the reason for this lack of experience must be that she is too busy working on her own "arms" to have time for any other type. This article is really just silly:

"But others were amazed, like 25-year-old Jessie Rosen. After seeing Obama at the speech Tuesday, she went to the Adidas store in New York and bought two five-pound dumbbells. "It was her arms being so toned in spite of her life," she said.
"This woman is redecorating White House, trying to raise two children and backseat driving the nation," Rosen said. "She seems to have time to keep her arms toned, so why can't I?" "

Well at least Ms. Rosen can be pround of her ability to give out backhanded compliments. Trying to raise two children? Backseat driving the nation? So "in spite of her life" must mean that she has no money, no time, no personal chef, no housekeeper, no personal trainer... oh wait.

"Obama has said she exercises in 90-minute workout three times a week with a personal trainer."

I consider myself an average (modern) housewife in terms of what I do around the house and with my kids. But, with two little soon-to-be-homeschooled kids and a spouse who works quite a lot, I have no time (not to mention money) for 270 minutes of workouts a week with a trainer. If I did happen to have a spare 270 minutes, I would probably spend it keeping track of what the government is trying to do to my freedoms.

Well, look on the bright side. The more time our stylish First Lady spends on her arms, her decorating, and trying to raise her kids, the less she can devote to backseat driving. Not that her husband really needs much help in screwing up our country.

Homeschooling regulation

2009-02-11T21:15:00.003-05:00

Today the kids and I went on our first "official" homeschooling field trip. I say official because we have finally decided that we are going to homeschool, at least for the next few years. I am relieved to have come to a decision and very excited to begin this new adventure as a homeschooling mom.

So our field trip was to the New Hampshire statehouse to demonstrate opposition to some MAJOR homeschooling regulation. If this bill passes, New Hampshire would have some of the strictest requirements in the country. After driving around for 30 minutes trying to find a somewhat decent parking spot, we made it to the state house, picking up a few anti-homeschool-regulation friends along the way. I didn't know exactly where to go once we were in the state house, but the crowd of say, oh, 500+ people was pretty easy to spot. The turn out was amazing - only gun related legislation can come close to getting the same number of people.

I didn't get into the hearing but I didn't expect to as we arrived a bit late to get a good place in line. But I did sign the sheet stating my opposition to the legislation and enjoyed observing and talking with some wonderful people. I realized today how much more positive my interactions with the homeschooling community have been compared to the schooling community.

I'll probably post an update when there is more news but the above link will have all the updates (if anyone cares in the first place...).

Edited to add: I just saw some new stats for how many people showed up at the state house today - 1000!

Bear spray control !?!

2009-02-09T21:01:00.003-05:00

This article had me laughing so hard I could barely tell my husband about it. I know I have already made fun of Canada a couple of times, but really, they are askin' for it.

A few choice excerpts:

"In a city where bear spray is involved in as many crimes as guns are - over 700 incidents in 2006 and 2007- it didn't take long for the officers to divine the rowdies' intentions."

The use of bear spray while committing a crime is as common at the use of a gun? Wow, I guess gun control is really working up there in Canada, eh?

Here comes the government to the rescue!

"In what may be the first mention of bear spray in a Throne Speech, the NDP government recently vowed to "limit access to animal repellants, which in the past have been used in burglaries and assaults."
And as of Jan. 1, the province mandated all bear-spray vendors to acquire a licence and record each customer who buys the substance.

Most retailers had already required customers to sign a declaration saying they would only use the spray in case of a dog or bear attack. "

Well, of course we will believe them if they say it will only be used on animals....

Again, I read the comments for this article (how could you not!). Most of the readers seem to have a lot of sense and see the complete nonsense of trying to regulate bear spray. What's next - regulation of kitchen knives, scissors, hot sauce in spray bottles, rocks, and pointy sticks?

Now that I have written my post, I am going to finish what I set out to do before all this Canadian lunacy distracted me: Become an official member of the 2nd Amendment Sisters .

And remember: If bear spray it outlawed, only outlaw bears will have spray...

Or maybe Canada should adopt the U.S. Second Amendment but change it to: Keep and arm bears...

Bat-leth control

2009-02-07T21:25:00.007-05:00

The second I saw this news story, I knew it would make for the perfect blog post.

"Colorado Springs police are on the lookout for a man who attempted to rob two 7-Eleven convenience stores early Wednesday with a Klingon bat'leth sword."

"It could be used as a dangerous weapon," understated Colorado Springs police officer Lt. David Whitlock to the local ABC affiliate. Doubtlessly, none of which have witnessed the brutal bat'leth competition held on Forcas III. "We didn't think it was a toy and neither did the victims, they felt threatened."

I have gotten into the habit of reading comments on news articles. Seriously - I have learned quite a lot from the various weirdoes who actually have time to post comments. The ones following this particular article are no exception. They range from Klingon phrases, to the almost cliché "Beam me up Scotty!" to the classic "Kaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhnnnnnnn!" which for some reason (at least to this Trekkie) always seems to be funny. But the best comment I saved for last. Someone was wondering how long it would take for Mr. Obama to include the Klingons in the bailout package. Well, since no one in the entire universe has actually read the whole darn thing, how do we know the Klingons haven't been given a few 10^12 dollars? Or maybe the Ferengi - but wait! The Ferengi rely on a "gold-pressed latinum" standard so they probably wouldn't be in need of a bailout in the first place...

