Problem is, I got sucked in by the headline. See, our governor, Pat Quinn--who just signed an enormous tax increase because Illinois doesn't have any fucking money due to centuries of Democrat rule--suffered a legal defeat in that some big construction bill that has his name on it has been struck down by the appellate court for violating the Illinois Constitution.
In Illinois, the state constitution clearly states that there can be no "omnibus" bills; bills are only constitutional if they're single-purpose. The bill that was struck down did a whole bunch of stuff...
INCLUDING SPENDING THIRTY-ONE BILLION DOLLARS THE STATE DOESN'T HAVE.
The State of Illinois is broke, flat busted, because it has a whole bunch of unfunded union pension plans that everyone thought were such a grand idea. We were told that the Democrats just had to raise taxes because the state was broke and there was no other option.
Why--if the state has no money--are they spending $31 billion on anything?
The article says it's a "construction" bill, but it doesn't say what the "construction" is.
* * *
Annoyance number two:
There was a story, a few months ago, about a 68-year-old woman shooting some kids who were throwing bricks at her. These kids were 12-13-14-ish, and they had a history of harassing this woman in various ways, some with implied or explicit violence.
When they took to throwing bricks at her--at her, I mean, not her house or anything--she pulled out a pistol and shot at them, hitting one of them in the shoulder.
Juvenile court Judge Andrew Berman said he found it "disturbing that someone who had an unregistered firearm started shooting at someone who had admittedly started the attack," but apparently thinks it was a "non-life-threatening situation".
Look, anus: when you're a thin 68-year-old, have a group of young teens throw bricks at you and see how threatened you feel. At age 68, you can't exactly shrug off getting hit with a brick. It's no treat even when you're in your twenties.
"Three or four inches in the other direction and this could have been a tragedy," he went on.
The real tragedy is that this poor woman couldn't legally own a firearm in order to protect herself from the kind of thuggery she was exposed to. She had to resort to breaking the law in order to be able to defend herself from a mob of out-of-control children.
The woman--who was repeatedly attacked by these kids over the course of a summer--said, "I'm tired of calling the police, which half the time don't even come." (Emphasis mine, as usual.)
The judge went on that "there are no red flags in the boys' backgrounds".
Oh? Ganging up on an elderly woman and tormenting her isn't a red flag?
Then liberals wonder why people want to own guns. Jesus Christ.
* * *
Time is trying to equate Obama and Reagan: "What Obama Sees in Reagan".
The actual answer is "nothing at all", because his autobiographies make plain that Obama hates Ronald Reagan and everything he stood for.
But the lefty libs all desperately want to draw parallels between Obama and Reagan--even though they all hate Reagan with a passion--because in 1983 Reagan wasn't very popular, either. Just two years into a transformational eight years, Reagan's policies hadn't had time to take effect--but by the next Presidential election, in 1984, the economy was screaming along and everything was already much better than it had been throughout the 1970s.
Libs really want Obama to follow the same trajectory, but in reverse. Of course they can't say that they want an "anti-Reagan", because it would give the game away, but they really desperately want for Obama to become as popular as Reagan is, even now.
Problem: Obama ain't another Ronald Reagan.
Forget the politics; Obama hasn't got the charisma to be a left-wing Reagan. Everything that Reagan was, he was despite the best efforts of the media--and remember, this was the 1980s, when CBS NBC ABC NYT were it; CNN was only just beginning and there were no other cable news networks, nor was the Internet anything like what it is now. The Fairness Doctrine was still in effect and there was no right-wing talk radio worth speaking of. Despite the best efforts of the de facto media gatekeepers, Reagan was popular and well-liked by the vast majority of the American public. Only the hard-core left disliked him.
The only reason we have Obama as President now is that a sycophantic press has flat-out refused to cover any stories which might cast him in a negative light. It's continued since the elections in 2008; and despite the media's best efforts to prop him up, still Obama is incredibly unpopular. Even the hard-core left dislikes him, because he's not doing the things they elected him to do.
The only "role model" involved here is that Obama aspires to Reagan's popularity. Problem is, Reagan was popular because he made us feel good about being Americans; he made us feel good about working hard and reaping the rewards of our labor. He didn't get up in front of us and tell us that we should be glad we have what we have and that if some of us get too much, those people should be punished for it--which is the gist of many of Obama's comments on tax policy. ("At some point, I think you've earned enough money." Shit.)
These efforts to equate Obama with Reagan aren't going to work very well, because the elites don't seem to get that just because they are smart (or think they are, at any rate) it does not mean that the rest of us are stupid.
* * *
The bright future that we can't have thanks to environmentalists: power that's too cheap to meter.
Can you imagine that? It doesn't matter what you plug in; as long as you pay your monthly subscription fee you get electricity, as much as you need, as much as you can use, without anyone ever coming around to read the meter.
In that world, we'd have electric cars right now. The range wouldn't matter; supermarkets and malls would have places to plug your car in, so you could recharge while you shop, the same way some stores offer free WiFi right now.
Of course there'd be plenty of gasoline-fired cars around, because the range of an electric car wouldn't be any better than it is now, but lots of people would forego gasoline entirely once they realized, "Hell, when was the last time I drove the old stinker? I can't even remember."
Seriously: why would anyone bother with gasoline when electricity is practically free?
The monthly subscription fee would cover the utility's costs (initial construction, maintenance, fuel, delivery) and provide a decent profit, yet it would still end up being less than what we pay now. (For one thing, the armies of meter readers would be unnecessary.)
Nuclear power has that potential, even now. There's probably no way to get there from here, though.
* * *
729 waivers for Obamacare. Wow, that's quite a few. Can we repeal it now, since it's proven to be too costly for everyone?
Ha! Ha! Ha. I am a jokester.
* * *
Rand Paul has some excellent ideas.
Let's also cut DEA and BATFE while we're at it.
* * *
Panic attack last night after going to bed at 11; full tab of Xanax--slept until noon. *sigh*
Now it's almost 2 PM.
* * *
Hey, social security has slid into "permanent deficit"! The Democrats told us that wouldn't happen until 2013.
The only time government can do anything ahead of schedule is when it's something undesirable.