I think it's hilarious when American politicians go to the Middle East to try and help solve their problems. Really, contemplate the irony here. Our leaders can't even balance a checkbook or come to a consensus on how to cut less than one percent from their spending projections, yet they fancy themselves capable of reconciling a holy war that's been raging since the 700's. Republicans and Democrats -- who actually agree in principle on most issues -- can not negotiate about anything, ever, for any reason. And somehow they feel no shame in lecturing Muslims and Jews -- who have been disagreeing violently about everything for more than a millennium -- about the need to sit down and hammer out their issues with civility and class? These fools in DC would sooner drive the country into bankruptcy and dissolution than give up one ounce of control or political favor and still they don't hesitate to put "Conflict Resolution Expert" on their resumes.

Our government has only been around for a couple hundred years and they've already figured out a way to grind whatever constructive capability it once possessed into the ground. And the folks responsible for it want to offer their services to a religiously fueled land dispute that's been going on for well over a thousand years? An American politician trying to negotiate a compromise in a 15 centuries old holy war is like a guy who has to call AAA to change a flat tire being sent to do repairs on a nuclear reactor. In both cases it's probable that 1) literally any other human being within a 5000 mile radius would be better suited for the job and 2) he's more likely to leave everyone even more screwed and hopeless than they were before he got there.

You don't have to be a genius to know that if a war has the words "civil" or "holy" in front of it, it's best to stay the hell out of it. And certainly it's the worst possible time to come running in armed to the teeth with shortsighted oversimplifications coated in a complete and utter lack of historical context. After hearing me discuss my foreign policy views people sometimes ask me whose "side" I'm on in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Side? What is this, a volleyball tournament? This is the Middle East, buddy, it's no place for pompoms and pennants.

There have been 5000 sides over 5000 years in that region of the world. I know it's a lot to ask for, especially on the internet, but can we TRY to appreciate the complexity? This is certainly no place to be a "Democrat" or a "Republican". Those designations sure haven't done much to solve any problems here, what the hell do you think they'll do over there?

Remember all those devastating cuts to government that we heard about? Yeah, me neither. I'm an American and it's been like 14 days so my memory of that event has already been pushed out of my brain to make room for car commercials and Dancing With the Stars.

But if I think hard enough I seem to remember talk of "cuts" and "shrinking budgets". Which is why I'm confused to learn that since the sequester hit, the government has advertised for over 2,600 new jobs. That includes more than 100 positions at the Department of Homeland Security. Which makes sense considering they just ordered another billion or so rounds of ammunition. As my grandfather used to say, what's the point of having all those bullets if you ain't got folks to shoot 'em? Only thing they need now is people to shoot at. That's where you come in.

In another sign of the lean times, the White House, which canceled its public tours even though the tours are conducted by unpaid volunteers, has made no indication that it intends to cut its own staff at all. That's a staff, by the way, that includes almost 140 people making six figures. The president's cabal of "climate advisers" rake in a cool 370 grand between them. It's important to have "climate advisers", you know. Me, I just have a window and the Weather Channel. The president, however, needs to spend north of a quarter million for special advice about the weather. My favorite staffers are the "ethics advisers" who make 140 thousand a piece. Who needs Aristotle's Ethics when you have highly paid bureaucrats for that job? Really, if any president needed ethics experts, it would be this one. But I'd say the same thing to Obama's ethics people that I'd say to Chris Christie's nutritionist: you clearly suck at your job. Of course we also can't forget about the several White House calligraphers raking in over 90 grand each. You know, because we live in Rome circa 376 AD and it's necessary to have calligraphers on the staff. I wonder how much they pay the Royal Jester? [insert Joe Biden joke]

But these shining examples of financial restraint hardly hold a candle to a "study" the Feds just decided to fund to the tune of 1.5 million dollars. They are paying for research to find out why lesbians are fat. Yes, apparently 3/4 of all homosexual women are obese and Uncle Sam wants to find out why. And he will spare no expense in doing so. Don't you love it when the government studies civilians like they're rodents? Hey, I don't mean to spoil the ending but I'm pretty sure lesbians get fat the same way straight folks get fat: by eating a lot. This, in fact, is the one thing that binds people of all races, creeds, sexual orientations and political affiliations together. We're all fat as hell because we eat too much and move too little. But I know some crackpot "researcher" somewhere has to justify his government funding by conducting experiments that would make Nazi scientists go "really, dude?" so this study will commence no matter what anyone says. A Nobel Prize surely awaits.

So if you're keeping track at home, the government wants you to know that it's tightening its belt... By hiring 3000 people, spending millions on White House advisers, and funding research into the effects of Big Macs on lesbians.

You are now depressed. You're welcome.

