Search This Blog

Loading...

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Is it long past time to apply capitalism to our socialist educational system?

Given that a four-year bachelors degree in some particular major is de rigueur and pro forma for a young professional entering today's job market, what underlying inefficiencies and cost imbalances would a more capitalistic and competitive educational model eliminate?
Core Curriculum Requirements (Bachelor’s Degree)
XYZ University requires all bachelor's degree students to complete a minimum of 16 academic courses in the liberal arts and sciences and 1 course in physical education. In order to fulfill this requirement, all students must complete the following:

Skills Courses

Three writing courses (9 credits) ENG 191; ENG 192; an additional writing course, 210-level or higher, which may be in the major. One communication course. One physical education course. May also be fulfilled by a life skill or wellness learning course. (1 course, 1 credit). Completion of one season of a XYZ team sport will also satisfy this requirement. Only one credit may be counted in a student's total credit count. Computer Literacy Requirement. All students entering the University are required to successfully complete IS 144—MS Windows and Office Applications. Achieve a grade of "C" or better in an equivalent course as required by majors in Visual Communication Design; and Film, Video and Theater.

Distribution Courses

Note: All these courses must be outside of the discipline of the major, but they may fulfill secondary program requirements for the major. Fine Arts (3 credits) Art: Film, Music, Photography, Theatre, Social Science (2 courses, 6 credits, from two different disciplines) Anthropology, Economics, Geography, Human Services, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, Mathematics and Science (3 courses, 10–12 credits, at least one lab science and one math at the level of Math 121 or higher, not including Math 132. (Math 201, however, may only be used as a second math course in this requirement.) Mathematics Biology, Chemistry, Physical Science, Physics, Humanities (4 courses, 12 credits, from at least three different disciplines) History, Literature, Philosophy, Religion

Core Electives

(2 courses, 6 credits) These two courses may be selected from any of the distribution disciplines or from foreign language courses, communication (CM) courses, English writing and language courses, or interdisciplinary courses that include one of the distribution disciplines. Both of these courses must be outside of the discipline of the major, and they cannot be used to fulfill any additional Core requirements, but they may fulfill secondary program requirements for the major. Foreign Language Candidates for the Bachelor of Arts degree must complete six credits of foreign language at the 200-level. They may use their two Core Electives (see above) to fulfill this requirement.
If you're looking at the outline listed above and don't see a problem, punch yourself in the head. Look in the mirror and notice the swelling. Admit that you've just punched yourself in the head, and then look at the outline again. Repeat this as many times as necessary until the self-evident problem becomes noticeable. At some point, as lumps continue to grow upon your head, you may begin to notice that nothing in the asinine litany of academic hoops that you must jump through listed above is there anything having something to do with your particular major—the particular field of study you desire to pursue, unless of course you are an English, art, or foreign language major.

The academic litany above represents thousands of your dollars, hundreds of hours of your time, but unfortunately it also represents absolutely zero, nada, zilch, bupkis to your ability to carry out your future career responsibilities. So you want to be a computer programmer? You'll also need Spanish, Anthropology, Chemistry, Film and some Philosophy...which will carry you through your first year...It's total bullshit!

These hoops represent the university's attempt to justify their fine arts program, their history program, their science program. You my foolish young student are subsidizing all the practically useless programs that your university offers. You're forced to subsidize these programs via the university's requirement to study these—to you—completely useless courses. It would be bad enough if they just charged you the money. But no, they grind salt and acid into your gaping financial wounds by requiring your time and attention as well. You'll be paying interest on the debt incurred for that philosophy class long after you've forgotten what the class was even about.

This system is outrageous, unfair, and inefficient, and as such requires a big what if. What if? What if you could spend four years just learning about your major. What if you could attend a school where you lived and breathed your major. Let's talk computer science. From Freshman to senior every course should be computer related. They should be teaching the ins, outs, and in-betweens with no bullshit. No Spanish, no fine-arts, no philosophy. It should just be computers. When and if you graduate, you should know as much about computer hardware, software, and the on-going trends in the field as an IT professional hard at work in Redmond Washington, for instance.

The prevalence of on-line courses suggests that the current university educational model is due for a huge upheaval. As they exist today, the huge and multidisciplinary universities will not be able to compete with the slim and efficient focused study path of the on-line educational institution. Given that a focused four-year degree would represent the state-of-the-art in a particular field of endeavor, what multinational corporation wouldn't be knocking insistently and eagerly at the door of a graduate from this kind of focused on-line university?

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

The Wheel Turns

And it's time once again to prepare, this time for the final chapter in an epic saga that literally dwarfs moribund paint-by-number epics like The Lord of the Rings. It is a saga that has captivated and enthralled me for more then twenty-five years. The Wheel of Time saga is undoubtably, irrefutably, the finest example of epic writing that exists in the known universe. I've read Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth saga. I've read The Game of Thrones series by George R.R. Martin. I've read of the adventures of Elric of Melnibone, and Drizzt Do'Urden. All these adventure novels are of course entertaining; they're all quite enjoyable; They each approach, and yet sadly fall short of the glory of The Wheel of Time.

The scope and breadth of characters in this series by an author with the pen-name of Robert Jordan is unparalleled. The tapestry of plot leads adventurers down a thousand roads and from this singular vantage and at various points along the way we are able to marvel at a creation that is not only a masterpiece for this day and age, but no-doubt for all the days and ages yet to come. If you enjoyed a Game of Thrones, you would find yourself completely overwhelmed and left adrift in ineffably awestruck wonder at this strangely unheralded yet consummate work bequeathed to future generations of enthralled adventurers by the late Robert Jordan.

With fourteen books written and only thirteen books printed, the new year promises great things. The Wheel of time is perhaps as many as 13,000 pages long! As such, it's a little bit overwhelming. There are thousands of characters, hundreds of wars, dozens of intertwining plots. I always get this terrible feeling of anxiety and sorrow as one chapter closes and the next one takes me somewhere completely different. It's nervewracking and a little irritating! But not to worry. As the next chapter begins I am once more reintroduced to wonderful old friends who have so many new things to tell that the ephemeral sadness and irritation are almost immediately replaced with this feeling of almost sublime anticipation.

The next few weeks will find few posts from yours truly dear reader; I have thousands of miles to travel and millions of sights to marvel at. If you've never read the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan and now Brandon Sanderson, who's finishing the tale using the notes left by Robert Jordan, then you're missing something truly wonderful. I've reread the series each time as the newest installment has been released. Each time it's taken longer and I've come to an ever-more profound appreciation for this adventure to end all adventures. Pick up the first book in this grand saga entitled: The Eye of the World and read along. You'll thank me for it.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Your descendants probably won't have careers








Don't even get me started on the "unemployment rate." A bigger snipe-hunt couldn't possibly exist. If the trends shown in these graphs are extrapolated forward, the future looks bleak. It seems likely that employment participation will continue to decline, population will continue to grow and people receiving government benefits―whether that be food-stamps, social-security, unemployment, disability benefits, or welfare―will continue to grow at a much steeper rate than overall population growth.

