NevadaBrad

Have you ever tried to live multiple lives? Maybe you had two wives and two sets of kids. Or, worse yet, you pretend to be an Obama-loving-democrat but then secretly read Ann Coulter columns when you think no one is watching? Well, that’s essentially nothing like my situation, except that I, too, have been cheating on someone I love.

For years now I’ve been using both WordPress and Movable Type. It seemed that each tool had something I liked that the other didn’t. I plodded along, afraid to make a commitment. Today it finally clicked and I realized that I hate Movable Type. All that pent-up frustration finally gelled into a solid opinion.

You may be surprised to know that no part of my decision was based on the fact that our supreme leader, President Barack Obama, uses Movable Type. I’m not going to go into the pros and cons of each but here is a quick list of the factors that pushed me over the edge:

• MT seems torturously slow compared to WP
• Comment management in WP is awesome compared to MT
• There is no easy way to create and manage a blogroll in MT
• I am not a fan of “assets”

Of course, NevadaBrad has always run on WP – quite well, I might add. Any deficiencies or lameness fall squarely on my shoulders and not on WP.

There very well may not be any factual basis in my points, but, then again, that never stopped a democrat from talking.

Some may have noticed the lack of posts on NevadaBrad mentioning our supreme leader, President Barack Obama. This is deliberate. I only mention him now for a few reasons. 1) to explain why I don’t mention him, 3) to ponder on a question I can’t seem to answer and 3) because Rush said something about Obama that I found interesting.

It often appears that the America I love is dissolving before my eyes. There are few leaders in Washington that represent the people. Heaven knows Harry Reid is only looking after his own interests. (Speaking of, the election is coming up – expect to start hearing about Yucca Mountain soon.) Obama is actively working to destroy everything that made this country great since the beginning of its history. I don’t think Obama thinks he wants to destroy America, but he certainly doesn’t want America to the be sole super-power. If you’ve ever read Skousen’s The Naked Capitalist, you can easily imagine that Obama is the leader that has been in the making since long before FDR. It is frustrating and I can’t find anything to joke about. I understand the frustration people may have had about George W. Bush, but BDS was just wacky. I won’t resort to the silly tactics of those who despised George W. Bush. I have simply decided to let my blog watch from the sidelines as much as possible. In a nutshell, that’s why I just don’t mention him when I can help it.

My question is this, and I sincerely would love to have an answer: How is it that the same people who constantly joke about Bush being a bumbling idiot now think that Obama is the greatest orator of all time? At best, Obama is predictable and boring when reading the teleprompter. Without the teleprompter he sounds like the new guy at Toastmasters. Worst of all, when you can actually understand what he is talking about it is absolutely terrifying. As an example, consider his statements on Israel. Or consider that he immediately issued a statement about the murder of an abortion doctor, but only issued a statement on the murdered soldier several days later after being embarrassed by talk radio. Obama certainly has nothing on Bush when it comes to speaking. I feel like I’m living in bizarro world.

Finally, Rush Limbaugh was on Hannity recently and made the following comment: “If al-Qaeda wants to demolish the America we know and love, they better hurry, because Obama is beating them to it.”

Later in the show, during the Great American Panel segment, a democratic strategist (I wish I could remember his name)  explained his problem with Rush’s comment. He said he disagreed with Rush’s analysis because  he felt that Rush was comparing Obama with the terrorists. This seems to be the main complaint against Rush for making this statement. I happen to love Rush’s comment because it’s true and it touches on a deeper problem, which obviously didn’t occur to our democratic strategist. The intent doesn’t matter – the results do. If al-Qaeda destroys America because they hate us or if Obama destroys our country because he thinks he’s helping people, at the end of the day the country is destroyed.

Suppose someone were to kill a member of your family. The brakes in their car failed and they hit your family member as they were crossing the street. Are you okay with this since it was an accident? Would you be less angry if they were maliciously murdered? You may have some sympathy in the first instance, but ultimately the result is the same and you will most likely feel the same type of suffering either way.

Rush’s scenario is essentially the same. Rush regularly says that with liberals it’s always the intent that matters and not the result. Obama is proving that idea once again.

The stimulus was a failure and failed to accomplish anything it was meant to do and yet we’re forging ahead with health care. The best government does a horrible job running itself – Obama’s government has already shown – and will continue to show – what the worst government will do.

