With the overwhelming response of Congress to pass the US tobacco regulation bill, it gets me thinking: "What won't they regulate?"

So many things are done "for the children", so it comes as no surprise to me that the tobacco bill talks about banning even more ads that are targeting school children. What? When? And Where? I have never seen an advertisement that when I looked at it I said, "Screw my lungs and health, that is awesome!". (Where is Tony Hawk when you need him?)

But thanks to Congress' increasing distance from reality, we now will have FDA regulated cigarettes.

"Tobacco is such a serious and compelling public health problem, and we really do feel by being able to regulate tobacco and tobacco products we can reduce the burden of disease and help promote stronger smoking cessation efforts," Hamburg told reporters.

So you need this bill so you can then stop people from smoking? How about drinking? How about eating fatty steaks? In the US 936,923 people died in 2001 from Major Cardiovascular Diseases. Seems like the next "save me" bill that we need.

The facts are these:

• To non-smokers, like myself, smoking is annoying.
• Smoking is dangerous to your health and increases risks
• Smoking is a turn off to a lot of people, decreasing your chances of relationships

But at the end of the day, smoking is the SMOKERS choice. They know it is dangerous, they know it can be addictive, they know it can eventually kill them. But you know what I do when I am confronted with a smoker? I move! I cross the street, I don't eat at that restaurant, I don't frequent that bar. And I support establishments that have non-smoking policies BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.*

A year or so back, President Bush vetoed a bill to tax cigarettes and give the money to children's insurance. This was another overstep of Congresses boundaries taxing a "bad" thing and giving it to a "good" thing. I supported President Bush's veto. Obama has expanded this program.

"Critics like Siegel said the bill did not go far enough.

Lawmakers could have banned nicotine as well as popular mint-flavored menthol cigarettes, raised the legal age to buy tobacco products from 18 to 21 and restricted sales to certain stores, much like alcohol, Siegel said." (emphasis mine)

I'm sick and tired of government's implied duty to save me from myself.

Well smokers, enjoy your shitty light cigarettes or go online and find some real Mexican brand cigarettes. At least until they finish regulating the internet.

*Side note:
Government should have no ability to regulate private businesses to stop allowing patrons to smoke in their establishments. Also, the government should have no ability to force a private business to make patrons do anything. It is up to the business owner and that is all. In a public/government owned building or situation, by all means.

If you want to see a change, then give tax benefits to business that allow a completely non-smoking environment.

This has become a symbol as hope for the Reformist party.

I have to clarify some definitions before I start. When people speak about being for or against gay "marriage" they actually mean: marriage license. And a marriage license is a contract.

I was going to start this blogging off a little slower, but with such gems in the news I feel I have to come out swinging. Welcome!

National security. It is a very important concept, and one of the only things the federal government should have charge over. Yet the term is being used to hide every blunder the federal government makes.

The newest is blocking the release of CIA interrogation tapes and photos. But it is even worse than that, the ACLU is trying to get the memos and emails regarding the interrogations because, get this, the interrogation tapes were destroyed. Nothing screams guilt like destroying evidence, just ask the Enron executives.

But that isn't how government works now, and it seems like the Obama administration is hoping to change this---but progress is very slow. The mentality in Washington says that any mistake the American government has made must be hidden from the world to remain credible. And this is what they really mean by "National Security", not the protection of the American people, but the protection of an image. A who's who in the hit tv show International Idol. The problem is, we are Spencer Pratt.

Our history with the CIA isn't the most righteous one. This has been well documented in the released classified documents Legacy of Ashes  by Tim Weiner, and it all boils down to this: we torture.

When President Bush went out publicly and stated that we aren't doing anything that hasn't been done before, he wasn't lying. Instead what had happened is everything the CIA used to do--nation building/destroying, interrogation techniques and espionage--has been moved to the US military. In doing so, it should have been more regulated by Congress, instead it ran wild. And that is what we are trying to hide.

So why does winning "International Idol" mean so much to national security and to save face? For one, we start to lose a voice in the international panel. But thanks to the work leading up to the Iraq war, the past administration deemed the UN useless and did its best to discredit the institution. Now Obama has a job to do, to keep his promise to us and the world of a more transparent government, while taking the flack for something he personally (hopefully) hasn't condoned himself.

But this leads to one difficulty, our cry outs for injustice of the world. Most recently, the two American reporters in North Korea sentenced to labour camps. It is this that should triumph as the sole reason to be an open and honest government, because saving Americans from irrational sentences around the world is a far more national security problem than how we look at the next "Leaders of the World Kegger".