The last chart is unusual in that it seems contradictory to the preceding charts. Even though a smaller percentage of the population right now is productively employed than ever before in history, gross national productivity has never been better. ACME is still cranking out their widgets at an ever-more-rapid pace. How can this be? Even though eight million or more people have forever departed the workforce, our national productivity has not really suffered at all. Fewer workers are doing more work than ever. How is this possible?

The answer is of course technology. People are being replaced by machines at an exponential pace. People with high school diplomas hoping for a manufacturing job, a service job, an unskilled labor job are less likely than ever to find that job. This trend is likely to continue. As computers take up the slack in call-centers, and as robots and machinery replaces assembly line workers, today's and tomorrow's graduates will have a tougher and tougher time landing a job.

Obviously technical school at the least seems a wise choice going forward. If your child assumes that McDonalds or something similar will be available, let him or her know that fast-food and retail positions of every kind will disappear much more rapidly than they can imagine. The self-checkout is already a feature in most grocery stores, and this business model has already proven so successful that competition will force retail store after store to follow suit or face bankruptcy.

The future is self-checkout, on-line sales, automated manufacturing, and a stratified system of technicians maintaining these mechanical processes. Everyone else will be unemployed. Can our society continue to exist with this kind of system in place? I honestly don't know. It seems doubtful. When only a small percentage of the population is productive the logical outcome would seem to favor population decline. A family living on the dole would face ever greater pressure from society to limit family size.

The obvious exception would be The Waltons paradigm. A self-sufficient family that provides all its necessities through farming and trade would be able to exist outside of this ever-more-mechanized societal system. In the event of a catastrophic mechanical failure, the kind of massive failure that would be engendered by a massive electromagnetic pulse from the Sun for instance, only the rustic Waltons family farming-style society would be capable of survival. Billions of city dwellers living on government assistance would likely perish, as would a stratified priesthood of technological savants and techno-wizards living on some ephemeral and artificial societal apex.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Lawsuits are smothering Innovation. What can we do?

We’re all familiar with the phrase that if you build a better mousetrap the world will beat a path to your door. The problem is that if I did invent a better mousetrap, and then got a patent, and then put it on the market, Apple would sue me, or Samsung or maybe even an actual mousetrap manufacturer. It’s incredible to me the sheer volume of never-ending litigation between the big computer and phone brands. Apple might say that my mousetrap is shaped like their iPhone. They might point out that my product is rectangular and has similar length, width, depth...and feel. Since I am a brand new company with little wealth or resources on-hand to fight them in court, I would almost certainly lose that court battle and so I would have to pay Apple a billion dollars.

The lesson that I would learn is that unless I could start out with 2 billion dollars—one billion to fight a court battle, and another in case I lose—I had better not even think about getting into the “better-mousetrap” market. This is of course the point…the big tech companies don’t want any small-potatoes competition. I’m not a conspiracy theorist but maybe the Justice Department should take a good look at this behavior? It seems to me that it's designed to eliminate competition.

With seven billion people on Earth and 470 million college degrees, there’s more than enough sheepskin on the wall to continue the innovation avalanche we’re lucky enough to be living in. The problem is that even though we have all this innovation happening all the time, very little of it ever makes it to the market. If we’re to ratchet up the level of knowledge of science and ability to innovate new technology ever more rapidly, society has absolutely got to find a way to stop all these tech giants from filing lawsuits at the drop of a hat.

So here’s my idea: publicly shame them. Instead of rewarding them with billion dollar awards, make the public absolutely aware of how many times they’ve been to court in the past decade. Let the world know how much money a company spent on legal services, and how much money they won and lost. I once read that war ends up costing more money than any argument it ever ends up settling. I’d be willing to bet the same thing holds true for court battles.

Imagine a family looking into buying a new computer. They do their due-diligence pre-purchase information searching. They want the best computer for the least amount of money. They read about capabilities and prices, and then finally they read the “Court Shame Sheet” which every publicly traded company would be required to provide, possibly on-line, possibly at store outlets.

The family, after reading the shame sheet, discovers that the company with the highest rated product also has 478 court battles to their name in the last decade. They discover that 45 billion dollars was paid out by this company to various attorneys and their staff. They discover that of all the winning and losing court battles, the net win vs. loss is a complete wash. Maybe they decide they don’t want to reward a company that spends most of its time in court instead of innovating new products. Maybe they decide to reward a less litigious company with their business.

Friday, August 24, 2012

It's not a Medicare cut...It's price fixing!...or a shibboleth?

When formulating public policy, evidence should be accorded more weight than ideology, and facts should matter more than shibboleths. The Romney-Ryan plan for Medicare reform depends on assertions that are ideologically consistent. But the Republicans plan is not supported by the evidence and does not survive serious scrutiny.—Laura D'Andrea Tyson
Well, how can I ignore an article where the first sentence has the word shibboleth in it? I looked it up, I admit it. Essentially it means a word which is pronounced differently by two different—perhaps even oppositional—groups of people. Laura is starting off her opinion piece with a common-sense statement that everyone would agree with. See how reasonable she is? She reminds me of that old western movie trope where the offended man always turns away from his belligerent aggressor and his [away] hand drops down low before bunching up into a tight fist. This is sometimes called "telegraphing a punch." Laura's common-sense statement is an obvious telegraph that a sucker punch is on its way. My only criticism is that I honestly don't think "shibboleth" conveys the concept Laura had in mind. I wish she'd decided to use the word she had in mind before her thesaurus look-up. Ah well...but please, pardon my wistful velleity.

I'm glad Laura has noticed the elephant in the room and is ready to talk about it. Romney and Ryan have a plan, and she has some serious problems with it. She says it is not supported by the evidence and does not survive serious scrutiny. Great! Let’s see the evidence and the objective scrutiny.
In Mr. Ryan’s latest premium-support proposal, the government would provide a subsidy to Medicare beneficiaries to choose among competing insurance plans, including the traditional fee-for-service Medicare plan. Starting for 65-year-olds in 2022, insurance plans would take part in an annual bidding process to compete for Medicare beneficiaries. The bids would reflect the actual growth of health-care costs and would determine the size of the federal subsidy.