So, there it is. Why I don’t talk about Obama.

I’m not one to follow local news very closely, except as it relates to me directly. Occasionally the local news will come on and for one reason or another it doesn’t get changed. Not that there’s any point in sharing this. In the not too distant past a couple of stories were played that I found either infuriating or humorous. I’m still undecided. I’ll only touch briefly on one of the topics – I’ll save the other for another day since it will likely be more involved to get all the information straight.

In this particular story the reporter was discussing Reno’s economic health during this downturn. I didn’t catch every word, but it looked like they were talking to Jessica Sferrazza so it seemed pretty official. At the end of the story, either the city or the reporter asked the viewers, “What ideas do you have to help Reno work this the economic crisis?” I may be paraphrasing.

I’m sure everyone was thinking what I was thinking: Station Casinos. Our city council sometimes seems hell-bent on looking for any opportunity it can find to grab a quick buck through taxation of casinos. We do live in Nevada, and that’s a choice I’ve made along with pretty much everyone else, but don’t complain to the public when the gambling industry begins to suffer.

Station Casinos was heavily protested by all the people who live in the area that would be affected. Petitions were signed and the people made it clear that they do not want a casino in this area. People also flooded the halls when the city council discussed the project. Wisely, the city council listened to the people and did not approve the casino permit; however, as our city council is prone to do, they quietly met a short time later and approved the permit when they didn’t have those nasty constituents breathing down their necks and forcing their opinions on the council representatives.

As Indian gaming and internet gaming grows and other states consider legalizing gambling, Reno must stop this foolish money grabbing. This recession/depression should be a lesson that we are putting our eggs in one basket. Let Las Vegas have the gaming tourism – Reno will never be able to compete. Northern Nevada needs to focus on other business and finding ways to make Northern Nevada attractive to a variety of industries. This means abandoning our city’s current policy of “A Casino on Every Corner”, also known as “No Compulsive Gambler Left Behind”.

Reno can correct a number of issues by taking my advice. The obvious benefits include fewer suicides, fewer alcoholics, less drug use and trafficking and a better enviroment and community for everyone. I would imagine there would be less tobacco use and fewer people killed by drunk drivers, but I’m not sure if there are statistics to back me up. That’s just my opinion.

While opining, I believe that the county should overhaul WCSD and encourage school vouchers and better school choice. Nevada spends a fortune on our kids and they are getting a very poor education in many cases. Yet, everywhere I look I see billboards (horrible, evil billboards) saying the educators need more money. Every election there is a bond issue on the ballot. I’m pretty sure that every bond measure passes, too. But it’s never enough. It will never be enough. The only thing that will improve our school district is some good old-fashioned competition – not more money.

So, to try to wrap this up into some type of coherent statement, quit focusing so much on gaming and tourism and try to find ways to attract businesses to Reno. Quit putting casinos outside of downtown. Quit taxing the living snot out of existing casinos to fund a failing school district that shows little tolerance for competition.

For additional reading about how our current funding helps our schools, check out this article at the Nevada Policy Research Institute: http://www.npri.org/publications/spending-for-spendings-sake

Oh, and quit raising my taxes every time I turn around. Okay, I’m done.

With all the thrilling talk lately about Ida, I guess this is another excuse to wonder about Darwinian ideas. Of course, I’m joking about Ida being thrilling. I think it was news for about half a day and then no one cared again.

So, the left pushes Darwin on everyone else. The right pushes religion. I think this is true generally enough that I can make those assumptions. I’ve already asked the question before, but to briefly recap, the left insists that we all accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle, while simultaneously preaching that we all evolved. This means that homosexuality is a defect that will ultimately lead to the extinction of gays. AGAIN, let me state that this is what the left believes and isn’t even close to what I personally believe.

So, how does this line of thinking apply to our economy? Companies and people that are big and successful must give what they have to the weak and helpless. I believe the general idea behind Darwinism is that the strong survive while the weak die off. So, why should the wealthy be forced to give to the poor? Shouldn’t the lefties leave the rich (strong) alone and let the poor (weak) fight for themselves? If evolution is going to be shoved down our throats then why don’t those who espouse evolution practice what they preach?

