Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Slavery at the hands of the litigious LBGTQ?

Can someone force you to work against your will? That is the question that was addressed by Congress and the States when the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified by the United States on December 6th 1865. The answer is that, unless you are a criminal duly convicted of a crime by due process, you cannot be compelled to work.
Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Unfortunately, however, it's more complicated than that. If you're doing business with the public, you cannot refuse to deny goods or services to select individuals based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. As an employer you are even more constrained. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—EEOC—receives nearly eight-thousand discrimination claims every month, and that number continues to grow.

You cannot refuse to do business with select individuals based on the above mentioned criteria, but what if other criteria such as degenerate sexual proclivities, gender-confusion, wanton promiscuity, et cetera, complicated an otherwise clear understanding of rules and rights? A bakery with cakes already baked in the kitchen cannot refuse to sell a piece of cake to a particular person because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The question of the hour however, is: can a business owner refuse to bake a particular cake in the first place? That's a thorny and convoluted question, and the answer is probably that unless the bakery owner's own constitutional rights are at issue, the courts would find against the owner and impose punishing fines, to the point where the bakery would either comply or be forced to close its doors. But what if being forced to bake particular cakes presented a compelling argument that the baker's own First Amendment rights were being violated?
The Arizona Legislature has passed a controversial religion bill that is again thrusting Arizona into the national spotlight in a debate over discrimination.

House Bill 2153/Senate Bill 1062, written by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense against a lawsuit.

The bill, which was introduced last month and has been described by opponents as discriminatory against gays and lesbians, has drawn national media coverage. Discussion of the bill went viral on social media during the House floor debate Thursday.

Opponents have dubbed it the “right to discriminate” bill and say it could prompt an economic backlash against the state, similar to what they say occurred when the state passed the controversial immigration law Senate Bill 1070 in 2010.
The Arizona legislature has decided to weigh in on the question of the hour. In their opinion, the right to religious freedom—the First Amendment—trumps other laws. This bill has been dubbed the Arizona Anti-Gay Bill by the main stream media. Is that what it is? Does the bill harm the rights, opportunities, and freedoms of gay people? Or does it simply protect the rights of those who would otherwise be compelled by judicial fiat—unconstitutional judicial activism—to perform work against their will and against their religious beliefs?

This Arizona bill is one piece of scotch tape applied to one page of a Constitution being fed—one page at a time—into the left-wing's paper shredder. This bill—if it passes—would represent only a momentary bump in their plan to destroy this country, but because applying that tape represents active defiance!, it cannot and will not be tolerated. What if other States, other people, federal legislators, future presidents, etc., get it into their head to step into the path of the Left's Country Destroying Wrecking Ball? They've a schedule to keep, you know. Today marriage, tomorrow socialism, the day after, extinction.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Common sense cake walk

Several years ago I read Rich Dad Poor Dad. I vaguely remember that what I got out of it was simple: if you want real success, don't follow the herd through college and graduate school, start a business, study people, figure out what they want and then sell it to them. Well, thanks Mr. Kiyosaki! I'll just sit down and figure out what it is that everybody wants and that nobody is already selling. It should be a piece of cake...

Okay, I'd really like a teleportation device so that I can save all that commute time. No wait, maybe better would be a device that waits in line for me. I'll just go find a place to sit down with my tablet and the Line-Waiter™ will beep me when it's my turn. Hold on! I've got it! I'll call it: The Asininely-Redundant-Paperwork-Filler-Outer-Thingamabob. (ARPFOT) When the doctor, the government bureaucracy, the school, etc., hands me the booklet full of pages filled with blanks that I have to fill in, this scanner-printer—using some kind of Watson-esque AI protocol and full knowledge of all my personal information—will blitz through the B.S., in a trice!

I've been a "contestant" in a few cake-walks, but with nary a single cake to my name. If you ask me—and even if you don't—I'm pretty sure they were all rigged. The music plays, the people march in circles and the commissar with the microphone sitting in the tall chair gets to decide whose turn it is to win the next go-round. It reminds me of Big Government.

My name is Jack, and if you're a fan of fairy-tales, you'll find plenty of stories where my namesake—a hapless and thoroughly bored young man—goes out to seek his fortune, and in the process of this fortune-seeking, happens to defeat unimaginable evil, win the love of a princess, and then winds up living happily ever after. Sounds like a cake-walk to me.

The floundering around, seeking something, anything, purposes, causes, ideas, etc., can quickly become habit forming. Being a young man without a clue dragged on for me, way too long. Luckily, America is still a country where the clueless can manage to get by. Jobs are out there if you're willing to sweat, have half-a-brain, and remember always that being ungrateful will earn you a pink slip faster than you can say: "That's not my job."

All the formulas for success start with hard-work. I bet there's millions of unemployed college graduates who worked hard to learn whatever it was they teach in a university classroom. King Sisyphus was the hardest working boulder-roller in history and it didn't get him anything. If you're working hard doing the wrong thing, or going the wrong direction then you're worse off than people who're just sitting on their asses. Work smart before you work hard.