Advocates of premium support argue that competition would encourage more cost-sensitive behavior by beneficiaries, providers and insurers. The facts do not support this. Just consider that despite competition and choice, private insurance premiums per enrollee for comparable coverage have increased more rapidly than Medicare spending per enrollee for more than 30 years. Medicare’s superior performance is all the more remarkable since its elderly beneficiaries include a sizable share of the sickest individuals who are the largest consumers of health care services. And Medicare’s cost advantage is likely to continue into the future.
Yes Laura, but for that same thirty years medical professionals, clinics, hospitals, and pharmacies have ever more stridently started refusing to accept Medicare enrollees. Pardon my turn of phrase but Medicare denials have become an epidemic! Not only is Medicare going bankrupt because it was never anything but a glorified Ponzi scheme, but in addition it's wholly insufficient for the medical needs of seniors today, to say nothing of those poor saps who'll be relying on it after its projected bankruptcy date.

A huge contributor to the increased price of insurance premiums can be attributed almost unambiguously to ambulance chasing malpractice lawyers. With ever-higher malpractice insurance premiums and the use of defensive medicine, patients and their doctors are the losers and law-firms and insurance agencies are the winners. Another reason for the ever-increasing cost of insurance is the third-party payer system. There is no reason to hunt for bargains when someone else is paying the bill.
Mr. Ryan asserts that the 1998 bipartisan Medicare Commission proposed premium support as a solution to Medicare’s financing challenges. But he fails to mention that all of the commission members appointed by President Clinton, including me, voted against this idea.

Since then, the evidence has confirmed that competition among private insurance plans would not yield Medicare savings without harming beneficiaries. To achieve this goal, enforceable payment and cost-containment reforms like those in the Affordable Care Act are necessary.
There's a term for what Medicare as well as the Affordable Care Act both attempt: Price fixing. Price fixing is the opposite of capitalism. It's thinly veiled socialism and wherever price fixing has been attempted it has hurt the economy, it has failed to benefit those it's been designed to benefit, and providers of goods and services have fled from every government controlled market. Time after time we see this. You'd think they'd understand by now that if the government decides what an entrepreneur can charge for their work, the entrepreneur will find different work or find greener pastures, so-to-speak.

The obvious solution here is tort reform and somehow diminishing the role of third-party payers. Laura—a bureaucrat at heart—will always look to the sledge-hammer fist of government for solutions, when what is actually required is more like the delicate scalpel of a talented surgeon—a fiscally-conservative surgeon.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

We must all pay the piper, one way or another.

The Three laws of American Engineering:
  1. If it won't fit, force it.
  2. Use a bigger hammer.
  3. If it breaks, it needed to be replaced anyway.
Today is not a good day for me. I've been suffering with a kidney stone since July, and yesterday the good doctor finally removed the damned thing. It turned out to be 10mm hard black stone and it was situated in a place from which normal lithotripsy was not possible. So they knocked me out, then the urologist extracted it with a long-handled device that resembles something from out of grandpa's tackle box:

They threaded this scary-looking fish-hook leader through my urethra and up through my bladder and into my left kidney's ureter. This procedure is called Ureteroscopic Stone Removal.

If you can imagine drawing a camel through the eye of a needle then you begin to understand the result: a pit-or-a-pendulum style nightmare of badly needing to urinate but dreading the resulting piercing agony that necessarily results. The stone is gone but the price is still being paid. Here's a picture of the devil himself complete with horns:

What does this have to do with politics? It occurred to be that there is definitely a corollary to be drawn here. A liberal would let it ride. He'd say that it's just sitting in there, harmlessly and anyway it's not that big yet. It's not blocking anything, yet. Why worry about a little thing like that? A conservative however, would understand that—long-term—this stone is going to block the ureter which would cause damage to the kidney. The short-term pain felt by the procedure is a price that a conservative is willing to pay. A liberal would just wait, hoping for some kind of miracle cure.

Isn't that what Obama and his left-wing mainstream media entourage have decided to do about Medicare? If you ask them they'll tell you everything's fine. Nothing to see here, carry-on. But decisions have consequences even if the decision is not to make a decision.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

What happens when there is more flea than dog?

There are none so blind as those who will not see. In the mainstream media narrative there is this complete refusal to recognize the terrible situation we are in. I'll never understand it. They look at the national debt and yawn. They look at the historically long lasting high-unemployment rates and shrug. We point out the out-of-control spending and then they look at us and cluelessly ask "what's your point?" I struggle to understand this kind of thinking, but no matter how hard I struggle to get inside the head of the progressivist and his liberal mindset, it just doesn't add-up.

It only makes sense if I imagine them, not as misguided Americans, but as malevolent saboteurs working diligently to destroy us. Only when I plug-in deliberate intentional sabotage does this equation start to balance. Whether it's ambulance chasing lawyers, public sector unions, or tenured academicians, I get that they believe that the left-wing side of the equation favors them, but speaking as the host to the parasite: guys we're already so close to death, what then? When America expires who will you feed on next? What will your tenure be worth? What will your pension be worth? What will your lawsuit be worth when America no longer exists?

Meanwhile, Obama tours the country in Air-Force One, campaigning on the taxpayer’s dime. His message is a simple one: envy. The politics of envy are powerful to those with less. They don't have the newest car, the biggest house, the latest iPhone, and maybe that upsets them. There is this kind of person who always made an issue out of what their brother or sister got, who always complained that the neighborhood kids all had this thing, when they only had that one. They never learned, in all those years of growing up, that people are supposed to earn what they get.

How did 52% of this country grow up and never find that out? We're supposed to earn what we get. If you didn't earn that, if you didn't build that, if it was given to you just because you had less, then it had to have been taken from someone who did earn it, who did build it. There's this perception that some people have that somehow the rich aren't paying their fair share. Yes, I know we can never pin down exactly how much that "fair share" is, but even more importantly there is this absolute refusal to see the facts. When someone writes a check to Uncle Sam for more than a million dollars, I have to ask, is he really getting his money's worth?

He gets to live in the greatest country on Earth! you say? Well so does the guy who didn't pay a penny. The millionaire gets roads and schools and police and fire-fighters. He gets military protection from enemy nations. He gets all the services that our nation provides. That should be worth a few million dollars shouldn't it? But why does the millionaire have to pay so much more for the same thing that poor people get for next to nothing? What other industry besides the government provides their services at different rates depending on a person's ability to pay? Cable costs the same for the millionaire and the welfare recipient. So does electricity and phone. Goods from stores, food from groceries, and gasoline, all cost the same regardless of ability to pay. Why does the left believe it's "fair" to charge more for the same thing just because someone can afford to pay more?

The very notion of progressivism stands the idea of wealth on its head. If you can imagine a world where everyone charged the rich "their fair share" then the rich wouldn't be rich anymore. They'd pay a thousand dollars for a loaf of bread. They'd spend millions on a Ford F-150. They'd go into debt for 30 years to buy a modest home for the price of 100-million dollars or more. But why on earth if that was their fate, would they ever even try to get rich? Why would they work hard? Why would they risk everything on an idea when it wouldn't benefit them in the slightest?

