stop using the word "sexy" please

I've seen this everywhere: people using the word "sexy" to describe shoes, beer, trips, operating systems, hotels, and even fantasy football teams.

I'm sick of this. Since when did the semantic range of this word expand to describe things that have nothing to do with sex? Moreover, just exactly how can something which has no innate appeal to one's libido be described using this word? What is going through a person's mind which brings a person to conclude that something deserves this adjective when the thing described has not been traditionally described as such? Am I supposed be sexually attracted to things that have nothing to do with sex?

Sorry, this doesn't compute. It's Generation Y-speak for those who have limited vocabularies. Or maybe I'm just missing the point.

Update I: Also, please stop saying everything is "amazing" or "awesome."

Joe Wilson - my new hero

Three cheers for Joe Wilson!


Update: it appears that Joe Wilson will NOT be apologizing on the House floor. Good for him! He shouldn't have to. Why should someone apologize for something that they do not feel they did in error? When I offend someone, I don't apologize if I feel no remorse for the thing I did, or if I feel I was not in the wrong. Furthermore, I think that more of this style of heckling should be allowed. Imagine if it were socially acceptable to heckle George Bush during his "The Surge" speech? What if Senator Clinton had yelled out "You lie!" when Bush said that he needed additional troops in Iraq? I think that sort of thing ought to be praised.

Good for you, Joe. And please, don't apologize. You acted according to your convictions, and by your act we know just how passionate you are about this.

government health-care (read: highway robbery)

For starters, it looks like Obama's administration is finally on the defense. This is a good thing. Maybe they'll actually vie with public opinion (yeah right).

There are two fundamental flaws with government-backed health care that I think a lot of people out there are beginning to realize (sadly, it takes your average American too long to understand things of this nature):

1. Competition with an entity that can print its own money is unfair. Moreover, competition with an entity that hasn't had a budget surplus in 12 years and hasn't paid down any of its debt in 52 years is unfair.

2. Those who would be competing against Obamacare (let's just call it "DebtCare" or "CommieCare" or "HorseshitCare") would also be the ones paying the taxes to subsidize that competition - which is not only circular, but paradoxical. The only way to really make it fair for the government to enter the private sector and compete with companies that have to raise their own capital (again, because the government's track record shows that they do not raise capital on their own, save raping us every year for our taxes, which has consistently fallen short since the beginning of the 20th century), is for them to forgo income taxes on our private health contributions. That might make it a little more fair, but I still don't think it fully evens the playing field. Still, not paying taxes on private health insurance premiums and expenses is a start.

Obama is not the darling you thought he was. He is a thief - a veritable elected king - just like all those before him.

Minimum wage just makes the poor poorer...

...please read this.

Again, price fixing doesn't work.

Cash for Clunkers beginning to fail already

Check this out.

Price fixing doesn't work. Government intervention into the economy always backfires. The market corrects itself without the need of price fixing. The sales we saw due to the Cash for Clunkers program were artificial. Now the auto dealers, and by extension, the auto manufacturers, are paying the price for the government's intervention. The artificial injection of capital into the market does not work.

Democrats are so awful at economics. I want to pull my hair out.