 2013-3-8 - Matt with Rep Barr

                                                          Important Mathematical Equation                     

 [ America in the 2000’s ]                                         [ America in the late 1700’s ]        

 Federal Income Tax                                                   Sugar Tax                                                                          

+State Income Tax                                                     +Stamp Tax         

+Sales Tax                                                                      +Tea Tax  = Armed Revolution

+Corporate Income Tax                                                                               

+Social Security Tax                                                                                 

+Liquor Tax                                                                                             

+Cigarette Tax

+Medicare Tax

+Medicaid Tax

+Obamacare Tax(es)

+Inheritance Tax

+Accounts Receivable Tax

+Building Permit Tax

+CDL license Tax

+Vehicle License Tax

+Dog License Tax

+Hunting License Tax

+Fishing License Tax

+Marriage License Tax

+Liquor License Tax

+School Tax

+Gasoline Tax

+Estate Tax

+Inventory Tax

+Utility Tax(es)

+Water Tax

+Phone Tax(es)

+Federal Unemployment Tax

+State Unemployment Tax

+Excise Tax(es)

+Luxury Tax

+Property Tax

+Real Estate Tax

+Workers Compensation Tax

+Court Fee (hidden tax)

+Speeding tickets (hidden tax)

+Red light cameras (hidden tax)

+Speed cameras (hidden tax)

+Toll roads (hidden tax)

+Toll bridges (hidden tax)   = Reelect Same Politicians Over and Over Again

I think we’re doing it wrong.

Senator Paul talked with Matt today about reckless spending in Washington and Ashley Judd.  Listen below:

 2013-2-21 - Matt w/Sen Paul

Legislators here in Kentucky are working on a state wide smoking ban. Smoking bans, as you know, are enacted to protect your immutable, divinely endowed right to walk into any building in the country without fear of being exposed to smells that annoy you. Of course this means that eventually we'll have to pass a law requiring subway passengers to shower sometime in the week leading up to their boarding the train. I'm told Emperor Bloomberg in New York is already working on that, right after he's done making laws against sitting too close to the television and eating your dessert before you finish your peas. Now, while I have the right to enter any privately owned business in existence and be free from odors I find displeasing, business owners themselves clearly do NOT have the right to set the rules for their own establishments. I have more of a right to make regulations governing your institution than you do. That, my friend, is just plain logical.

But smoking ban advocates do not cite this philosophically irrefutable principle when rationalizing their anti-smoking crusade. Instead they use "science". Notice I put science in quotes there because I want to distinguish from the type of "science" they use and the type of science you're familiar with. Science -- I mean real science -- is defined as "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths". FACTS. TRUTHS. KNOWLEDGE. That's science. "Science", on the other hand, can be defined as "a series of absurd assertions that defy all evidence and logic and can only be supported by repeating the word 'science' over and over again". That's "science". And that's all the anti-smoking despots need to get their measures passed.

These busybodies and charlatans constantly make the claim that secondhand smoke "kills". They even go so far as to shout about a mystical "consensus" that exists among "scientists". Unfortunately, however, a consensus can only really be found among politicians, clueless sheep and elementary school guidance counselors. This group will refer to studies that, they insist, prove the deadliness of passive smoke and therefore justify a universal intrusion on property rights to stamp out the "public health risk".

Say, have you ever actually looked at any of these "studies" they talk about? I have. I'll give you the cliff notes:

In 1992 the EPA published a report called "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking". The report grouped SHS as a Class A carcinogen, which put it in a category with such reputable poisons as asbestos and radon. The EPA even claimed that three thousand people die every year from passive smoke. The problem? Well, just that the whole thing was totally bogus. A few years later the Congressional Research Service did a twenty month study about the report and found it to be insufficient. Even more devastating, a federal judge officially vacated the EPA's findings. He wrote 92 pages about this phony study and he was, to put it lightly, pretty harsh: "“First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA “cherry picked” its data…In order to confirm its hypothesis... This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association…EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer... EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion.”

So when a hysterical "SECONDHAND SMOKE KILLS" nutjob starts babbling about "studies" and a "consensus", know that this is the sort of thing they're referring to -- debunked, discredited, legally vacated propaganda.

But, I have to admit, there HAVE been some credible studies done on SHS. Here's a few:

-In 2003 the British Medical Journal published the largest and most detailed report on secondhand smoke in history. It spanned 39 years and covered thousands of people. It found NO definitive link between SHS and lung cancer mortality.

-In 2002 an analysis of 48 studies discovered only seven that made a link between SHS exposure and health problems. 41 found no link.

-The International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health and the New England Journal of Medicine have both published research stating that non smokers who are exposes to the greatest amount of passive smoke inhale the equivalent of .03 cigarettes a day. That's about 10 cigarettes PER YEAR.

The entire crusade rests on misinformation and logical fallacies. The mounds of research that disprove their position is ignored. Instead they search and search for a correlation that supports their ideology and magically convert the correlation into a causation. "Hey this 84 year old guy just died from heart failure. He worked as a bartender 60 years ago. People smoked in that bar. SECONDHAND SMOKE KILLS!" You know what that is? "Science". By the way, a I know a guy who listened to a Buckcherry song and then died of pneumonia 9 months later. Obviously the grief caused by being subjected to that horrible music fatally damaged his immune system. "Science". You can't argue with "science".