The idea of making the rich "pay their fair share" is the very definition of income redistribution. The entire progressive tax system that is in place right now is nothing more than income redistribution. We are now a socialist country, but as we've already discovered time after time, socialism doesn't work. It never has, and unless human nature drastically changes, it never will.

Why won't people admit that we are now living in a socialist republic? The poor refuse to admit it. The Left-wing elitists refuse to see it. The lawyers, teachers and mainstream media tiptoe around it, won't acknowledge it, and deny it whenever the charge is made.

Meanwhile the rich continue to flee. The apparatchiks continue to extract their sinecure, and the poor continue to wait expectantly with outstretched hands. Our once glorious and free country slowly but surely drifts away into that eternal night. What will the 52% who pay no Federal taxes do when there is no Federal Government? What will they do when there are no food-stamps, no welfare, no unemployment, no section 8 housing, no Medicaid, no social security, no police, no military?

It seems to me that the 52% had better start brushing up on their Mandarin. Meanwhile, we the other 48% will leave, seeking greener pastures. I pray we find them. I pray that there is still some place on this Earth where freedom still means: if you built it, good job. If you earned that, it's yours.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Another Job for Seal Team Six?


What would Harry S. Truman have done? I know, I know Godwin's law. Nevertheless, this isn't some fatuous game of kick-the-can. A criminal is hiding out and we know right where he is! He's on British soil hiding out in the Ecuadorian Embassy. All we have to do is go in there and snuff him. For that matter, all Great Britain has to do is go in there and take his sorry ass out. He's a criminal responsible for numerous horrific murders. His actions have undoubtedly already caused the violent retributive deaths of various Afghani allies with more death coming in due course. John Hawkins has five reasons that Assange should have already been taken out by the CIA.

Great Britain's hands are tied. They can't touch this embassy because it would damage their relations with Ecuador. I don't see why our hands are tied in likewise fashion. This kind of nefarious shizznitt is what we do. Scramble a few F-16s. Let's take this garbage to the curb.

It's all about the ideology. Here's a person that thinks that his own ideology trumps the lives of men women and children. He thinks that human lives which will be prematurely ended because of his own decisions are less important than his politics. Well, whether he was born in Australia or Austria, there's not much of a difference in my book. In his day, Truman sent B-29 Bombers to once-and-for-all end the war with Japan. Agree or disagree, that war ended that day because of that decision. I can't imagine Obama ever making a decision like that.

If someone had leaked the identities of American Agents working in Nazi Germany, because they thought the world needed to know. If some collaborator had sneaked into Ally Headquarters and discovered the identity of agents in deep-cover, or perhaps the itinerary of ships sailing across the Atlantic and then had leaked that information to our enemies just because they could, what would we have done? What would Truman have done? Yes, while Obama may be the First Gay President and the champion of homosexuals everywhere, when it comes to making command decisions he's nothing but the king of the Waffle-Fry. Who am I kidding? Fact of the matter is Obama, with his Whitehouse leaks, would probably rather high-five Assange than deep-six him.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Obama Would End America As We Know It!

Campaign 2012 is on! The Obama Campaign is finally going after the last faction of their identity politics campaign: seniors. I knew this was the next card in the Obama deck. For the next month or two, all we will hear about, is how "The Ryan Plan would end Medicare As We Know It." According to the President and his associates, seniors will be tricked into foolishly accepting a worthless 'voucher' in lieu of lifesaving medical treatment that they will undoubtedly desperately need, and because of Romney & Ryan, seniors will horrifically and immediately drop dead, forthwith. Yes, it's just a little step from Romney killed Joe Soptic's wife to Romney plans to kill all you seniors!

So that's the Obama plan in a nutshell. He'll go around the country telling everyone that we can't cut this, or that faction will suffer. We can't cut that, or this group will go without. It's true that the Romney & Ryan plan will end Medicare as we know it...(for those who aren't yet seniors.) That accusation leaves out an inconvenient but obvious truth, however. Unless we radically change course and cut entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, along with a host of other discretionary spending, America Will End As We Know It!

The European Union is still limping along, but it's almost certain to end as we know it. If something has been well-designed but a small part happens to breakdown or wear-out, then it can be fixed. If something is badly-designed however, and most of it is broken, then putting more time, more energy, and more money in it, is just throwing good money after bad. At some point in every failed endeavor you have to face facts, turn off the lights, shut the door, put up the for-sale sign and finally just walk away. The European Union was just such a poorly designed concept. It was a cobbled together association of absolutely incompatible cultural identities. They have different cultures, different languages, different goals, different needs, different moral standards, and most important of all, they've already been waging wars against each other for thousands of years!

The European Union reminds me of the Mafia. If you can imagine an association of inherently dishonest and self-serving button men, pushers, racketeers, and killers looking out for their own narrow self-interests, and if you can imagine them cooperating until back-stabbing and treachery looked like a more lucrative proposition, then you will have just imagined the European Union.

When the European Union falls, as it must, it's going to hurt the American economy, very badly. If it so happened that we were in a strong economic position when it fell, with a historically high employment rate, and no debt, it would still hurt us badly. As we stand now however, it looks very bad indeed.

America was well-designed. We've outlasted every other government in the world. I don't know if our founding fathers were geniuses, or if they had divine inspiration, or perhaps a little of both. I do know that if we'd followed their blueprint―the Constitution of the United States of America―we wouldn't be in the position we find ourselves today. This government has a great design. Parts of it have broken down, and instead of replacing those parts, we propped things up with some popsicle sticks and slapped on a ducktape patch.

Unless we take a good hard look at the original blueprint, strip away all the jerry-rigged temporary fixes, and replace what's broken with shiny new parts, this old Jalopy is not rolling much further down the highway. Obama says we can't tamper with Medicare. He says not to mess with that poorly designed temporary fix. It's barely holding this rust-bucket together as it stands, he says. Don't touch it! Don't touch that stimulus money waiting on the next Solyndra! We need clean renewable energy. Don't touch that unfunded pension fund! If we just hang together and don't touch anything, why, nothing at all will change. Everything will just keep rolling along like it has been.

Every country that ever once existed had the exact same plan. Doing nothing has caused more poverty, more deprivation, more starvation, more famine, disease, ignorance, and death than it's even possible to imagine. When you're parked on the railroad track and the train is coming, and furthermore it just so happens that this train is already rocking with a threatened European Union derailment, then sitting there and doing nothing is...just exactly what Obama plans to do.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Big Brother has been born. They named him TrapWire.

He who would trade freedom for security, deserves neither. ―Benjamin Franklin.

I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within. ―Douglas MacArthur
The company and the system is called TrapWire. Most of you have already gotten at least a vague inkling of this sort of thing going on before. The 2001 Super Bowl, is noteworthy because the police, using the stadium's hundreds of remote video security cameras, scanned the faces of the thousands of football fans attending the game, using facial recognition software.