I guess the left hasn’t always been such a bunch of hypocrites. Not that long ago, they not only preached evolution but also got involved in their communities and tried to speed up the process. But they were also taxing the wealthy at >80% at the same time, so I guess they always have been hypocrites.

If evolution is so great and everyone who disagrees is a fool, then why do those on the left refuse to let it work? I believe that evolution applied to the economy is called capitalism. And evolution applied to sexuality is bigotry. And hypocrisy applied to liberalism is called typical.

I was going to end it there, but let me anticipate an argument. I suppose it could be argued that compassion for the poor and sexually-disoriented is what makes us human – the result of the miracle of evolution. Whether we arrived at this point in time as the result of millions of years of gene-refinement or much quicker thanks to God, the end result is the same. And that’s not a good thing for the lefties.

One chapter of my television viewing habits recently came to a close. Fox’s Prison Break recently ended and it was clearly time. The first season was great, the second season was okay and the rest of the series was good, although never as good as the first season. In case you haven’t seen the show, it’s a lot like watching basketball. The good guys against the bad guys and everyone scores a ton of points in every episode. It got a little monotonous, but was always a good watch.

Anyway, the guys over at the show sat down and said, “It’s time to end the series. People just aren’t buying into it anymore. How can we really make this show go down in a ball of flames so big no one will ever forget the finale?” I would love to slap the masterminds behind the final episode because it was pretty darn lame.

The final season was based around a storage device called “Scylla” that had all the world’s best technologies stored on it. Weapons technology, agricultural technology, and so much more. Whoever had the device would rule the world. So, the last season was a big battle for control of the device. Some people wanted it to use against their enemies and others just wanted to keep it from being used by anyone. So, what can you do to guarantee that it will never be used for evil and everyone in the world will benefit from this information?

If you’re thinking what I was thinking then you’re right! Give it to the UN! It goes without saying that the minds behind the Oil for Food scandal, the international sex scandal and the UN Human Rights Commision scandal would be the best ones to control this kind of information. They could probably right a lot of wrongs by giving this technology to Iran, Sudan, North Korea and all the other countries that have been beat up for no good reason. Blah blah blah…

Whatever.

I consider myself to sit pretty far to the right. But there is one area that I struggle with. It happens to be one of the main reasons why I could never become a libertarian. I mean, there are a lot of reasons, but that’s a topic for another day. I’m talking about the legal sale of tobacco and alcohol.

The thing that got me to thinking about this is the current marketing campaign about seat belts. Click it or TICKET! I’m still not sure whether not wearing a seat belt is a primary offense or not. I thought they announced that it was, but now I hear people talking about it again. What business is it of the governments to mandate seat belt usage? I am totally down with requiring kids to wear seat belts. But an adult? That’s ridiculous. And to waste public safety officer resources enforcing seat belt usage? This has to be a joke.

So, my question is this: Why is it illegal not to wear a beat belt? No one is affected in any way by my choice to use or not use a seat belt. Compare this issue to alcohol. How many lives are ruined by alcohol? How much domestic violence is caused by alcohol? How many people are killed on the roads as a result of alcohol? Granted, it’s not legal to drive drunk. But doesn’t alcohol obstruct judgement? So, once you’ve legally consumed alcohol you have lost the ability to rationally decide whether to drive or not.

In my opinion, alcohol is a no-brainer. There is no reason why it should continue to be legal. Tobacco is much trickier. If tobacco is illegal, then what’s next? Caffeine? If tobacco continues to be legal, then so should marijuana. And then what? Tobacco is slippery on both sides.

I’ll just say that it’s probably best to leave all the laws as they are; however, I don’t enjoy having to walk through a cloud of smoke whenever I go to Wal*Mart to get my delicious Hostess Fruit Pies. I love that I can go to a restaraunt and not have to deal with smoking areas that never properly confine themselves.

I know that conservatives think that this is an infringement on personal freedom, but I don’t see how it’s any different than having a stranger punch you in the face without provocation. Democrats tend to like the laws that limit the legal use of tobacco.

So, I’ve said it. The democrats have one good thing going for them. But now that I think about it, why are democrats opposed to tobacco but love marijuana so much? Dang it! For a second there I was starting to think they might have had a coherent argument about something. Never mind.