Good stuff, Steve. I liked your quote about your profession the most.
There are some real good bargains on Wall Street, you know?
I still want a new Z. I don't know that I'll be able to float the $42k for my "dream" SS with the 426 hp, but I'd darn sure try. My effort to save GM. haha
My point about the military is the spending part, not the military itself. Gates called for a termination of the F-22 contract at 187 planes. Yes, the cost $140M per jet, but they keep our country superior in the air. And Lockheed Martin stated dropping the contract now (currently 184 of those planes have already been delivered) will cost 90,000 jobs across the country. Senator Dodd (D-CT) took a huge amount of heat from the machinists union since Pratt & Whitney makes the turbines for the plane, and their jet assembly plant is in CT, which would drop 2500 jobs in the state and 25,000 machinist union jobs across the country. Dodd is now talking like a Republican, calling for increased military spending and no early termination for the contract. Should be interesting to see how that plays out. Dodds' numbers are way down in CT and he's up for election in '10. He'll need to make a big play there to keep his seat.
But military spending also helps develop new technologies. The majority of developments in our country have come through military research. Dropping the spending now will, in my opinion, cause dire consequences in the coming years. Not only will we lose out on technology development, but other nations (read: China, Russia) stand to catch up to our military and that will create issues for our national defense, particularly in light of the bond between these two countries and the "rogue" nations in the Middle East. We must remain superior in our military.