The goal was a laudible one. Using facial recognition software, they were attempting to recognize potential trouble-makers and criminals. Truly, who except criminals would have a problem with that? Nevertheless, when I read about this, it left me feeling a little uneasy about the eventual standing of my freedom. I have, of course, read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. If you haven't, all I can say is WTF? It's a big step however from facial recognition software at a preemenent yearly football game to the full-blown totalitarian state known as "Big Brother."

It's a big step, or perhaps it's just a series of little steps. You walk through JCPenny and you understand that it's very likely they have been recording you with a video camera somewhere along the way. You probably don't care. I wouldn't normally care either. You might not also care that this recording is being encrypted and uploaded to a central intelligence network staffed with former CIA spies, FBI agents, Secret Service personnel, etc. At this location your face is scanned by state-of-the-art computer recognition software, and it's being compared to the faces of known terrorists, convicted felons, and fugitives wanted by the FBI.
Anyway, here's what Trapwire is, according to Russian-state owned media network RT (apologies for citing "foreign media"... if we had a free press, I'd be citing something published here by an American media conglomerate): "Former senior intelligence officials have created a detailed surveillance system more accurate than modern facial recognition technology—and have installed it across the U.S. under the radar of most Americans, according to emails hacked by Anonymous.

Every few seconds, data picked up at surveillance points in major cities and landmarks across the United States is recorded digitally on the spot, then encrypted and instantaneously delivered to a fortified central database center at an undisclosed location to be aggregated with other intelligence. It’s part of a program called TrapWire and it's the brainchild of the Abraxas, a Northern Virginia company staffed with elite from America’s intelligence community.
Ok, the argument goes, so what? Unless I'm a fugitive on the run or a terrorist, so what? Well let's just talk about "so what." I read this short passage about "so what" by someone who's got a great point. I wish I knew who said it but I was unable to discover who that person is. If this is your quote, contact me for attribution please.
A populace that is perpetually watched by the government in public―with facial recognition technologies, behavioral detection technologies, etc.―will self-censor, adopt expected modes of behavior, and acquire habits of conformity. This perpetual government surveillance―an all-seeing eye constantly over you―could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and association in public. Indeed, over time, a sprawling surveillance state trains people to restrict their own freedom by anticipatory conformity.
Someone asks me, which would you rather have, a security camera that might be beaming your face to Washington DC, or a terrorist planting a bomb? To which I respond, how about neither one? The only thing I'm completely certain of, is that the surveillance is many thousands of times more likely than the bomb.

Someone argues, they can't do it anyway. There's more than three-hundred-million people in the country, how could they possibly track all those people, how could a computer possibly understand what all those people are doing. They can't do it, and they'll never be able to do it. It's just science-fiction mumbo-jumbo, so take off the tin-foil hat and calm down. To which I respond: Moore's Law. Or if you want a less enigmatic response...state-of-the-art has grown―and continues to grow―exponentially.

I have no idea what technological achievements we are capable of today, much less what we will be capable of tomorrow, and I seriously doubt that even a tech-savvy naysayer has much more of an idea than I do. I well remember a popular talking-point from my childhood. It was the favorite phrase of left-wing naysaying doves across the country when Reagan unveiled his Strategic Defense Initiative. Naysayers famously declared that hitting a nuclear missile with another missile would be like hitting a bullet with another bullet. And they promptly nicknamed the SDI program: "The Star Wars Plan." Well, thirty years came and went. Here's what retired Air Force General Obering has to say about the state of the art, today:
"Not only can we hit a bullet with a bullet, we can hit a spot on the bullet with a bullet." – Lt. Gen. Henry A. "Trey" Obering III, Former Director, Missile Defense Agency
A series of little steps...First they started taking our picture wherever we went, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a criminal. Then they started scanning our bodies and capturing our explicit high-definition nude images with a machine using x-ray backscatter technology, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a terrorist. Then they started uploading video of every shopping trip...
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

The MSM's all-consuming nihilist narrative

Paul Ryan was a bold pick by Romney. He was not however, a risky one. Ryan is a well-spoken intelligent white man with strong economic convictions, but more importantly, he doesn't challenge the MSM narrative. Today's mainstream identity politics is all about the narrative. It's my belief that the off-the-charts insane hatred of Sarah Palin exhibited by the mainstream media is specifically because she did not fit their carefully crafted narrative.

The media has worked hard for many decades to define the Republican Party as the party of rich white men. Everyone else―the poor, blacks, Hispanics, women, homosexuals, unemployed―is expected to religiously toe the Democratic party line. If for instance Romney had chosen Rubio there would have been a huge reaction, because he's partially Hispanic.

It would have been mass hysteria however, if he'd chosen a woman like McCain did. The media, to this day, still so despises Sarah Palin that it is a wonder to behold. The mainstream press went into this psychopathic monomaniacal overdrive in 2008 concerning Sarah Palin. They worked tirelessly, night after sleepless night, to discredit Palin in any conceivable way. The ends were declared to justify any means whatsoever, whether fairly or unfairly. Their hatred of Sarah Palin was a conflagration that consumed their lives, and it truly knew no bounds.

Later, after their chosen hero Obama had won the day, this burning hatred that had consumed them was not so easily set aside. Yes, they had defeated the wicked witch, but this victory was wholly insufficient. More was required. The mainstream media now considered it a moral imperative that Sarah Palin be utterly destroyed. So they set out to teach not only Sarah Palin, but the entire Republican party, a big lesson. Don't you dare, seek to contradict the established narrative. Don't you dare, try to rewrite or redefine the plot of this particular political drama. Women belong to the Democrats. How dare these upstart Republicans try to use a woman to attempt to defeat the chosen liberal identity-hero? That's not fair!

It reminds me of playing cowboys and Indians as a kid. The implied narrative is that the cowboys are supposed to win. Kids would name themselves as some heroic cowboy or nefarious Indian figure, and then battle it out. Imagine the outcry if Chief Running Bull claimed he was calling in a favor from Tonto and picking the Lone Ranger to be his assistant chief? It's cowboys against Indians, not alliances of cowboys and Indians against different alliances of cowboys and Indians. The moral of the story is this: If you challenge the narrative, the MSM will destroy you!

Obama carelessly admitted his defining politics when he infamously declared:"If you've got a business ― you didn't build that." It set off a firestorm of controversy that Democrats later tried to walk-back. They've been trying to walk-back and spin that statement for some time now. However if you turn that statement on its head you'll realize that it completely fits the narrative. It's the narrative that the liberal media has been perpetuating for many decades now. If you turn that statement around, it doesn't sound controversial anymore.

