Remember the GM bailout that turned General Motors into Government Motors?

That was your money that was used to keep the company in business and save 75,000 jobs.

I like to apply the helicopter theory when it comes to the government spending huge sums of money to improve the economy.

I ask myself if it might be better for the government to just throw the money out of a helicopter rather than go through all the bureaucratic red tape.

For example, I have a feeling that it would have been better for the economy of Glendale, Arizona if the city council had decided to throw $25 million out of a helicopter instead of throwing it at another year of Phoenix Coyotes hockey.

Megan McArdle, writing in The Atlantic, did some math on the GM bailout and those 75,000 jobs that were saved.

“The question is whether it was worth it to the taxpayer to burn $10-20 billion in order to give the company another shot at life. To put that in perspective, GM had about 75,000 hourly workers before the bankruptcy.  We could have given each of them a cool $250,000 and still come out well ahead compared to the ultimate cost of the bailout including the tax breaks–and over $100,000 a piece if we just wanted to break even against our losses on the common stock.”

Imagine $20 billion falling from the sky over Michigan. They’d have to keep all the malls open 24/7.

And think of all the Escalades that could have been sold.


There’s obviously no hope for the United States of America.

Enjoy it while you can.

You know it’s over when our court system is being used to settle a dispute involving a gay softball league.

The fact that there is such a thing as a gay softball league should make you worry about the future of the human race, but there are so many gay leagues that there is also something called the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance to oversee them.

How about just playing softball and keeping your sexual preferences out of it?

Teams are limited to two non-gay players and the problem seems to be a dispute over whether one team’s players were gay enough and and, of course, some players who were disqualified decided to sue.


“The San Francisco-based team the men played on, D2, was disqualified after others at the tournament questioned their sexuality and filed a protest. Under questioning, the men, Stephen Apilado, Laron Charles and John Russ, were evasive or declined to discuss their sexuality, according to the organization.

For example, minutes of the hearing say that Charles claimed to be gay but acknowledged being married to a woman, and Apilado initially said he was both gay and straight but then acknowledged being more attracted to women.

The minutes say rumors had persisted for years about whether D2 was stacking its team with straight ringers. In addition to the three plaintiffs, the team had two designated straight players. The organization says it has always considered bisexuals to meet the definition of “gay” for roster purposes, but the minutes also note that one official involved in the decision to disqualify D2 commented that “this is not a bisexual world series. This is a gay world series.”


We’ve reached the point where people are interviewed to see if they’re gay enough to be on a gay softball team.

More alarming than that is that we’ve reached the point where people can discuss it with a straight face.

And by straight, I don’t mean non-gay.


Walter Willams is a doctor of economics and nobody, not even Thomas Sowell, is better at explaining –in layman’s terms — what’s wrong with our “entitlement” programs and why they need to go away.

“The language Congress uses to describe their spending is corrupt beyond redemption. Think about the term entitlement. If one American is entitled to something he didn’t earn, where in the world does Congress get the money? It’s not Santa or the Tooth Fairy.

The only way Congress can give one American a dollar is to first take it from another American.

Therefore, an entitlement is a congressionally given right for one American to live at the expense of another. In other words, Congress forcibly uses one American to serve the purposes of another American.

As such, it differs in degree, but not kind, from that uglier part of our history where black people were forcibly used to serve the purposes of their slave masters.”