Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Are you pulling the wagon, or are you in the wagon?

You can't be both. Either you, as an American citizen or other human who is breathing American air and treading on American soil, are a net positive to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), or you are a negative to GDP. That math is easy. (Yes, to quibble, you can net out at zero, but that category of folk are statistically insignificant, and accordingly irrelevant to the discussion).
The private sector is where all wealth in the U.S. is generated. All of it. The money that the public sector takes for its unending public 'needs' must come from the private sector through taxes. That's just how it works. Lately, our public sector spending has risen to the top of the kitchen table topics in America, as it has burgeoned to levels beyond anyone's wildest imagination. This spending has got to stop, and to remain a viable world power, this crazy spending has got to be rolled back. And rolled back by a whole lot.
Of course, this involves pain; pain suffered by those who depend on public money. This public money (call it entitlements, welfare, pensions, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment benefits, ad infinitem...) was promised to the recipients. And all of these promises were made by politicians at all levels to their short term political gain, but to our long term damage as a nation.
So, where do we cut?
In other words, whose ox shall we gore first?
In my last post, I was accused of being insulting and inflammatory because one of those 'in the wagon' wanted an exemption for being in the wagon. He was entitled to be taking money out of the private sector because he was a veteran. He took part in defending and securing our nation as an active duty military guy a decade, or perhaps two decades or more ago. But my only argument is that regardless of what any American did in the past, when we cash a government check today, and provide nothing for it today, this individual is a net negative on GDP. Or, in other 'inflammatory and insulting' words, this individual is 'in the wagon.'
'But Fredd, but Fredd, these military veterans deserve their pensions, they made it possible for you to type away on your blog with the freedom they provided decades ago.' OK, okay, fine. Military veteran pensions are off the table.
Then I had a retired policeman get all hot and bothered when I wrote that he, too, was 'in the wagon,' while the rest of us pulled the wagon he was in. He protested, saying 'I chased thugs, criminals and ne-er-do-wells during my prime, I still have the injuries incurred from that career, I protected your life and property, I deserve to sit in this wagon, Fredd, you are a jerk for calling me a parasite.' (I paraphrase here). OK, okay, fine. Retired policemen are off the table, and they can remain in the wagon that I am pulling.
But where does this thinking stop? We in the private sector are now pulling a wagon that is just too damn heavy, and we will, like John Galt in Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged,' just eventually disappear, leaving the wagon to sit there motionless. Then where will all of those entitled, righteous wagon sitters be? The gravy train is ending, everyone can see this is true, but nobody wants the finger pointed at them, because they have a righteous claim on private sector money in the here and now, many of them for services provided decades prior.
Where does it end? The retired fireman will layment that he, too, can lay sideways in that wagon because he, years ago, prevented whole neighborhoods from burning to the ground, back in his younger days. He is now entitled to a big hefty retirement check for the remainder of his ever extended life. Ok, okay, firemen are exempt from pulling the wagon.
But the librarian pipes up, hey, without my past services, the public would be ignorant and illiterate, I deserve an exemption. Ok, fine. Librarians are exempt. But what about retired city hall administrators? Without them, nobody would have gotten their tax levies in the mail, nobody would have known when they should show up for jury duty, society would have collapsed. OK, fine. These guys are exempt, too.
Doesn't anyone out there get dumb ol' Fredd's point? When we pay people not to work, we slowly go broke. We are now broke. The public (and some private) pension systems (that defer wages onto future generations that should have been paid when the services were consumed) that were the rage 100 years ago clearly and demonstrably don't work for the benefit of society now. They patently and obviously do not work. Eventually the chickens come home to roost, and the checks start to bounce. Nobody will be exempt when that day comes. And that day is indeed coming. Hell, that day is almost here.
And once that day comes, there will be blood in the streets. The people riding in the wagon will jump out and grab pitch forks, demanding that the checks start flowing again (just look at the riots in Greece and those U.K. students, to list just a few examples). And the private sector folks who stopped pulling the wagon will grab their pitch forks, telling the wagon riders to take a hike.
These retired pensioners, while they ostensibly agree with my conservative take on things for the most part, have taken their first step towards grabbing pitch forks, demanding that I shut up and just write the damn check. In the chaos that follows the ultimate collapse of our economy owing to irresponsible, wild public spending, these guys will be on the opposite side of the battle lines, and we both will be armed with pitch forks.
Inflammatory and insulting remarks aside, which side will you be on, and who will you be waving your pitch fork at when Armageddon arrives?
Next post: 'The Fix.'

Friday, December 10, 2010

What's it feel like to be a parasite, Americans?

You know who you are. As much as 50% of working age and retired U.S. citizens are moochers, in addition to untold millions of illegal aliens. Since you know who you are, I am talking to you, dead beats.
Yes you, who expect for some unknown other person to pay for your health care when you casually walk into the emergency room with a runny nose, and suck up the system's time and energy, and then walk out without paying a dime. Or worse yet, when you carry no medical insurance, and develop an existing condition, then expect someone else to treat you? The latest horrible law that has come down the pike (Obama Care) mandates that insurance companies issue you a policy despite your existing condition. This is not insurance, it's welfare, and you are the recipient. Or, in other words, free loading off of the rest of us.
You, who are here illegally and send your illegal kids to public schools, towards which you have contributed nothing, and suck up other public goodies towards which you gave squat.
And what about you old mooching geezers, who suck up all kinds of medicine and pay precious little for it, if anything, simply because you are old and the government gives you a Medicare card. And you bitch and whine about your lousy, feeble little co-pay when it occurs.
And speaking of mooching old geezers, I am speaking of parasites like you who cash your lucrative, opulent social security check each and every month, and yet you know in your heart of hearts that you never, ever contributed anything close to what you have taken out, and what you expect to take out for the undetermined future. And be honest (if that is even possible), you are not even close in your lifetime contributions to what you are cashing and expect to cash.
What is life like for you, you parasites? Don't you ever wonder where this money comes from to support you in your cozy, comfy lifestyle which you don't pay for? Do you think that the Money Fairy just flies in to Washington and dumps truckloads of cash into the U.S. Treasury? Do you even care where the money comes from? Probably not.
And if you don't care, that makes you one of two things: 1) stupid, or 2) evil. Which do you prefer? It is an amoral being who consciously takes from others without giving back any effort for what they take, and that would be defined as evil. Or if you just don't bother to think that your lifestyle is supported by others, then you are just a garden variety idiot. Which is it, mooch?
And you biggest moochers of all: public employee union retirees (this includes public school teachers, firemen, police, librarians, utility companies, and on and on and on and on...): you gutless parasites retire at age 50 or 55, and live the life of Reilly on the public dime for the rest of your free loading life, while the municipality that you used to work at gets the bill for your pension each month, in addition to having to replace your dead beat body with another younger working mooch to back fill what you should be doing until age 65, if there were justice in the world. Do you really think you earned your pension? Not even close, you slacking dead beats. You are killing our society, and you don't even care.
You know the country would be better off without you.
You know that, don't you?

Monday, December 6, 2010

Econ 101 for Dummies (a.k.a. Econ 101 for liberals)

There is virtually no disagreement that liberal leftists simply do not understand basic economics, and if they do, their understanding is based on feelings rather than logic. Because leftists constantly seem to get themselves elected to public office and accordingly are afforded voting rights on how best to allocate public resources, they vote with their feelings instead of with any knowledge of basic economics. This is very damaging to the country, and we need to bring these simpletons up to speed in how the economy works. Perhaps a lesson in economics, and specifically taxation policy, expressed in terms of feelings and emotions rather than in cold, hard difficult to understand charts and graphs, you know, those constructs that leftists eschew, would be more helpful. Let’s start with a basic premise that all of us would agree upon: if you had $100 in your pocket, and a stranger came up to you, reached into your pocket and took $40 and told you ‘I need this money to help someone else, because they don’t have any,’ you would feel bad, wouldn’t you? That wouldn’t seem fair, would it? Of course not. But when the local, state and federal governments do exactly this to American populations, leftists see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Those of us on the right have a huge problem with the government doing this, so liberals and conservatives see the issue of confiscatory taxation from two different points of view. Which of them is right? Well, if you agreed with the basic premise above that taking money from one American and arbitrarily giving it to another is wrong and hurtful, then the conservative argument would be more likely to prevail. Let’s expand the basic premise somewhat, shall we? Let’s say that this stranger, whose hand is currently inside your pocket snatching that $40 of your $100, tells you ‘this $40 will be better spent on stuff by people that have no money than what you would have done with it, anyway.’ How would you feel about this statement? Would you dare to ask the stranger why he thinks this, and by what basis he came to that conclusion? Would you feel bad if the stranger just ignored your protests, and just took your money anyway? Of course you would. You would probably even get angry. Of course you would get angry. But when state, local and federal legislators get together and vote on budgets, projects and expenditures, they calculate exactly how much and how deep to reach into our pockets to fund these at times foolish, arbitrary and wasteful programs. All that is needed are simple majorities in the various legislative bodies to empower spending of our money in this manner, and leftist, liberal Democrats (and RINO's; Republicans in Name Only, also known as liberals) are usually the legislators who propose such spending, not conservative legislators. Who is right and who is wrong about this process? The liberal leftists are wrong, if you agree with the expanded premise above that these liberal legislators do not know how to spend your money any better than you do. And finally, let’s take that premise to its full reality. Let’s say that this stranger, whose hand is now into your pocket up to his elbow, greedily grabbing $50 now, not the $40 he told you when he first reached into you pocket, tells you ‘I’m taking this money to spend as I see fit, because you don’t need this much money, anyway. You have too much.’ How would you feel then? Angry? Insulted? How does this stranger know what is ‘too much,’ anyway? Does he know you or your circumstances? Does he know that you have four children who would like to go to college but have inadequate college funds? Does he bother to think that you would like to leave some of your money to your children when you die? No, this stranger doesn’t take any of that into consideration. That’s not right, is it? And that makes you mad, doesn’t it? This concludes our emotion, feelings based discussion on taxation policy as is promoted by leftist liberals in our local, state and federal legislative bodies. Based on our discussion, how do you feel about how our tax policy is working out? If it makes you angry, frustrated and insulted, perhaps you would be better served voting for conservatives next election. You’ll feel better.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Obama: our weakest president ever?