Turned around―you didn't build that―sounds mainstream. If you don't own a business, if you aren't successful, if you're economically disadvantaged, it's not your fault! Your own actions―or lack of action―didn't put you in the situation where you find yourself today. It's not you who has failed, it's society that has failed you!

Consider these two statements side-by-side: [You didn't build that...and...It's not your fault.] They are the two sides of the same coin. The narrative is this: your station in life―whether great or small―was not earned, but ordained. This is the narrative. It's not your fault! Nothing is your fault!

Also, consider this entirely imaginable left-wing talking points screed: You were born black and that's not your fault. You grew up in the projects and that's not your fault. You went to a poor school with lousy teachers and that's not your fault. You never studied in school, because your white teacher was a racist cracker who wanted you to learn how to act white. You didn't get a high-paying job because your racist boss expects you to walk, talk, and dress like a white-bread cracker-ass-cracker. You've got four illegitimate children because society put you in this untenable and unbearable situation where you were forced to consume massive quantities of drugs and/or alcohol, thereby causing the aforementioned lack of contraceptive preparation. That's not your fault!

This huge impetus by Obama to raise taxes on the "rich," to make them pay their "fair share," is part and parcel of the MSM's long-standing narrative. You didn't build that. It's not your fault. Spread the wealth around. The rich pay their fair share. The poor get their fair share. This narrative ignores one primal and over-arching truth: decisions have consequences. This is such a basic truth and yet it is completely ignored by the MSM narrative. You didn't build that. It's not your fault.

This storyline that the MSM has been spinning for all these decades is completely anti-American. It is the narrative of absolute slavery and must inevitably and finally lead to death, destruction and perhaps even extinction. If we are all merely slaves to fate, and find ourselves blown willy-nilly by these winds of fate, chance and circumstance, then nothing we do even matters at all. This is the MSM narrative in a nutshell: Nothing that you do matters in the slightest. You don't matter. Only the story matters, the narrative. All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.

I disagree! With all the moral outrage of my being I reject this nihilist philosophy utterly and without restraint! Hogwash and rubbish! Decisions have consequences, our lives and our actions have meaning and we matter. If you decide to study in school, to either abstain from premarital sex, or at least wear a condom, to work hard and impress your boss, save your money, build a business...you did that, because decisions have consequences, and if the decision is a good one then the consequence is also called a reward!

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Check out this fast-food "combo" scam!

I just ate at Sonic, and while I was ordering boy did I notice something! I'm a cheapskate, I should probably tell you. I rarely if ever go in for the dodgy old combo-order scam. The combo is the lazy-man's way of ordering, and fast-food outlets count on it to drive higher retail sales of their non-entrée items. These non-entrée items―soda and fries for instance―are typically insanely high-mark-up choices. People―like my wife for instance―have complacently grown accustomed to saying they'll have the [whatever]-combo with a large diet-coke, etc.

Let's unpack this typical fast-food request which is perhaps denser than Michelle Obama's picnic basket. "I'll have the combo." You are agreeing to purchase usually three items. When you ask for a combo you assume that because you're buying the whole enchilada so-to-speak, that you're going to be getting a substantial discount. What you probably never realized is that restaurants engaging in crass profiteering, exploit the average diner's inability―or perhaps lack of motivation―to perform basic math in their heads. Restaurants will invariably price the two items―the drink and fries―very differently depending on what you purchase. For instance at Sonic on the menu board I noticed that the same medium fries and drink can cost as little as $1.20 and as much as $3.00.

Maybe you're thinking that a $1.80 difference between the top-tier items and what SONIC calls breakfast items―even though they're served all day―isn't that big a deal. But, what could drive the thinking at Sonic corporate headquarters? The difference between top-tier Coke and fries and bottom-tier Coke and fries is only $1.80, but what about a family of five? If for instance they order Premium Beef Hot dog combos for the whole family they'll spend an extra $9.00 more―for the identical medium Cokes and fries―than if they'd ordered five Sausage Toaster Combos.

People understand that they're going to have to pay different prices for the different entrées and that this price difference is because of the different costs associated with the ingredients comprising the entrée, but the cost to the restaurant for a medium drink and fries is the same regardless of combo choice.

Item: drink and fries cost more or less depending on what entrée combo you order. I have to assume that some thought went into this. It's not like they put little slips of paper in a bucket and randomly pulled prices out of the bucket while blindfolded, so what is the motivation?

I'm a cynic I should probably tell you. I rarely assume that someone has just made an honest mistake when I'm the one who ends up footing the bill for that mistake. There are several motivational possibilities. The first is that they're trying to drive up profits. They think that they can jack-up the price of the extras on the more popular entrées, and no-one will notice. "You want the Chili-Frito Coney? Sure thing bub. You want the combo? How about an order of mozzarella sticks or jalapeno poppers?"

The second possibility is that―much like our Federal Government―they're engaging in some kind of social engineering project. Maybe they don't think Hot-Dogs are healthy or what we should be eating, so they've decided to subsidize the healthier hamburgers hoping we'll opt for that choice instead. Yeah, I guess that's why SONIC has so many salads on the menu? It is to laugh...

The final possibility is that several different SONIC pricing committees decided on prices without bothering to discover what the other committees were pricing their own combos at. This comes perilously close to calling it an honest mistake, so even though it's tempting to explain it away as another example of bureaucratic bungling, I just can't accept that.

The fact of the matter is that Sonic charges $1.98 for a large soft-drink or Slush. The cup plus the contents cost them less than one nickel. The time involved in dispensing the beverage and bringing it out to your car is another nickel. The total cost to put that drink in your hand is one thin dime. Sonic's total profit is $1.88. Folks, that's an 1880% profit...and that's outrageous!

So, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. We're inexorably back to the first possibility, the almost virtually certain fact that the glaring discrepancy in Sonic's combo pricing structure is intentionally designed to gouge the consumer who wants the more popular entrée choice.

Did you really need to top-off your 400 calorie Hot-Dog with another 400 calories in french-fries? If your medium soda isn't a diet-soda you're up to 1100 calories, and that's just too much lunch. Unless you're one of those athletic types of course, but you are eating at SONIC, so I'm betting you're not. So, save your money, save yourself, and kill the last greedy bird with the same stone by saying: thanks but no thanks to the combo. It's a rip-off at $1.20 and a shameful scam at $3.00.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Unholy Alliances

**** Warning ****
**** Mature Content ****

The idea that a vegan would make an alliance with a mass-murderer against all the meat-eaters of the world sounds pretty far-fetched when you think about it. Even though they each feel that there are too many people in the world, still they wouldn't blend together in any kind of homogeneous way.