On a somewhat related topic, and the reason for the title of this post, I wonder when the gun-control nuts will take on the bat-leth? Can't you just see the headlines: "Trekkies dressed as Klingons descend on Washingting to lobby for their 2nd amendment rights" and "District of Columbia v. Worf - Decision expected today!" Maybe we can only keep a bat-leth in our home if it has a trigger lock...

Edited to add: I just saw this comment as I was closing my browser window: "Outlaw Klingon swords, and only outlaws will have Klingon swords."

Wandlung zum Guten?

2009-01-16T21:49:00.006-05:00

With the inauguration only a few days away I can't help but pay some attention to our president-elect and how his (our) new administration is shaping up. The always entertaining reason.tv has given us this fun video (with an ironic soundtrack...).

A right to an MRI?

2009-01-13T21:21:00.006-05:00

I'll start off with a light post for the new year. I was reading Fox News (yes I know - evil mainstream media but they actually do have good articles once and awhile) and I read this piece about a woman who was too large to fit into the MRI machines at her current hospital. The details of her situation aren't relevant here but I was interested in one of her statements:

"They should have machines that fit most everybody," Carolyn said.

Hey Canada! Someone thinks they have a right to fit into an MRI machine, no matter their size. Pass a law! Good luck getting the laws of physics changed to accomodate the need for larger MRI machines. I could suggest this woman should have just gone north to take advantage of Canada's wonderful nationalized medical system but it's too sad to even joke about since people are actually dying because of socialized medicine.

The answer is that Medicare — like all universal-coverage schemes — is operated by the government, and government resists innovation. In this case, resistance to innovation kills.

On that note, Happy New Year! Here's to hoping 2009 turns out a little brighter than 2008...

Revolution on the moon

2008-12-06T22:52:00.007-05:00

My lack of posting these last couple of weeks is due to my recent rediscovery of the works of Robert A. Heinlein. (Well that and just being somewhat lazy and the holiday and numerous other things which are too boring to write about). Anyway, I loved Heinlein in high school and college and read quite a few of his novels, my favorite book during those years being Stranger in a Strange Land. I just finished The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I must say this book is now my favorite by far. I had no idea this wonderful collection of paper, ink and glue was just sitting on my shelf with the words "His classic, Hugo Award-winning novel of libertarian revolution" right on the cover!

The reason I read the book in the first place was its mention on quite a few of the blogs/websites I frequent. I thought I should find out for myself why everyone keeps talking about this book. Then today on a local political forum, I came across yet another reference to the book. So I will keep the trend going and mention the book on my blog. Not that I have a great number of readers but you never know who might want to start a revolution...

I won't give a plot synopsis here as that is what this is for. But for anyone who enjoys science fiction and for some reason has not read much (or any) Heinlein, this book will provide a great deal to think about albeit in a fun and entertaining way. This book is especially relevant considering the current political climate (which is certainly not entertaining).

I'll end with one of the best quotes from the book:

"Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws--always for the other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of the trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: 'Please pass this so I won't be able to do something I know I should stop.' Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see their neighbors doing. Stop them 'for their own good'--not because the speaker claimed to be harmed by it."

Manuel Davis O'Kelley
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Oh Canada...

2008-11-21T21:06:00.006-05:00

Now that our "historic" election is over (and people have mostly forgotten about what sort of change we are hoping to believe in) it might be nice to poke fun at a few other countries who are also making themselves appear rather silly. I happened upon two news items from my lovely neighbors to the north.

The first one is really quite absurd. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision by the Canadian Transportation Agency that people who are "functionally disabled by obesity" have a right to two seats (or more?) for the price of one fare. So where do we begin? I didn't know that being obese meant one automatically had more "rights." Do people who are obese also have the right not to pay more for food? Or are they entitled to a larger house or vehicle to accommodate their disability? If obese people have this right, what about very tall people? Surely they are just as uncomfortable squeezing into a single seat - they really could use the whole row. What about people with kids? Why stop at one seat - families with young children must have a right to the whole plane! Right?

The right to a free airline seat certainly isn't an inalienable right. If the Canadian government wants certain people to have additional legal rights, then so be it. It will be interesting to see what sort of rights will magically appear next...

And speaking of rights, the Canadian government seems just as happy to take them away. Students at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario will now have to be much more careful of what they say and to whom they say it.

"The Kingston university has hired student facilitators to step in when they overhear homophobic slurs, remarks bashing women or racially tinged insults, along with an array of other language that could be deemed offensive."

Who decides what is offensive? Apparently the facilitators were trained, but it seems like the policies they follow could be changed on a whim. I would guess that making comments about someone being obese would fall under the "array" of language that could be offensive. Where does it end? At least some of the students have concerns about this new initiative.