In the good ol' days, when an enemy declared war on the U.S. or in any way threatened our national interests, whether it was the Barbary Pirates during the Jefferson administration, Spain during the McKinley administration, or Germany and Japan, during FDR's administration, whoever was in charge at the time (the President) would take care of business.
In the good ol' days, when some foreign power(s) got uppity and took actions contrary to American interests, the president at the time, whether Democrat, Whig, Republican, whatever, mustered the troops and got the job done to ensure whatever uppity enemy stopped doing whatever they were doing that we didn't like.
Not so, with this administration, or lesser to the point, with the last three Democratic administrations. Recall Jimmy Carter dithering and wringing his hands when Islamic revolutionaries overthrew the Shah of Iran (owing to Jimmy politically throwing the Shah under the bus beforehand) but doing absolutely nothing against the Iranian revolutionary thugs when they took over our embassy in Tehran for over a year.
Recall the next Democrat to take up the oval office: Bill Clinton watched with little or no interest as Islamic terrorists blew up U.S. interest after U.S. interest as he sat on his hands. Well, he did launch a missile at an aspirin factory in Sudan, and we all saw the impact of this bold move: bumpkus.
And now we have Julian Assange, the pusillanimous weenie who has declared himself an enemy of the U.S., dumping massive amounts of stolen classified documents onto the Internet via his Wikileaks site and Barack Obama has his lawyers write some harshly worded dispatch requesting that this enemy cease and desist.
In the good ol' days, America took care of threats with bombs, missiles, tanks, machine guns and battleships. Now, we respond to threats to our country from abroad with harshly worded letters from really mean lawyers. I'm confident that Julian Assange is quaking in his boots with the prospect of facing another volley of harhsly worded letters from Obama's pit bull attorneys.
How pathetic America looks to the world right now. How utterly helpless and feckless we appear on the national stage as this man-child president pleads for this criminal to go away. Fat chance, with this administration and its total weakness of policy and lack of political will to do something about this menace.
In the good ol' days, all of the past presidents (excepting all Democrat presidents from Jimmy Carter forward) would have made a pipsqueak threat like Assange disappear with little fanfare. His atoms would be dispersed to the four corners of the earth, never to materialize in this life again.
But with this weakling in office? Nope, Barack Obama is arguably the weakest president that Americans have ever put into the Oval Office.
Perhaps a constitutional amendment barring Democrats from holding the presidency would be in order. We should never be put in this weak position again.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Barbara Bush: elite, Ruling Class snob

On the conservative side, we have red, white and blue patriotic Americans who believe, much like Superman, in truth, justice and the 'American Way.' Lately, the conservatives have been split along two main fractures: the common conservative and the elite conservative.
Elite conservatives have been calling the shots in the Republican Party since the departure of Ronald Reagan. Namely, these elite conservatives consist primarily of the Bush dynasty, an aristocratic bunch that has been residing at the top of the Ruling Class GOP elite for the past two decades. This bunch is directly responsible for the rise of the Democratic Marxist majority we have seen in Congress over the last four years, the one which now has been repudiated at the ballot box on November 2, 2010.
The main push in ousting these Marxists was the leaderless 'Tea Party' movement, and its revolt against Big Government, Big Debt and Big Intrusion into our lives. And Sarah Palin has been a proponent of these ideals from the beginning, along with the rest of us Great Unwashed in Fly Over Country. Now, Barbara Bush, former First Lady and wife of George H.W. Bush, has been quoted on Larry King's show: Sarah Palin 'seems happy in Alaska, and I hope she stays there.'
Of course she does.
Sarah is not one of 'them,' you see. Oh no. She came from lowly, commoner stock. The Bushs all come from high pedigrees and look down on the rest of us. Bab's late father-in-law, Preston Bush, was a U.S. Senator. Her hubby, of course, was the 41st president. One of her sons was the 43rd president, another the governor of Florida. All are Yale and Harvard grads, Blue Bloods to a man.
Lowly Sarah is a University of Idaho graduate (ugh!). She knows how to track, shoot and gut a moose. Sarah Palin would not be caught dead with a glass of chardonnay and a hunk of brie in her hands, and accordingly is simply unsuitable to govern according to the Bush family.
It's time we put the Bushes out to pasture. Their time has come and gone. These ruling elitists have wreaked havoc on the GOP for two decades now, and we cannot listen to their opinions any longer, lest we continue down that losing path. Recall, George H.W. Bush calling supply side economics 'voodoo economics' when he was opposing Ronald Reagan in the 1980 campaigns. We all know that philosophy under another term: free market capitalism. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree when the first thing George W. Bush did upon assuming the presidency was to slap tariffs on foreign steel, shunning those 'voodoo economics' that Dad hated so much.
Not to mention Dubya's involvement in the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the TARP boondoggle and other Big Government fiascoes (No Child Left Behind, and the Medicare Part B prescription entitlement to name but a few). Dubya hated 'voodoo economics' as much as Daddy did, and his stand on eliminating the southern border and encouraging mass illegal invasion is itself bordering on treason. Remember, Dubya says 'compassion doesn't stop at the Rio Grande.' Yes it does, Dubya. It most certainly does as far as our president's duty to the Constitution and our tax money is concerned.
Babs Bush is getting on in years, and with most of us who are up there in age, we start to lose our filter on who we are as presented to the masses. The cat is out of the bag now: Babs is an arrogant, elite snob and so is her brood.
Al Gore had it right (for once): 'it's time for them to go!'

Saturday, November 13, 2010

We're all just stupid rubes and hayseeds, you see

Obama blames his party's drubbing on his failure to adequately communicate to us dumb hicks out in the sticks (a.k.a. 'Fly Over Country') just exactly how excellently he was managing the country.
"My bad," he says. He tells us that rather than simply keeping his nose to the grindstone and destroying our economy and signaling profound military weakness to our enemies in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere, he should have been taking the time from his destructive schedule, and have been dumbing down his actions, explaining in simple terms to us morons how great his performance was.
We are just too dang stupid to understand how great this man is, you see. We all just fell off of our turnip trucks yesterday, and are just plain dumber than a bag of hammers. 13 Trillion dollars of debt and an unemployment rate that will remain around 10% as far as the eye can see is apparently a rousing, laudable success, according to Barack Obama.
I just can't believe the arrogance of Barack Obama, when he takes a pummeling in the mid term elections the likes of which few of us have ever seen in our lifetimes, and tries to tell us that we all just don't understand.
We understand perfectly what this guy is doing to our country, and we don't like it. Not one bit. We aren't a socialist country now, never have been, nor ever will be. He has it exactly bass ackwards: we are perfectly aware of his damaging, foolish policies and we told him so at the ballot box but he is the one too stupid to see the writing on the wall.
This last election was a referendum on Obama and his policies, pure and simple. No amount of explaining will change that. Obama can explain to us until the cows come home that redistribution of wealth from do'ers to non-doer's is good for everybody, and apparently owes his lack of persuasion that we will never accept that as good policy to the fact that we are all stupid morons.
Wrong. We all most definitely did NOT just fall off the turnip truck. This guy's policies stink, and everyone knows it.