But strange alliances like this are now common. Every day in the political world we are witness to the left-wing of the country falling over backwards to accommodate the diabolical evilness of Islam. The same people who vandalized private property and picketed at Chick-Fil-A stores because the owner mildly objected to their life-style, are the same people who openly welcome the construction of a victory mosque at Ground Zero. They apparently can't grasp that if their alliance ultimately succeeds and if Muslim religious ideology conquers the American ideal of freedom and free speech, everyone including the LBGT community will either convert or die. They will either renounce their sinful ways or be stoned to death by a mob chanting "Allahu Akbar."

It occurred to me today that I'm not uncomfortable with lesbians being romantically intimate in public. Seeing two women kissing and snuggling together doesn't bother me at all. It makes me very uncomfortable, however to watch two men together doing this. I never really examined the reason for that double-standard before, but then it dawned on me that the entire LBGT alliance just doesn't make any sense. Lesbians and gay men are diametrically opposite. Lesbians are to gay men, as vegans are to butchers.

Sexually, what can lesbians do? There is no possibility of penetration, except perhaps with the tongue, or a finger. But that penetration is of only the most superficial kind. Yes, they may use sexual aids such as dildos, vibrators, and strap-ons, but this is really at most merely mutual masturbation. Women, including lesbians are naturally monogamous. They find one partner and cling to that partner, and expect their partner to be equally monogamous. I think that of the three possible pairings, lesbians are the least likely to cheat. Because of this monogamy and because of the lack of any possibility of penetration, lesbians are the least likely of all possible pairings to contract HIV.

Compare these behaviors of lesbians to the behavior of gay men. Every sexual act is a penetration. They engage in penetration, double penetration, triple penetration, coprophilia, and depravity beyond comprehension. It's not the lesbians who are having bathhouse orgies. It's not heterosexuals either, for that matter. The gay community in America is more than an order of magnitude more likely to contract HIV at some point.

The specter of AIDS no longer fills people with the same kind of dread that it did like back in the 80s. This is because of new advances in treatment. People are living with the HIV virus for decades instead of merely months. However, it should also be mentioned that even though a person may successfully treat it for many years, other unforeseen complications often arise. When this happens the outlook is typically bleak. Traumatic accidents, heart problems, cancer, and other diseases are the kind of complications which may further weaken the immune system and catastrophically and fatally lead to full blown AIDS. Because there is no cure for AIDS, the real focus has got to be on prevention. Abstinence is the best way to prevent HIV. Monogamy is the second best way.

The most dangerous prospect and the method by which the vast majority of people with HIV contracted their disease is via receptive anal intercourse. I.E. gay men. You would think that with such a dangerous disease lurking, and most prominently within only the gay male community, that gay men would be a little more circumspect. You'd think they would be a little more careful, a little choosier. You'd think that they'd use the protection of a condom emphatically, always, and even religiously. You might think that, but the prevalence of HIV within the gay community would prove that you'd be wrong. The reason for the epidemic of HIV within this one demographic is simple: promiscuity, rampant and unrestrained promiscuity run amok.

Why is there such rampant promiscuity among the nation's gay population? It's not hard to propose a simple theory. The man in today's society is the pursuer. The woman waits to be pursued. The man buys her drinks, and asks her to dance. The man asks and the woman decides. The man and the woman are both aware that the man wants one thing above all, and they both understand that the woman can withhold or deliver according to her own flights of fancy. Both the man and the woman desire sexual intimacy and pleasure, but the level of desire each have is markedly different.

The best way to describe the great difference between the levels of sexual desire between men and women is with an analogy. A man who has walked for five hours in 120 degree heat through miles of desert sand, probably wants a glass of ice water. A woman sitting in an air-conditioned room for five hours, might want a glass of ice-water. That's the difference.

Two gay men sitting in a gay bar glance towards each other. One lifts an eyebrow, the other shrugs his assent. This illustrates how quickly two gay men can hook up. Compare this to the elaborate and lengthy rituals necessary between a man and a woman. When you take these facts into consideration I'm frankly amazed that two lesbians ever manage to hook up at all in the first place. I wonder if they both sit there, each waiting for the other to make the first move, night after night after night. Who buys who a drink? Perhaps I've made this too simplistic and it's very likely that I have made some erroneous assumptions, however one thing I'm certain of is that men are promiscuous by nature and women are not.

So, it makes me wonder. Why do these two complete polar opposites pair up together in political battles? Gays and Lesbians teaming up to fight heterosexuals is like dogs and cats teaming up to fight squirrels. It makes no sense. Liberals teaming up with Muslims to fight conservatives is like sheep teaming up with lions to fight wolves. The outcome here is predictable and tragic.

UPDATE: 08/06/12
American Thinker has a post that's right on point, and further expands on these alliances of expediency. It's called What Would Che Think of Same-Sex Marriage?

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Everyone's saying that Harry Reid is a pederast!

"Pederasty"...Is an unusual word. Wikipedia defines it thusly:
Pederasty or paederasty (US: /ˈpɛdəræsti/, UK: /ˈpiːdəræsti/) is a (usually erotic) relationship between a young man and a pubescent boy outside his immediate family. The word pederasty derives from Greek (paiderastia) "love of boys",[2] a compound derived from παῖς (pais) "child, boy" and ἐραστής (erastēs) "lover".
This news has just come out. I haven't heard yet, whether any underage boys have yet come forward to accuse the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, of sexually assaulting them, however I believe we can certainly expect a slew of them quite soon. Harry Reid has been embroiled lately in a perfect storm of controversy, in that in addition to his pederasty, he has also made the unverified claim that he has information that Republican nominee for President Mitt Romney has not paid any taxes in ten years.

It looks like we have another appalling Penn State-like scandal on our hands. What Jerry Sandusky did was the most horrible thing I've ever heard; however, you have to agree that this... is so much worse! Jerry Sandusky was responsible for coaching a football team, and a lot of people watched his back, and even carried his water so-to-speak, but for the Senate Majority Leader to have perpetrated what he's been alleged to have perpetrated is so unspeakable, that I am literally at a loss for words. In fact they haven't yet invented a word which adequately describes the infinite contempt I feel for this muck-dwelling lowlife, Harry The Pederast Reid.

The internet is buzzing with this accusation that Harry Reid is a pederast. I can only assume that stories like the one below will soon be told in a court of law:
McQueary confidently gave the court a detailed description today of hearing "skin-on-skin slapping sounds" when he walked into the shower room of the Penn State football Capitol building on a Friday night in 2001 and seeing Sandusky Reid pressed against a young boy in the shower.

He said he saw Sandusky Reid and the boy, about 10 to 12 years old, in the shower with the boy pressed up against the shower wall and Sandusky Reid behind with his arms wrapped around him "in closest proximity I think you can be."