" "Having a program like this in place could stifle public discussion if people are worried their private conversations are being monitored," said Angela Hickman, managing editor of the Queen's Journal, a campus newspaper."

If I were a student at any university with a policy like this, I would be very concerned about what could happen if you say anything remotely offensive. Which of your classmates could you trust? What if your friends enjoy the (artificial) power it gives them to report something they heard to a facilitator? Notice the article made no mention of what happens to students who refuse to change the way in which they speak.

Well, at least Canada gave us hockey and Wendy.

School Choice? No you can't

2008-11-12T22:12:00.000-05:00

I have been thinking quite a lot about where (and if) my son will attend school next year. I have always had a positive opinion of homeschooling even though I only began to seriously consider the issue in the last two years. As someone who doesn't believe the state has any business in education, I will not be sending my children to public school. Ever. There is an excellent private school nearby and a thriving local homeschooling community so I am happy to pursue either of those options

What happens when families don't have a choice? What if the state regulations for homeschooling are too burdensome? What if there are no private schools or if private school tuition is too expensive? What if the local public schools are horrible, boring, unsafe, etc.?

If we want to have more choice in how our children are educated, then we need to allow competition. The massive public school system in this country is exactly the opposite of a market-based competitive system. It will exist no matter how poor of a product it produces.

Which brings me to why I wrote this post in the first place. Our president-elect does not support school choice - at least not for your family:

"Which is to say that Obama (as he has already demonstrated via his own kids) is in favor of school choice, at least when it comes to his family (he has said a variety of phoney-baloney platitudes about not "walking away" from public schools and creating more charters, etc.)"

The next administration not only doesn't support school choice, but in reality won't change anything from our current failing system:

"It is tragic to see Senator Obama clinging to the failed approaches of the past, and ironic that his education platform so closely resembles that of President Bush. For, despite his protestations to the contrary, Obama's calls for massive spending increases on existing programs look like nothing so much as a third Bush term."

On a related note, there is a new grassroots effort to support real education reform. I think efforts of this type will produce the much needed change that our kids can actually believe in.

Remember, remember...

2008-11-05T21:14:00.000-05:00

On this day one year ago, Ron Paul made history by raising over $4.2 million in one day, making it at that time the largest one-day Internet political fundraiser ever.

Can anyone blame me for having some hope (real hope, not the Obama brand) for our Republic one year ago?

Happy Guy Fawkes Night! It seems like a good night to watch this of course...

Don't blame me - I didn't vote

2008-11-05T20:25:00.000-05:00

For the first time since I have been eligible to vote in a presidential election, I did not vote for president. After weeks of careful consideration, I chose not to vote for any of the candidates listed on the ballot (there were 4 to choose from) nor did I write-in a candidate.

A simple answer to the question of "Why not?" would be "There was no one I believed capable of holding the office of President of our country as defined by the Constitution." The longer answer includes the fact that I am disgusted with politics, especially on the federal level, and that my vote doesn't really make a difference. If you have doubts as to whether your vote truly counts, then read this.

"By not voting people can “signal” to others their disapproval of a system that allows one person (or group) to gain at the expense of another."

In a way, my not voting was a protest against the fact that I really had no choice. A vote for Obama is a vote for wealth-redistribution and an interventionist foreign policy. A vote for McCain is a vote for censorship and an interventionist foreign policy.

As for the two Libertarian Party candidates on the ballot, I don't believe that Bob Barr will follow the principles of the Libertarian Party platform based on his prior voting record. As for George Phillies, I know little about him but I no longer trust the Libertarian Party to produce honest candidates. Essentially, Bob Barr cost George Phillies my vote. Not that it matters...

I did however vote for state and local candidates. Ballot access is an important issue and a Libertarian candidate receiving 4% of the vote would allow them future access to the ballot without the unfair and time-consuming process of petitioning. I believe that change (the real kind, not the Obama brand) happens by educating people at the local level. I hope to lead by example and encourage others to pay attention to their representatives and hold them accountable. After all, this election isn't historic and isn't about Obama, but rather about taking responsibility for yourself and how you wish to be governed.

About Housewifeistan

2008-11-01T21:27:00.000-04:00

I have been meaning to start a blog for some time as I greatly enjoy reading the many blogs available on the internets. It seems only right to add my contribution, at least until I start writing.

I plan to focus on specific issues closely related to my current occupation as a housewife: parental rights, health care, men's rights, educational freedom, economics, foreign policy, anarchy... Well, I will try to stick to a somewhat smaller range of topics but there are so many terrifying (albeit interesting) events occurring right now that it will be difficult to narrow it down to just a few.

I would like to give credit to my husband for helping me name this blog. I was first inspired by the term "Trashcanistan" from P.J. O'Rourke's "Eat the Rich". The citizens of my country are all firm believers in limited government and the free-market (well, I have yet to get a clear answer from my 2.5 year-old daughter) so hopefully the problems plaguing those other countries will stay in...those other countries. Welcome to Housewifeistan where Big Brother isn't very big and the women are armed.