Monday, November 8, 2010

Barack Obama and Michael Jackson: identical twins

Both of these guys are so similar in their histories, it's bordering on weird: they could have been identical twins separated at birth. .
True, Barack Obama is in his forty's, and Michael Jackson died in his early 50's, but that's a minor detail. The rise (and fall) of both of them follow virtually identical paths. I would cite the following facts for your perusal:
* Barack Obama and Michael Jackson both considered the Chicagoland area their home towns. Barack hung around Chicago, and Michael hailed from Gary, Indiana.
* Barack Obama and Michael Jackson both downplayed their race once they achieved widespread popularity. They sought to appeal to a cross section of America and did not want to associate themselves with blacks, despite both being genetically black. Michael's music appealed to a universal audience, and Barack initially appealed to a majority of voters, regardless of race.
* Both Barack Obama and Michael Jackson completely insulated themselves from the public, in as much as neither of them drove anywhere (they were driven), neither of them ever bought anything such as groceries or American Girl dolls for their daughters (others did this for them). Both have lost complete touch with reality and the American people, and have had body guards protect them from even the most remote possible threat from us, The Great Unwashed.
* Barack Obama and Michael Jackson both surrounded themselves with 'yes men,' and strongly rejected suggestions from those to whom they were close that a more prudent public behavior be undertaken to avoid damage to their public images. In Michael Jackson's case, his erratic public behavior included dangling his infant son over a five story high guard rail in his residence, or showing up for a court date in pajamas were just a few of his odd episodes. Efforts to curtail his mounting drug consumption by his family and friends elicited temper tantrums of epic proportions from The Gloved One. Accordingly, no amount of cajoling from his inner circle could temper Michael Jackson's appetites for self destructive behaviors, leading ultimately to his early death.
* With Barack Obama, his chosen cabinet members, czars and advisers all (well, not all, but many) have on occasion suggested that Barack temper his Marxist inclinations and work at least in small part with legislators of different points of view, all to no avail. Barack's intemperance regarding differing points of view, and his bull in a china shop implemented liberal agenda that he clumsily forced down the American people's throats despite cacophonous roars of disapproval from the public has led to his Democrat party's massive losses, and the largest mid term election landslide in 80 years.
* Both Barack Obama and Michael Jackson were at one point in their careers on top of the world. Michael, after his release of his album 'Thriller' in 1982, was more popular world wide than even Elvis Presley was in his hey day. Barack Obama was thought to be a messiah prior to his election and into his first few days of office. Towards the end of his days, Michael Jackson was mostly regarded as a weirdo, or even worse, a pedophile, quite a slide from his lofty popularity a mere twenty years earlier, while Barack Obama's numbers have slid about as much in just under two years in office.
Barack Obama and Michael Jackson: two peas in a pod.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

What's up with the #1 Oregon Ducks?

The Oregon Ducks football team is going to win the national championship this year. For the first time. . Even though it's best to never mention the no-hitter while it's in progress, I am not entirely convinced that it applies to the Ducks football program this year. I don't see any team coming within 20 points of them. Am I confident? Yup. Over confident? Depends on one's perspective and insight into what sets the Ducks apart this year. . Of course, Fredd is a fiercely loyal Duck fan and alumnus who is optimistic about his teams' chances this year, but that doesn't necessarily diminish what the Ducks are doing differently than every other team in the NCAA the last few years. . And yes: the Ducks are doing something differently than the rest of the college ranks. What's that, Fredd, you say. Well, I'll be glad to tell you. Read on, please...... . Many chalk the relatively recent success to their skills at implementing the 'West Coast no huddle Offense.' While this is certainly a big factor in their hugely productive offense, this is not the sole, nor even primary reason why they win football games by large margins. Lots of teams are using the West coast offense. Most of the Pac 10, frankly, so what is different about the Ducks? . In the past, the paradigm of recruiting has changed a few times. In the olden days, it was seen that physical size vs fitness and/or athletic ability on the offensive and defensive line was paramount, and was much more effective in using very large men, often of dubious physical conditioning. Great big fat guys on both sides of the line won the day against smaller but more athletic and well conditioned athletes. This was the case up until perhaps the mid 1950's, when a different type of athlete was seen: Ed "Big Daddy" Lipscomb of the LA Rams was not only a huge man physically, at 6'4" and 220, but he was exceptionally quick, and would blow by the slightly larger but much slower and fatter offensive linemen of the day. . Then began the era of ever increasing size and more importantly, speed of linemen, both offense and defense. Mark Gastineau of the Jets and Reggie White of the Packers epitomized the evolution of this strategy in winning football games: get great big fast guys, don't worry about their conditioning a great deal, as long as they can go at it for 4 seconds out of every 35. . While offensively, this strategy is still sound, as the defensive tackle or end must spend much more energy each play to prevail. Accordingly, size , a modicum of speed, but not necessarily conditioning, is still the formula for success on offense. This is no longer the case on defense. Smaller, faster and better conditioning on defense is what we see today. . But wait.....the Oregon Ducks have taken yet another step in recruiting defensive athletes. Up until the last few years, collegiate recruiting focused on talent emanating from high school football programs. While this is still a lucrative pool, Oregon recruiters are focusing on elite track and field athletes, many of whom have never set foot on a gridiron. Speed is what wins the day. Speed and size. The Ducks look for world class sprinters in superb physical condition first, size second and football moves and savvy last. This is new and effective: they sign Olympic class sprinters, keep their conditioning regimens in place, and start to teach them the subtleties of playing defense. . And where do these Oregon recruiters find these elite athletes? They simply need only to walk out of their office doors and see them everywhere: Eugene, Oregon is also called 'Track Town, U.S.A.': this campus is where the Olympic tryouts for track and field are held every four years, and where some of the world's elite athletes train. This is where Phil Knight invented his track shoe with a waffle iron (which later became 'Nike', perhaps you've heard of them). These football coaches have long been wondering what it would be like to have a safety with the kind of speed that they see at lunch working out at Heyward Field. Well, now they know. . Speed and conditioning, when added with a modicum of size, is winning the day now. While during their redshirt year, these elite athletes are easily fooled by simple misdirection plays that most high school football players are wise to, but they learn quickly and are relatively up to speed when it comes time for them to start at the red-shirt freshman varsity level. They will make more mistakes than typical of freshmen who have been playing football since Pop Warner days, but will have the blinding speed to often overcome them, and given their second and third years, become fearsome defenders. . Speed, speed speed. The Oregon Ducks, man for man, have the fastest - by far - and best conditioned defense in college football. They are not necessarily the smallest by any means, but are smaller than any of the elite teams in the Top 25 today. . The Ducks are the only team in Division One NCAA football who have perfected this concept. And it is paying off. In the first half of any football game, they give up yards and points to physically larger but slower teams, but in the second half, those larger legs are tired, where the speedy, Olympic class smaller athletes are still fresh, and have the stamina, strength and most importantly, blazing speed to stymie even the most experienced, talented offense in the third and especially the fourth quarter of play. . The Ducks did not invent this method of recruiting. The Dallas Cowboys toyed with this concept in the mid1960s, but abandoned it after awhile by signing Olympic Gold medal winning sprinter Bob Hayes, who although played back up half back on his high school football team, never really had a basis in football. Bob Hayes was successful with the Cowboys because of his blazing speed, but was often criticized for consistently dropping easy passes while wide open. This strategy has not been pursued with vigor by any organization since....except the Oregon Ducks. . So we have a new paradigm: rather than recruit talented football players from high school and start building them up in the gym, recruit elite sprinters and teach them the game of football, while keeping them in the gym. Nobody is doing that except the Ducks. But the cat is now out of the bag, teams will start doing this in full force in the next few years, after the Ducks win a national championship or two in the meantime. . Go Ducks.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Joy Behar blasts Sharron Angle as 'evil,' 'moron' and 'bitch.'

Whoever said 'we can disagree without being disagreeable?' Regardless of who said it originally, apparently Joy Behar of ABC's 'The View' never heard about it. In her left wing world, it's OK to call anyone who disagrees with her world view nasty names, and think nothing of it. . Apparently, Nevada senatorial candidate Sharron Angle (R-NV) fits into this category with Joy Behar. Behar called Angle 'evil,' 'moron' and 'bitch' all within about 5 seconds on 'The View' yesterday. And this is not really anything new. The Left, of which Joy Behar knows the secret Lefty handshake, attends all the Lefty meetings, pays all the Lefty dues and brings three bean salads to all the Lefty picnics, has no qualms about being as disagreeable as possible when it comes to debating the issues with those whom she vehemently disagrees. . And with center-right cable news guy Bill O'Reilly, Joy Behar and her leftie comrade-in-arms Whoopie Goldberg got into a major league snit and stormed out of the studio when O'Reilly made the obvious statement that Muslims killed Americans on 9/11 last week. Keep in mind that Bill O'Reilly is no card carrying Republican conservative by any means. He most certainly does NOT know the Republican secret handshake, does NOT pay the dues, and most assuredly does NOT bring three bean salads to the Republican picnics. And Joy lumps this guy in with the rest of that evil, Republican crowd. . Anyone who is slightly to the right of Karl Marx is an enemy to Joy Behar, and as such are fair game for calling them names such as evil, moronic bitches. . For the record, it's not just Joy Behar that's disagreeable. It's most of the Left. Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (R-CA) has been called a liar, a Nazi and a whore by supporters of (and the wife of) former governor Jerry Brown (D-CA), and this is all taken in stride by the Leftist mainstream media. Just another day at the office, another evil moronic Republican bitch to disparage. Even writing about this is a story similar to 'dog bites man,' and as such is simply nothing new. . But now this disagreeable act from the Left is getting awfully old with the American public. . These Leftists are in for some refreshing 'come-uppance' in a few days, when the voting public shows what they think of our current Leftist environment and it's disagreeableness.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Americans didn't vote for socialism