"I see in the mirror Coach Sandusky Senate Majority Leader Reid standing behind boy propped up against the shower, with the showers running, right up against his back with his front, the boy's hands up against the wall," he said. "When I saw them with my own eyes, there was not hard or fast movement. There was subtle movement on defendant's part (in his) mid section."
Breaking news! I've just heard from an anonymous source that Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, [is] a member of NAMBLA. That acronym stands for the [North American Man Boy Love Association.] If you were to make the mistake of going to their website you would find all kinds of exculpatory literature, but the truth is rather simple; these are grown men who want to have carnal knowledge of under-age boys. I've just received word from an anonymous NAMBLA source that the NAMBLA Society Under-age Porn Encyclopedia Repository [SUPER] contains some shocking―shocking I tell you!―images featuring the infamous Harry Reid In flagrante delicto. My source also disclosed this entirely nauseating extra bit of information: "They don't just call him 'Harry' for nothin' if you know what I mean."

I don't usually involve my blog in this type of newsy paparazzi exposé and scandal-mongering that are the life-blood of mainstream media, but this story about Harry Reid being a pederast is just too big to ignore. Once again, rumors are flying that Harry Reid is a Pederast and furthermore a member of NAMBLA. This Harry Reid Pederasty imbroglio promises to dominate the headlines for some time to come, perhaps all the way to Election day.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Taking the Middle Road...means you're blocking two lanes!

The Chick-Fil-A debate has two sides, not three. I was conversing with someone about this today, and for a change he said something that I completely agreed with. He said "I'm ok with people who are for Chick-Fil-A and support traditional marriage. I'm ok with people who are anti-Chick-Fil-A and support gay marriage. The ones who I can't stand, are the people who just have to tell us they don't have an opinion, that they just like the food." STFU!!! Nobody wants to hear your opinion that you don't have an opinion. You have a non-opinion opinion, and nobody cares.

"Undecideds" annoy me to no end. Obama and Romney are going to campaign endlessly in so-called "swing states" and go after the "undecided vote" while completely ignoring the rest of the country. I have a problem with that. Undecideds hold up the fast-food line while they endlessly ponder menu choices. They drive in the middle of the road, can't pick a lane, going under the speed-limit, and meanwhile I'm just trying to get to work on time.

Being unable to make up their mind is not the virtue they apparently think that it is. They endlessly ask questions and soak up attention from some well-meaning but misguided information disseminator. Meanwhile, I'm waiting to ask one or two well-directed questions concerning getting from point(A) to point(B).

If you're a service oriented worker and you find yourself dealing with Wembly Fraggle, you need to stop smiling. You need to stop nodding amiably along and endlessly expanding on answers to their endless questions. Open your eyes a little wider; tilt your head subtly towards your left shoulder. I understand that you can't just come right out and tell them they are selfishly monopolizing your time at the expense of everyone else, because that would get you fired, but you can still nevertheless convey that impression using body-language.

If you're the person standing at the head of the line with no idea what it is that you want, kindly step to the side until you figure that out for yourself. In short, grow up. You don't deserve more attention than everyone else. Meanwhile let me clue you in...having no opinion is not wise, or adult, or any other superlative for that matter. Go fish or cut bait, but mostly, just get out of the way!

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Michael Moore may be on to something here...

The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. After the Aurora shooting, it's again front-and-center in the mainstream media's selection of talking-points. Michael Moore had this to say:
…when [the Founding Fathers] said, the right to bear arms…you know, the “arm” back then was you could — you could only fire one shot at a time. You had a little — a little ball bearing-like bullet. You had to stuff it in the thing and then you had to do this, and the gun powder, and, you know, took 15 minutes before you could fire one shot.

Now, if the Founding Fathers could have looked into a crystal ball and seen AK-47s and Glock semiautomatic pistols, I got a feeling they wouldn’t — I think they’d want to leave a little note behind and probably tell us, you know, that’s not really what we mean when we say “bear arms.”
Well, of course, notwithstanding the fact that back in those days they were more likely to draw the sword―that they had a constitutional right to strap to their hips―than spend fifteen minutes arming a primitive musket, nevertheless Michael Moore might be right. Is it possible that the founding fathers really should have availed themselves of the opportunity of peering into a crystal ball, before signing their "John Hancock?"

For instance, if our founding fathers when drafting our constitution could have looked into a crystal ball and seen a Form 1040, I got a feeling they wouldn't — I think they’d want to leave a little note behind and probably tell us, you know, that’s not really what we mean when we say “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid.”
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
As I began thinking about it, I realized that there are all kinds of things the founding fathers never imagined existing when they drafted the constitution, because if they had possessed a crystal ball, all kinds of "notes" would have been left behind. In another example of this, if our forefathers had known about this place called the "Department of Motor Vehicles," I got a feeling they would probably tell us that's why they put that part in there about "cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted."
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
This past April as I began the ordeal so many of us go through when preparing our tax return, where we are forced to spend hour after sleepless hour going over financial statements, locating, classifying, and tabulating various financial instruments, it occurred to me that my rights had clearly been violated by the Federal Government. I was being forced into involuntary servitude, and I was not in violation of any crime, nor had I been tried, nor convicted! So why was I chained to this desk and forced to mind-breaking uncompensated labor for the state?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Well I'm not going to take it anymore! I refuse to remain enslaved by these unconstitutional IRS shackles any longer! Now some of you at this point are probably saying: "Fight? Against that? No, we will obey; and we will live the American Dream."

To that I say: Aye, fight and you may get audited. Obey and you'll live as a slave -- at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days―from this day to that―for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may audit us, but they'll never take our freedom!!!



On a much more serious note, I just have to say that, yes, we will struggle on a little while, but in the end the fat lady has already done her singing and Elvis has already left the building. The American people have been betrayed, betrayed to our ruination and inevitable destruction. We were not betrayed by the President. The President was duly elected and if we don't like his executive decisions, we're free to elect someone else in due time. We were not betrayed by Congress. Congress was duly elected and if we don't like their laws, we're free to elect different legislators in due time. We were betrayed by the third branch of government. We were betrayed by the branch that was supposed to protect us from the other two. The Supreme Court of the United States has betrayed the American people.

They were not duly elected. They can never be replaced no matter how unhappy we are with their decisions. This was considered by the founding fathers to be a protection for our own good. In this way―they thought―a tyrannical majority would be unable to impose their unjust will upon a helpless minority. The Justices of the Supreme Court are free to decide on the constitutionality of laws based on their own moral values of right and wrong, without fear of being cast out because of unpopularity.

So let me ask you this one last thing: If the founding fathers could have looked into a crystal ball and seen a licensed medical doctor stabbing a pair of scissors through the skull of a baby into its brain, a baby that's already seven months along, I got a feeling they wouldn’t — I think they’d want to leave a little note behind and probably tell us, you know, that’s not really what we had in mind.

In fact I just so happen to have a crystal ball of my very own. Look inside and see for yourself how our founding fathers would have reacted if they could have known about the past one-hundred years of Supreme Court decisions: