• Take up a new sport (in my case it's going to be climbing). 
• Make some new (specifically gay) friends.

..........and have been made redundant, begining December. However I do get to work from home in the interim.

.....to this article, I would like to post this picture: 



This should make clear that the stimulus (for whatever reasons) isn't working.

The most egregious part of the article is where it seems that Barack Obama can't add up:

"Economists on both the left and right agree that the last thing a government should do in the middle of a recession is to cut back on spending. You see, when this recession began, many families sat around their kitchen table and tried to figure out where they could cut back. That is a completely responsible and understandable reaction. But if every family in America cuts back, then no one is spending any money, which means there are more layoffs, and the economy gets even worse. That's why the government has to step in and temporarily boost spending in order to stimulate demand."

Surely when households cut back on spending, they are saving. Or, are paying back their debts. Either way, this allows banks to make loans. That the leader of the free world cannot see this is astounding.

Here is why the stimulus is bad: if the government (say of the UK) spends £60 Billion (i.e £1000 for each of us) and will pay it off in 5 years time (plus interest), then households will hold down their spending (i.e. save) for five years (inc interest) - by about £1000. Here is a simmilar analysis from Harvard's Robert Barro (as reported by fellow outstanding economist Steven landsburg).

I would love to see figures for the UK.
 

Recently Virginia's new attorney general sent a letter to all of the universities in Virgina which get public money. More here.

What's most interesting are the policies advocated by the Family Foundation: 

MARRIAGE: Marriage, as the union between one man and one woman, is an institution of God and a foundation of civil society.

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT: The role and jurisdiction of government is clearly prescribed by our constitution and consequently should be restrained from excessive involvement in the lives of citizens.

Do they recognize that the logical conclusion of the latter is to allow gay marriage, whilst the former gives no proscription (you can believe it without thinking gay marriage should be banned by the government)? Sadly, the evidence suggests not.

I don't want to check out the National Organisation for Marriage's policies; I think they may be full of similar inconsistencies.