Just 21 short months ago, Americans elected the first black president; an astonishing, historic moment in a nation that just three or four generations ago still saw blacks drinking from separate water fountains from whites, and eating at separate lunch counters from whites. . Barack Obama was supposedly the politician that would bring America together, and that his message of 'hope and change' would transform all Americans' lives for the better. He would lower the seas (he said that during the campaign), and nobody making more than $250,000 would see a dime of increased taxes. . Remember his speech a few years ago that promised a nation coming together as one, not red and blue, but purple. His administration would be transparent, and that all bills pending before the congress would be published on the Internet 72 hours before they were voted on, so that the public could see what the legislation contained. No special interests or lobbyists would be part of his administration. . Remember all of that? It wasn't long ago at all. . Barack Obama has not kept one lousy promise he made during his campaign. Not one. He instead has spent all of his efforts in jamming socialism down our throats, and taking over banks and car companies and student loans and socializing medical care, and on and on.... . And in 21 short, brief months since his inauguration, all of his popularity, his coat tails and his promises of 'hope and change' are completely gone. Vanished. And why? Because this is not the guy whom all of those bamboozled voters voted for. This guy is a brazen, shameless Marxist socialist, and Americans want no part of that, and never did. . With the general elections coming up in just days, not even Democrats want to be seen with this guy. His appearance on the stump for any Democrat running for any office at all is the kiss of death and they are running away from him in droves if they even hear he is headed their way. He has demolished his own party by implementing his Marxist ideology, and by doing so has thrown hundreds of Democrats under the bus. Even rock solid seats such as Barney Frank (D-Ma), Russ Feingold (D-Wi) and Babs Boxer (D-Ca) are now toss ups to retain their offices. . What a turn around. It's astonishing, actually, to see the complete reversal of fortunes based on this ideologues' tin ear as to what governing is all about. He will watch as his party goes down the toilet the week after next, and he will probably blame us, the American people, for not having the brains to understand how much he has done for us. . Everyone entering that voting booth on November 2nd, 2010 knows full well what Barack Obama has done for us: 10% unemployment, and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. He is the mastermind of one of the largest landslide reversals of congressional power in our life times. And he accomplished this in just 21 short, brief months. Incredible. . Barack Obama has done nothing FOR us, but has done an enormous amount of damage TO us. Make no mistake: this upcoming election is an unmitigated, unmistakable referendum on this president. Americans want nothing to do with socialism, and this election will point that out with gusto.

Monday, October 18, 2010

What has America done for me lately?

I really want to know, exactly what HAS this country done for me lately? Has it put a new Lexus in my driveway? NO. Has it funded a beach front condo for me and my progeny to retire in? NO. And what about my kitchen, huh? It has needed new cabinets, floor covering and appliances since the Clinton administration. Where is my country when I need it?
I'll tell you where. Giving tax breaks and corporate welfare to all of those capitalist pig fat cats, instead of giving it to me. Sure, they provide me with food stamps, free prescription medicine and affordable housing for which I never have to service any of the loan (all stuff that should be a God Given RIGHT if you ask me), but I want MORE! Just living welfare check to welfare check keeps the wolves from the door, but when's the last time I had a 7-day eastern Caribbean cruise, huh? You know, where the destinations include St. Thomas and St. Maartin? NEVER, and is that fair? NO, I say!
All I can swing on my welfare/unemployment payments are those lousy three day cruises out of Galveston, Texas, and they only go to Cancun. And now those rotten Republican bastards want to limit where I can use my unemployment debit card? Who are they to tell me I can't use it in the Luxor in Las Vegas, or on my lousy, three day western Caribbean cruise? Those fat cat Wall street types have lost touch with the people.
Life is tough being me, let me tell you.
With all of these Tea Parties going on, declaring war on taxpayer funded entitlement programs, you'd think they want me to starve and die in the gutter. We all know this is what they want, and this is why we all need to re-elect every sitting Democrat, and every Democrat challenger to any sitting, fat cat Republican up for re-election.
Just say NO to these fat cat Republicans giving OUR money to their fat cat Wall Street buddies that can better be spent on improving OUR standard of living. All we got are these lousy 32" Sony LCD flat screens, when those fat cats are watching their football games on 50" LCD flat screens. Is that fair? NO, I say again!
Vote Democrat this November, and save our cruises, our free housing and provide everyone with a God given right of a 50" LCD flat screen TV! This is what America should be doing for me, lately.
(PS: if you believe any of this gibberish, you and all of us would be better off if you just stayed home on November 2nd, 2010 and let the grown ups decide who should hold public office during the 112th Congress).

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Slacking, mooching Social Security geezers

There's a political ad running in Illinois right now depicting old, decrepit angry geezers admonishing a young conservative politician to keep his hands off of their 'so-security.' These whiny, pathetic geezers were lambasting the conservative politician because he dared suggest that perhaps we should consider raising the retirement age for 'so-security' in the face of an imminent collapse of this ill-conceived FDR-era Ponzi scheme.
One of the characters in the ad sniffed that 'we've paid our whole lives...' I would just bet that this ol' biddy paid perhaps a total of $30,000 into the system over her lifetime, and has now taken out over $150,000 (and counting....), and yet demands that we keep our hands off of 'her so-security.'
Just how do these geezers sleep at night, knowing that their social security checks are paid for by directly taking out funds from younger worker paychecks, and also knowing that the checks many geezers are cashing every month are well above and beyond what they ever put into the system in the first place? They must surely know that the checks they are cashing are not the funds that they contributed, and that were stored safely away in the So'-Security Lock Box. Are these old geezers that stupid?.
Apparently so.
But to get downright indignant that a politician suggest that we do something to stop the unfair and unsustainable transfer payments from the young to the undeserving old is just plain un-American.
Most of these old codgers know full well that they have taken way more out of the system than they EVER paid into it, and that they are eating off of their fellow American's tables directly and unashamedly. Have they no shame? Have they no honor, no integrity, no sense of self sufficiency? Simply look at their paychecks over their working lives, and calculate their contributions, and they must surely know that they are now pure and simply sticking their old, wrinkly liver spotted hands directly into younger American pockets, and stealing THESE YOUNGSTER'S money, and beggaring the generations that are following them! .
This is the "Greatest Generation" that I am talking about. They were the ones that were directly responsible for ensuring that Hitler and Tojo were defeated, and that we continued to teach our children (me and my fellow Baby Boomers) English, and not Japanese or German. Remember those honorable folks, the folks who suffered, sacrificed, fought and died during World War II for the American way of life? Those guys? What happened to them?
And yet they have the unmitigated gall, the nerve, the temerity to scold a young politician who sees this unsustainable Ponzi scheme of Social Security for what it is: a complete transfer of wealth from young Americans to old Americans. This is not the America they fought for and won great victories in World War II.
Social Security was never intended as a retirement account. It was only set up to assist the poorest among us in making ends meet, and not to finance a lifestyle of meeting every want and need of the geezers from every walk of life, from the age of 62 until they die at age 85! Do the math, geezers! You already have drawn out your contributions, probably DECADES ago!
And you excoriate anyone who wants to try and fix this nasty, Socialist mess?
Shame on you, America's slacking, mooching Social Security geezers.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Upcoming 'Lame Duck' session and the political carnage in store for us

The control of both houses of Congress will change on January 4th, 2011. Although we all can argue today about our guesses as to the peripheral details of the composition of the 112th Congress which will be decided on November 2nd, 2010, I am confident that regardless of the size of the GOP majority, the Republicans will have control of both houses next year.
Unfortunately, that leaves the outgoing Democrat majority in control from November 3rd, 2010 through January 3rd, 2011: sixty one days of terror during which Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama will wreak legislative havoc on our country, regardless of the political consequences for years if not decades to come.
They have already announced that they plan to introduce, debate, gain cloture and pass around 20 pieces of odious, destruction liberal bills such as card check, cap and trade and comprehensive immigration reform (also known as amnesty), to name a few of the horribly damaging bills among many others nearly as damaging to our economy, our Constitution and our way of life in America.
In the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid will have 57 reliable Democrat votes, two reliable Independent Democrat votes (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman), plus a few reliable Republican votes they can pick off, namely Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, John McCain and a few other RINO's from time to time to pass these God awful bills into law. Obama will sign them as fast as they show up on his desk, and repealing, slowing down, defunding or otherwise thwarting this crazy lurch leftward will be an extremely tough row to hoe. In the House, Nancy Pelosi can count on 255 reliable Democrat votes to a measly 177 Republican votes to usher in their madness in these 61 days of legislative carnage.
And do these outgoing liberals know that they will enrage the American people to the point that they may not win another national elective majority for years to come? Yes, of course they know this. And they also know that once an entitlement is enacted, it never goes away. Ever. And they know that they will, in the fullness of time, get the gavels of power back, and when they do, look at the bureaucracy that will have been in place for them to saunter right back in, and have their 'rightful' seat at the table of power of the socialist nation they had created back in 2010 - 2011.
'Fredd,' you say, 'no reasonable political party would ever do that to themselves in the short run, by throwing their entire party onto their own sword.' Oh yeah? Who ever said that this particular party, in this particular day and age, was ever reasonable?
The Democrat's exit from power in January, 2011 will much resemble the political version of Saddam Hussein's retreating Iraqi Republican Guard Army, leaving Kuwait at the end of the First Gulf War: they will set the whole country on fire, and then gleefully admire the carnage they wrought in their rear view mirrors.
Boy, do I hope I am very wrong about this eventuality. I really, really do.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

European-style Socialism sucks: trust me, I've lived through it

The mental image that many Americans have when someone brings up the 'European lifestyle' is of relaxed Continental, metro-sexual types sipping espresso on a Tuesday morning in Paris, while soaking up the glorious morning sun at a sidewalk bistro on the Champs de Elysee.
That image is as accurate as that of the typical European, who is asked to describe their mental image of the typical 'American lifestyle:' a cowboy decked out in spurs, chaps and cowboy hat, up on their horse out on the trail, lassoing stray cattle on the cattle drive, all the while blasting away with his six shooter at marauding Indians. .
Having lived in Europe for 6 long years during two tours of duty in the U.S. Army, I have considerable insight into how the typical, real life European lives on a day to day basis, and I am here to tell you, those folks lounging about sipping their espressos on the Champs de Elysee are far, far, FAR from typical. .
Western Europe has embraced gigantic taxes to finance their socialist way of life since World War II. Not burdened by having to pay for battleships, aircraft carriers and tanks (the United States pays for all of that, you see), they are free to use that tax money to provide free health care, finance 35 hour work weeks, month long vacations in August, lucrative and opulent pensions beginning at 55 for life, and on, and on, and on..........
But what are the costs for all of this socialism? Nearly all European countries, and most noticeably Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain (P.I.I.G.S.), are floundering in crippling debt and bankruptcy. England is not far behind, nor is Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and many other socialist countries in Western Europe.
And the reason these countries are bankrupt are not that they all live in 4,000 square foot mansions, sip Dom Perignon champagne morning, noon and night and race off to fabulous parties in Monte Carlo in their Lamborghinis: the lifestyle of the typical European is as opposite of that as day is to night.
Quite the opposite, in fact: the average European family (4 members and shrinking) lives in a small, dingy apartment of perhaps 700 square feet. This average family has no car, but rather has to depend on the public transportation system, which is enormously expensive and inefficient. If a family does buy a car, it is not a Lamborghini, but rather a Citroen 'Duck,' a chintzy cheap piece of sh*t that gets around 40 mph, has a top speed of 60 mph (100 kph), and they fill the tank with $8.00/gas (benzine). Parking is another enormous expense, and accordingly, most European families do without these luxuries. Yes, cars are luxuries in Europe, whereas they are necessities in the U.S.
The average size refrigerator is smaller in the typical European household than you would see in any typical college dorm room in the U.S. Accordingly, Europeans don't have much room for food storage, and must make daily trips (within walking distance) to the local grocery store to buy the daily meals. Savings available to U.S. citizens via mega-stores like Safeway, Piggly Wiggly, Super Walmarts and so-on are non-existent. Europeans pay full blown retail for their food, as deep freezers are completely alien to most Europeans.
Taxes: All Europeans pay at least half if not more of their incomes in taxes. Income, sales, excise, property and value added: all of these are piled onto everything Europeans buy. In Germany, if a family has a TV, a tax is levied on the TV annually. Just like the Beatles song goes, if you take a walk, they tax your feet. Taxes are cripplingly high in Europe, and they still can't make ends meet, even though they scarcely contribute a dime for their national defense (the U.S. picks up the tab here). Paying these taxes assumes that the European is employed, which would be a spotty assumption: the European unemployment rate has hovered around 11% for most of my adult life, and they consider that 'normal levels.'
Life is cramped, Spartan and at times downright mean in Europe. Socialism is expensive, unsustainable, and living in a socialist system downright sucks. Trust me, I've been there and done that.
And we are heading in that direction.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Teacher's unions will be the death of us all

'Waiting for Superman' is a film highly critical of our educational system, and particularly the public teacher's unions who hold our children's futures hostage for their own pathetic benefit. There is no greater evil present among the civilized than those who use children as pawns, whether hiding behind them as Islamic terrorists do to avoid being shot at and bombed, or these public teachers unions who through the tenure system deny our children a decent education because they are more concerned about their lucrative and indecent public pensions than they are about the quality of children's education and their future.
This film was not directed and co-written by a radical, right wing conservative: Davis Guggenheim also produced Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' which leans decidedly left in its views on the man made global warming hoax.
Public teachers unions are killing our education system as well as killing our global competitive position in the marketplace because they value teacher tenure over teacher accomplishment. Public teachers are not promoted and retained because of core competencies at their specific topic of education. Not at all. The teachers union retain and promote teachers solely on how long they have been paying their union dues, i.e. tenure. A public teacher in many of our districts gains tenure after a measly three years in the classroom, and accordingly a secure job for their lifetime regardless of how they perform in that classroom.
All labor unions, regardless of the business they are involved in, strive to achieve one and only one goal for their members: more guaranteed pay for less work. That immutable fact is simply not arguable whatsoever. Teachers unions are no different: rather than work until age 65 at their trade and then retire, these insidious public teacher unions have bullied and threatened via strike tactics to reduce the length of time their members work until retirement (age 52 in many public school districts, or 30 years of teaching), and have also reduced the time required to reach tenure to as little as three years on the job (the point at which the member achieves lifetime union benefits).
After three years, there is no point in getting better at teaching, no point at all. Their job is secure, and many public union teachers simply phone it in from there over the remainder of their career. Once they hit 30 years, 27 of those years mediocre at best performance wise, they can retire with 75% of their full time income for the remainder of their lives, along with 3 or 4% cost of living adjustments annually.
How is this system possibly sustainable? To have a 52 year old retired teacher, living large on the public dime for the rest of their lives while the district they left has to hire yet another teacher to replace the able bodied slug that cashed in? The math is simple: the teacher that cashed in at age 52 earned perhaps $70,000 after 30 years in the typical school district. They will retire with full health care costs paid for and $52,500 annually for another 28 years or so on average. The district will replace that teacher with a rookie public teacher union employee, and pay that teacher (with full health care benefits) $40K to start.
The community in which their union operates accordingly is paying the $52,500 for the non-working teacher (the retired union teacher), along with $40K annually for the young replacement union teacher, and full health care benefits for both. That may be $125,000 and rising each year - PER TEACHING SLOT!! And this is probably a wild underestimation as to the actual costs per district per teaching slot. If the rookie teacher puts in their 30 and retires at age 52 and a new 'rookie-rookie replacement must be hired, and the long ago retired slug lives beyond age 82, then (in current dollars), the district is footing the bill for not only the $40K for a new rookie, but $52,500 for the old rookie newly retired, and $52,500 plus all of those cost of living hikes, perhaps another $35,000, for the 82 year old retiree's pension, PLUS ALL THE HEALTH CARE, and the math starts looking just awful - PER TEACHING SLOT: $200,000 ANNUALLY? $250,000 EACH YEAR, MAYBE? PROBABLY HIGHER THAN THAT AND INCREASING EVERY DAY!!!
Unsustainable. Simply unsustainable. And we haven't even discussed how badly these slacking, unmotivated tenured union teachers are phoning in their work to our children. And we haven't even scratched the surface as to how many teacher's union administrators have been provided with feather bed jobs that are redundant, unnecessary and useless. And of course, we haven't discussed the retirement benefits, health care benefits , etc. of all of these unnecessary and superfluous administrators who also retire at age 52.
And what do we hear, year after year from these unions? We need MORE MONEY!! IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!! Hogwash and balderdash. Our public school system is awash in taxpayer money, and all of it goes to the union featherbedding of its members for life, all the while their tax base supports these slackers in perpetuity, immune from downturns in the economy, immune from responsibility and accountability.
The educational system as we know it now has to de-certify each and every public union, including teacher's unions, immediately if not sooner. The costs of this unsustainable system will be the death of us all in the long run.
We are already starting to wither and die in the short and medium run. Everyone with eyes can see this as the truth. And this commentary on the sad shape of public education, 'Waiting for Superman' exposes these greedy unions as for what they are: leeches, and parasites on our society.

Monday, September 20, 2010

You just might be a Democrat if.....

 1) ....if you think that the United States owes you a living simply because you were born here, and that your every want and need should be provided to you at no cost, you are probably a Democrat. That, or a Northeastern Republican (same thing).
2) You just might be a Democrat belong to a public employee union, and firmly and truly believe that you should make $120,000 annually until you reach age 51, all the while each and every dime you make comes from the pockets of the taxpayers of your municipality. You also believe down to the marrow in your bones that you should retire comfortably at age 51 on around $90K annually to a beach house in Coral Gables, Florida while the municipality you worked for goes broke paying for your and the rest of your union's unbridled greed and sloth for the rest of your slovenly life, well then you just might be a Democrat. .
3) You just might be a Democrat continue electing Democrat after Democrat to represent you in Congress and they in turn spend the Treasury's (read: 'the taxpayer's) money like drunken sailors on projects and payoffs that the Constitution never, ever intended, well then you just might be a Democrat.
4) You just might be a Democrat truly believe that all women's bodies are theirs to do with as they wish, to include murder innocent lives within them for convenience sake by having abortions on demand for any reason whatsoever. You just might be a Democrat if you believe this, that or a Northeastern Republican (same thing).
5). You just might be a Democrat think that living off the sweat, blood and tears of another without any input from you is nothing to be ashamed of, that eating the bread off of another American's table without any effort on your part is perfectly acceptable, and even 'a right.' If you think that sucking off the public dime is the American way; well then you just might be a Democrat. .
6) You just might be a Democrat if...firmly and truly believe, from the bottom of your heart, that you should pay no federal taxes, while people making more than you should pay all of the federal taxes, if you think that is the way America should be, well then you most certainly must be a Democrat.
That, or a Northeastern Republican (same thing).

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

ABC News thinks all money belongs to government

ABC World News, with Dan Harris sitting in for the lovely and gracious (but liberal) Diane Sawyer, just doesn't get it, nor does anyone at ABC. And likely they never will. There was a segment that aired on ABC yesterday with Dan Harris speaking on a segment of 'Taxing the Rich."
Dan Harris reported on Monday's nightly news broadcast that (and I am paraphrasing here) 'the controversial Bush tax cuts are set to expire, but until they do, this gives $700 Billion dollars to mostly millionaires, and even billionaires, who don't need it.'
He went on to say that should the tax cuts be extended, this would 'cost the government $3.7 Trillion dollars over the next 10 years.'
Where do I start on this blithering idiot's broadcast? Let me just start by saying in all caps, "IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY, IT'S OURS!!' Just where does Dan Harris get off by saying that money that was not confiscated by the IRS and never gets to Washington DC in the first place will 'cost the government?' How stupid can these Marxist's be? Well, they are Marxists at their core, and probably truly believe that all money in our economy belongs to the government, because it says 'United States of America' on each and every bill, which is printed by the U.S. Treasury, so who else would it belong to?
'Controversial Bush tax cuts?' Yeah, controversial to liberals, who never met a tax hike they didn't like. But 'controversial?' The Bush tax cuts were only controversial to numbnut liberals like Dan Harris, and his bosses at ABC. To the rest of us, they were badly needed, and still ARE badly needed.
And just who in hell are these guys at ABC to determine who 'needs' tax breaks, and who doesn't? We ALL need tax breaks. Dan Harris and his cronies all believe down to the marrow that a tax cut will hurt government in its ability to help us stupid, ignorant citizens, who have no idea on how to manage our own affairs. We're stupid cretins who just fell off the onion truck, as far as they are concerned. The Great Unwashed. And we stink up the place when we visit Washington D.C. in the summer as well, just ask Sen. Harry Reid, he as much as said this very thing last year.
There is absolutely no use in arguing that lowering taxes increases private sector investment and activity, and has been proven time and again. You know, the Laffer Curve. But trying to explain the Laffer Curve to a liberal is like showing Dracula a crucifix: they cower and shrink away from it, and howl in pain at viewing it. What's the use?
I just can't wait until November, and watch the electoral bloodbath that will befall these clueless liberals. Remember Peter Jennings saying that the 1994 Republican victories were just a result of 'angry white guys.' And that America was 'throwing a temper tantrum.'
. I wonder how ABC will cover this one? It's going to be twice as bad, or worse (for them).

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

You just might be one of the 'Great Unwashed.'

How does one know if they qualify to be a member of 'The Great Unwashed?' You know, those folks whose malodorous presence within smelling distance of our Ruling Class draws a wrinkled nose from the inconvenienced Elite who has the misfortune of sniffing the stench of such a lowly person.
Still confused as to who those Great Unwashed are? Or, heaven forbid, if you ARE one of the Great Unwashed? You know, the stinky folks who visit Washington and offend Sen. Harry Reid's nasal passages (remember, he literally said as much last year).
Well, don't you worry your pretty little (yet stinky) heads any further. Good ol' Fredd is here to help (it's just the kind of guy I am). Allow me to provide some criteria below that can be attributed to us Great Unwashed and assist you in determining your station in life (yes, 'us Great Unwashed,' as good ol' Fredd is a proud member of the "Great Unwashed,' and is even more proud of his malodorous, fetid stench in the presence of his 'betters.')
DO YOU OWN A SMALL BUSINESS? Welcome to the Great Unwashed. You smelly folks are the backbone of the greatest economy on earth, and as such are held in complete and utter contempt by 'your betters.' You know, the Ruling Elites, who think of all money in the American economy as theirs, and since they are so much smarter (and better smelling), they know that doling out 'their' money to us Unwashed folk as they see fit is much better than allowing us to botch things up left to our own stinky devices. Just watch the video on Christophers' "Conservative Perspective" of a former small business owner ("Its-not-fair") Ken George explain how the Elites in our government suck away much of small business earnings in taxes, and your Great Unwashed and stinking blood will boil. Mine did.
DID YOU GRADUATE FROM A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY? Like Sarah Palin, with her stinky B.S. from the University of Idaho. Oh, you smelly, lowly one. Don't you know that to be considered one of the Ruling Class, or part of Polite Society, you must hail from haloed institutions such as Bryn Mawr, Sarah Lawrence, or an Ivy League institution. The only use 'our betters' have for a diploma issued from the University of Oregon, or Arizona State is for wiping their Elite butts, and nothing more.
DO YOU LIVE IN A RED STATE? You know, like Wyoming, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Montana, or (GOD FORBID!) ....Texas!!? Well, then you most assuredly are a filthy, disgusting, stinking member of the Great Unwashed, and accordingly your fetid stench can be detected from as far away as Washington D.C., since your particularly offensive, foul, malodorous stink can waft for thousands of miles and still be detected by 'Your Betters' in the classier neighborhoods. Your ilk is particularly offensive to the Ruling Class, since you constantly return (shudder)...'Republicans' to office, although the Ruling Elites can often brainwash even the dirtiest, stinkiest of the malodorous GOP members into acquiescing to their thinking on the ways of the better smelling world of the Elites. While a RINO still stinks in the presence of our 'betters,' their stench is slightly less offensive when they vote for pork packages, ever increasing spending, etc. along with those who know better than us Great Unwashed dolts and idiots.
Hopefully you are no longer confused as to your station in life. And please feel free to deposit any contraband bars of soap or bottles of shampoo at the door, and we will not ask any questions as to their origin: welcome to The Great Unwashed, c'mon in and set a spell....
No need to take your shoes off.....

Sunday, August 29, 2010

So Lefties are suddenly all for religous freedom?

Why all of a sudden do we hear a cacophonous clamour from the Left for religious tolerance regarding the hated proposed Ground Zero mosque? They are now calling all of those who oppose this ill advised project 'intolerant.' When did this happen? It came straight out of the blue: the Left is now all in favor of freedom of religion? It seems to me that the Left has for most if not all of my life (and I'm OLD) have made fun of Christians, Jews and about every other form of religion out there. Lefties and pinkos of every shape and size were particularly and rabidly fond of bashing Catholicism, and more currently Mormonism. Recall their adulation and adoration of that crucifix sealed in a jar of the 'artist's' urine, a proud result of the program that is called the National Endowment for the Arts. As I recall the 'artist' who created that slap in the face to all Christians named this loathsome piece 'The Piss Christ.' These pinkos, who have sought to remove God from every public square for generations now, suddenly have been 'tetched by the Spirit?' Now, and only now, do they see the light? 'Let Muslims worship whenever and wherever they wish,' these newly enlightened Lefties proclaim, 'it is intolerant to think otherwise.' We have news for you Lefties: for all of you Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Statists, Anarchists and Democrats, speaking for the majority of the people in this country who oppose building this victory mosque as a slap in the face for those who perished on 9/11, we want you to know that we all did not just fall off of the turnip truck yesterday. We are aware that you don't give a lick about religious freedom. You just want to cheer those who hate America the way it was founded, just like you all hate America. These Muslims want to build this mosque as a victory memorial for their triumph on 9/11. In time, they want to establish sharia law over the land, and for most of you lefties, you are OK with sharia law; it has much in common with your values. Sharia severely restricts freedoms just like you lefties like to restrict freedom. Where do you Lefties get off calling the rest of us 'intolerant?' That is like Rosie O'Donnell telling fashion model Kate Moss to 'lose some weight, tubby.'

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

'Moderate Muslims' and other ficticious characters

The now somewhat dated joke goes like this: The Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, an al-Qaeda terrorist and a Moderate Muslim were all seated at a poker table, and were betting like dutch uncles on what turned out to be identical hands: Royal Flushes. The Easter Bunny had a Royal Flush in spades (Ace, King, Queen, Jack and Ten), the Tooth Fairy had the same hand, but in hearts, the al-Qaeda terrorist had a royal flush in clubs, and the Moderate Muslim had his royal flush in diamonds. Who raked in the huge pot? The al-Qaeda terrorist, of course. The other three are just fictional characters. Essentially, there is no such thing as a 'moderate Muslim.' Historically speaking, from a non-theologian's perspective, the story of Islam started with the prophet Mohammad receiving the verses of what became the Koran directly from Allah, beginning in 610 A.D. Within these verses, directly from Allah, are instructions for all obedient loyal followers to convert the rest of the world to Islam, and if conversion does not take place, then enslave or kill non-believers ('infidels'). Many Muslims today look the other way when this fact is presented to them. According to the Koran, these Muslims are not true believers, and are not adhering to the words of the Prophet and the wishes of Allah. Perhaps this is just a technicality, and many religious scholars would argue that the ancient verses were figurative, and not literal. Still, they are there in the Koran to this day for anyone to see. And these words are not ambiguous. Calling Islam a religion of peace is just not what Mohammad and Allah had in mind for Muslims. The cartoon above more accurately portrays the views of 'moderate Muslims:' they will watch as the fanatic beheads an infidel, but will rarely (if ever) condemn the fanatic for his actions. After all, this is specifically and literally called for in the Koran, the book by which ALL Muslims live, not just some Muslims. Imam Rauf, the spokeman for the proposed Ground Zero mosque, is reported to be just such a 'moderate Muslim.' When he speaks to Arab speaking listeners, his message is very different than that he tells his English speaking audience. Imam Rauf is not a 'moderate Muslim.' He is a Muslim, period. Accordingly, a 'moderate Muslim' belongs at that poker table every bit as much as the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa: there ain't no such thing.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Pakistan: when you bite that hand that feeds you

Perhaps as many (or more) than twenty million (that's 20,000,000) Pakistanis are now homeless and destitute owing to the annual flooding that occurs at this time every year. This year, the flooding is greater than normal, and estimates place about 20% of the country under water.
So far, no significant global effort is underway to help these suffering multitudes, other than a pitiful (yet typcial) effort on the part of the United Nations. Yes, some mention of their plight has made the news, but the focus on this naturual disaster is nowhere near other recent disasters such as has befallen the earthquake victims of Haiti, or the sunami victims of Thailand a few years ago.
Former U.S. presidents (Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush) have teamed up to spearhead relief efforts on behalf of both of those stricken populations. Why the indifference to the suffering multitudes in Pakistan? Are these unfortunate souls in Pakistan less deserving of a global response than others whom have suffered catastrophies meted out by Mother Nature recently?
Arguably, the affects of this flooding have devastated the lives of many times the population of other disasters that have made the news of late. Maybe the population of Pakistan is less sympathetic than others of similar fates. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. by Islamic fanatics, we all watched scenes of Pakistanis and Palestinians dancing in the streets in celebration of the nearly 3,000 dead Americans. Recall recent polls of Pakistanis recording their overwhelming hatred of the West and the U.S. in particular lately. Pakistan is the home of countless terrorists and their support groups. Pakistan is reportedly the current refuge of Osama bin Laden, the world's most dispicable, hated and notorious terrorist.
Pakistan is one of the most unliked and unsympathetic countries in the world today. They are the recipients of countless millions/billions in foreign aid (one of their primary sources of GDP), and yet they hate everyone and harbor terrorists who plot death and destruction for Western and Indian targets even as I write this. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. This failed nation and society is a blight on civilization.
Pakistan should not count on Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush putting together an aid package for them. This country has always been a disaster, is currently a disaster, and always will be a disaster.
There is no hope for a prosperous Pakistan in the future. There never will be.
May God have mercy on Pakistan. But, alas, I suspect that Pakistan is God forsaken.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Poll indicates most Americans think securing the border impossible

A recent poll indicated that 61% of those polled thought that securing the southern U.S. border was impossible.
The current border is simply a dotted line drawn on a map. Less than 2% of the border has fencing or other physical barriers that prevent illegal entry from Mexico. It is true that all an intruder must do to enter the United States currently is to walk across an unprotected area in any of the border states (California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas). No need to buy and airline ticket, or board a boat or submarine. Just walk across. That's it.
The same is true in China. Just walk across. There's no fence there, either. But there is one big, BIG difference: in the People's Republic of China, it is a crime to enter their country, and those who do so without permission from the Chinese government do so at great risk to their lives, if not their freedom.
China has borders between themselves and Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Burma, Laos and Vietnam. Thousands and thousands of miles. Thousands and thousands. And along those thousands of miles of border there is not a foot of fencing, zilch, zero, nothing to prevent anyone from walking right into China. Nothing except the fear of breaking Chinese law, and ending up disappearing without a trace, or winding up in a Chinese prison for years if not decades (if not life).
Nobody enters China. Nobody. Or at least nobody enters China without permission. And if they do, they pay dearly.
What's the difference? China enforces its borders with stiff penalties, including death. The U.S. lays down the welcome mat, and provides all comers (read: invaders) with social security benefits, health care benefits, free public education, access to public transportation systems, public parks, and free public (enter the freebie of your choice here).
And we think its impossible to secure our borders? Nothing to it. Position a few machine gun turrets here and there, detect an invader or two and gun them down, and eliminate their threat to our border security. It wouldn't be long before our border is rock, solid secure. Without fences.
Piece o' cake. Works like a charm in China. It would work here, too.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Our culture is in trouble if we have to advertise values

I am confident you have seen many of the commercials that are being produced these days by 'The Foundation for a Better Life.' This one below, the young guy giving the older lady his seat on the bus, is typical. Each time I see these, I am amazed at how low our culture has sunk: we no longer as a nation teach our children respect for their elders, or anything else anymore.

Many more of these clips are put out by this group, encouraging us to not be jerks and assholes. Apparently, unless we see an ad on TV (over and over and over and over.....), we will behave in ways that are completely outrageous, antisocial and rude. The clips that The Foundation for a Better Life are currently running incessantly on nearly every channel around the clock (even Food Network) include:

1) a Downs Syndrome girl getting picked as Home Coming Queen at a high school prom.

2) after a new high school girl gets the cold shoulder in the cafeteria from the popular girls, a considerate girl comes over and has lunch with the jilted gal.

3) the newly wed guy sits down in a bar after a squabble with the missus, and the barkeep bolsters his spirits as to the 'good stuff' of life.

4) the jerk in high school knock the books out of the nerd's hands onto the floor, and the jock comes over and helps the nerd pick them up.

And on and on and on.....

Most of these ads target young people, in their teens and twenty's. I guess that is why I am amazed at the lengths and enormous advertising cost that this group goes through to convey the basic message: don't be an asshole. The parents of these high schoolers depicted in these ads must be in their early 40's, and accordingly are Generation X'ers. I, being a Baby Boomer, seem to have missed how poorly they must have raised their Generation Y kids, so that these antisocial miscreants crap on all of our notions of polite society. These Gen X parents completely fell down on the job of socializing their children, and now its up to the Foundation For A Better Life to pick up the slack. Or, perhaps worse yet, it's the Boomer's fault for raising such derelict kids that grew up to allow their children to behave like animals.

In my day ('by crackee'), if some jerk knocks the books out of somebody's grasp in high in front of the jocks in my early 1970's high school hallway, the jerk would have his face imprinted onto a locker door by the nearest jock faster than a case of 12-year old Scotch would disappear on the Kennedy compound (and believe me, that's fast). Of course, I was raised by 'The Greatest Generation' parents, and garbage like that shown in those commercials would simply not get tolerated for even a second.

Now we have to advertise on television to make our kids aware that it is not OK to be an asshole?

If we keep on this current generational path of ambivalence towards our children's socialization, in a few generations we will turn into savages and cannibals, eating each other willy nilly since nobody taught us any better. And I am guessing that is the conclusion that the folks at The Foundation for a Better Life came to as well, and are doing their best to change the direction of things to come.

Still, it's pathetic that we have to shape good values by advertising them on TV. I have to wonder if these ads are having a positive effect.

Time will tell.

Friday, August 6, 2010

'American Independents:' Dumbest of the Dumb

And we all thought Republicans are pretty dumb. Well, they are. But at the top of the heap of stupid citizens, one would have to put the American Independent as the dumbest of the dumb. .
When Independents are tracked down and asked about an issue, any issue at all, they will tell whoever asks that they have yet to make a decision because all the facts are not in, or that they will make up their minds on election day. They must weigh all sides of the issue equally, you see, and then come to an informed and wise decision on the matter. They are moderate and tempered, you see, unlike radical conservatives and left wingers whose extreme views are unacceptable.
That's just all garbage and hooey. Gobbledygook. Bunk. It's just not true that Independents weigh any facts, seek clarification or are indecisive because of incomplete information. The truth about Independents is that they are just plain idiots. Stupid cretins. Dolts. The dumbest of the dumb in American politics. And they lie about why they call themselves Independents: they tell you that they are 'middle of the road,' or 'moderate,' or better yet 'don't believe any one side.'
Don't believe any of that . They are simply lazy, stupid slugs. The most common answer a moron Independent comes up with in response to any political poll or question the vast majority of the time is 'duh, I dunno.'
They will not raise a finger to think about an issue, when the battle lines of conservative versus liberal policy views are right in front of their lazy eyes. 'Too much work,' they say to themselves. 'Tax and spend Socialist liberals?' 'Racist and mean spirited Republicans?' Ah, nuts to all of that work it takes to think about this stuff, they tell themselves. The Independent lazily believes that the truth must lie somewhere in the middle of all of this political blather in the ubiquitous commercials that they see on TV prior to elections. And of course they resent all of these commercials that interrupt 'American Idol' and 'Wipeout.' Can't these politicians understand that they have priorities in life? Enough with the commercials about taxes, immigration reform, national defense, blah blah blah. Just let us Independents get back to 'Jersey Shore,' and tell us how hammered Snooki got last night, and where she puked...this time.
They are simply totally uninformed, and do not want to take the time to educate themselves on the issues. When (and if) they go to the polls to vote, they do not have the slightest clue as to whom to vote for. They will often pick the first name on the ballot. Or, more likely, they will pick the more attractive of the candidates; women Independents most often choose candidates in this manner. They will pick the candidate with better hair, the taller candidate, or the cute candidate with the cleft in his chin.
And the Democrats know this. They understand the Independent. They actively market to the stupid, the dummies, the morons among us. That is why we consistently are ruled by Democrats year in and year out: they get it. Republicans don't. Republicans believe that people vote in elections after careful research into the positions and come to wise, balanced decisions.
Republicans better get with the program and call a spade a spade: Independents are dumber than a bag of hammers, and yet hold the keys to most elections. 40% of all American voters polled claim to be Independent or Independent-leaning. That's a huge percentage, and the Democrats know how to communicate with these dunderheads.
Suggestion: The GOP should start marketing to this stupid crowd effectively, using methods that resonate with the dumb: perhaps campaign literature written in crayon, and yard signs using finger paint; dumb things down to the Independent level. The Democrats already do this. The Republicans should take notes if they want to win the day in November.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Are Democrats smarter than Republicans?

I would argue that, given the political landscape and its makeup over the last 50 years or so, Democrats are indeed smarter than Republicans. Look around: polls indicate that around 40% of all voters consider themselves conservative or conservative leaning. 20% call themselves Progressives (liberals) or progressive leaning. That leaves the remaining 40% of squishy independent or independent leaning fence sitters.
All Republicans have to do to win an election is convince a measly 26% of the independents to join them at the ballot box, and the election is in the bag. Democrats, on the other hand, have to convince 76% of those squishy folks to vote their way each and every election, and yet election after election these days we see Democrats win the day.
How is this possible? The media, of course, is on their side, and that helps lots. In addition, the Democrats have inroads into academia and unionized activities, also helpful. Plus, all ACORN fraud and the dead folk vote pad the Democrat ballot.
Republicans have lots to learn from Democrats, but they resist getting down and dirty. Republicans are playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules, while Democrats are swinging two-by-fours and chairs in the fight over control of public resources. If a Democrat is charged with an ethics violation, they drag the proceedings out for a few years (Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters come to mind currently), all the while keeping them around and count on their liberal votes each and every issue. Republicans, when a minor amount of dirt is charged against one of their own, immediately throw the wayward GOP scalawag under the bus. No ifs, ands or buts - they are gone.
Who's smarter, politically speaking? Democrats, hands down. I wonder when Republicans are going to wise up?
I am not holding my breath.

Monday, July 26, 2010

'Don't Feed The Bums'

Many of you are familiar with our national park system, and the many signs always posted in Yellowstone, Yosemite and Grand Teton national parks “Do not feed the bears.” What happens when tourists hand out to mooching bears handfuls of goodies in their picnic baskets? You get more and more mooching bears. Bears are not stupid, and neither are professional bums, for the most part. And when I say 'professional bums,' you know who I mean; the scuzzy moochers who beg for money on every major metropolitan street corner as a way of life. Both of these populations - bears and bums - exhibit predictable behaviors: give them freebies, and the word spreads that freebies are afoot. Pretty soon, the place is crawling with moochers - both bums and bears. Speaking of begging, this phenomenon begs the question: just how do we as a nation go about dealing with our ‘professional bum infestation' in the United States these days? What should we do with them? Scoop them up and hose them off? Put them to work…? How about we just stop as a nation supporting the ‘bumly’ way of life? Like all living creatures, bears will choose the easiest way to survive, and not waste any unnecessary energy in inefficient ways. Scrounging for low caloric foods such as nuts, berries and grubs is highly inefficient when they have access to an alternative unending stream of tourists who toss them fat and sugar laden high caloric yummies such as turkey drumsticks, slices of cherry pie and Hostess Twinkies. With such feasts laid out in the parking lot for the taking, only the dumbest of bears are still out foraging for berries and grubs. The bears with any brains whatsoever are hanging out in parking lots and other places where tourists feed them like kings. When tourists feed bears at our national parks, these bears no longer forage for natural sources of food, but rather congregate in great numbers near their human benefactors, where they become at best a nuisance, or at worst dangerous. So it is with bums, and there is no perceptible difference between the behaviors of these two species of mammals. Like any other mammal, they will flourish in environments where the pickings are easy. And our professional bums are doing just that. They typically hang out where they are most visible, likely in urban settings, and beg for money from passers by. They are sure to make themselves look as pathetic as possible, and have their sad sack, down on their luck stories polished to a highly toned presentation. What happened to all of those bears that were congregating in the parking lots of our national parks? Once the park service started cracking down on bear feeding by clueless tourists, did we see bears dropping dead by the hundreds of starvation, clogging the parking lots with their dead corpses? Did the park service personnel have to stack up dead bear bodies like cord wood? Of course not. These bears, once the food supply dried up, simply moved on in search of better and more reliable fare. Governor Tommy Thompson (R-WI) started several programs such as these in Wisconsin several years ago, and once they were originally proposed, liberal bleeding heart opponents wailed and gnashed their teeth at the cruelty of such draconian measures, predicting that the homeless and forlorn would die in the streets in great numbers. Remember that prediction? They said that if these mean spirited measures were enacted, the loss of lives and mass starvation would be shocking.
What happened?
Bums no longer got hand outs from the state, but were required to start working instead. The bums in Wisconsin just started working, or moved out of state to where the pickin’s were easier. Governor Thompson just “stopped feeding the bums.” And we never saw any bum bodies stacked up like cord wood in alley ways, as they dropped dead from hunger. As usual, the liberal pinkos that predicted doom and gloom, death and woe for their homeless constituents were dead wrong. 'Don't Feed The Bums.' It’s as simple as that. We need more welfare to work programs, and a bit more ‘tough love’ with these moochers. When populations (bear or otherwise) are forced to mend their ways, they do so every time. But how do we change the climate here in the U.S. that has become used to feeding and tolerating “the homeless,” the “unsheltered” and those “displaced populations?” Like all liberal programs and ideologies, they were not embedded into our national consciousness over night. They were purposely and insidiously fed to us in bits and bites, incrementally increasing our tolerance of the bums in our midst to their current unacceptable levels over years and decades. We will just have to start to reverse the trend with public service announcements such as “Please Do Not Feed The Homeless.” Then in time work on placing more derision on these moochers among us as time progresses. We have to make the ‘bumly’ way of life an embarrassment like it used to be in the good ol’ days. Sure, there will always be bums, but just not so many of them. Our goal is to attach some shame to begging and mooching, rather than tolerate these moocher’s bumly way of life as an acceptable profession.
Once begging for a living no longer works, these bums will move on to other more productive behaviors, just like the bears did.
So just remember, 'don't feed the bums.'