The lesson I learned at the fair was that "fair" is where you go to get cotton-candy, life ain't fair, and if you want a cake, you're best bet isn't a cake-walk it's cake-mix.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

The Problem Inherent in the School System


Think for a moment about why you work for a living—assuming of course that you do in fact work for a living—or have in the past. We do it for the money. We don't do it for the pride of a job well done. We don't do it for pats on the back, commendations, awards, accolades, or even 'we're proud of you's. If we did what we do for any of those reasons it would be either because we were so well off that we didn't need any money but instead seeking some kind of purpose, or because it's a hobby that we enjoy doing anyway. Work is hard. It's at times difficult, confusing, exasperating, stress-causing, wearying, and—quite often—thankless. We work for the money.

I just finished reading a well-written and entertaining post called: A Conservative Cure for Sick Schools. I disagree with the main premise, however:
In the final analysis, if neither students nor their parents truly value education to the point of redirecting their powers of intention, then changing schools will not be enough. While a voucher system would help some families, to a greater extent it would devolve into funding underperforming schools that offer kickbacks to politicians.

The top performance of private schools has been spurred by the self-fulfilling prophecy of parents willing to seek out better schools for their children. They also have a financial stake in their children making the most of that experience. Families without that mindset and personal investment are unlikely to see similar results.
What is the greatest problem inherent in the health care industry? Third party payment. People who pay for health insurance and never use it feel as though they're being cheated. I know because that was me. Then I got married, had children and suddenly...far from being cheated, it was me doing the cheating. Wives are sometimes expensive but children are back-breakers, and never more so than when it comes to health care. At some point you'd think the insurance companies would start to complain. Hey, do you really need to take your kid to the doctor again? Give him a couple of aspirin and don't call the doctor in the morning!

So you pay for your precious child to go to a private school. Because you pay so much, you expect your child to excel. You expect him or her to internalize your own goals. Since you're investing in your child, you expect little darling to step-up his game, take on school work with the seriousness and diligence with which you approach your own labors at work. In short you expect this child to do what you would do in his place. Don't you think that's a little bit naïve? Your child isn't paying for school, you are. Do you care how much your insurance company pays your doctor, or do you only care about how much you pay your insurance company? The goals of the third party are in most cases completely irrelevant to the first and second party.

I may be approaching fifty but I still vividly remember what I wanted as a kid: To have fun. I still remember what I hated: being bored. Fun and boredom are heads and tails of the same coin, what we call life. As a kid, life is sometimes fun, sometimes boring. Usually children haven't experienced the hard, bitter, life-changing events that cause each of us at some point to grow up. The other thing to remember is that some kids are clingers and some are loners. A child that constantly seeks parental approval would probably do quite well at any school he or she attended. Meanwhile a loner finds meaning often in choosing a path at times diametrically opposite to the desires of parents and society. That was me by the way.

I didn't care—and having never worked for a living, didn't understand—what it cost my parents to send me to a private school. I knew what I wanted ... fun and what I hated ... boredom, and so pats on the back, approbation, and 'proud of you's were meaningless, shallow, and non-rewarding. My parents were the third party payers in this instance. I didn't care what it cost them, only what it cost me ... my freedom, my time, my life ... wasted as hours and days and months went by, enduring unendurable boredom. Facts that were seemingly of vital importance to these sour and sober lecturers were absolutely meaningless to me. To get an idea of my viewpoint back then, imagine if you found yourself imprisoned in a classroom and forced to learn the intricacies of three seasons of MTV's Teen Wolf. It was torture! Not the turning of the rack kind, but the slow and inescapable dripping of drop after drop of water hitting the same spot on the forehead for hours and days and months kind!

So let me ask this one question in unequivocal terms and then you tell me the answer: When it comes to performance in school, what's in it for the children? Pats on the back? 'We're proud of you's? Nobody has asked that question. Nobody has answered that question. Society ignores it. If forced to answer the response would sound like this: "It will rub the knowledge into its mind, or it will get the hose!"

Saturday, February 15, 2014

UAW LOSES! HAHAHAHAHA!

I won't be the first to blog this, won't be the last. UAW loses in Chattanooga. Why this is a victory: It's a victory because now Volkswagen has an incentive to invest in Tennessee. As a resident of the state of Tennessee I applaud the slightly more than half who work in the Chattanooga factory who didn't fall for the complete load of bullshit being shoveled by the UAW union. We all know what's going on here. As our fifty states and associated territories fight for their lives, the forces of evil—that's right I said it! EVIL!—are strangling us in bureaucratic red-tape, laws, rules, and agreements.

The plight of Detroit—in any kind of rational or sane world—should have shown us all the end-game of the evil that is organized labor. However, apparently it has not. Recently as Hostess was driven into bankruptcy by what should be some kind of a joke baker's union, you'd think that finally everyone would understand what is at stake here. But no, apparently they have not. This so-called free-market economy that powers the—so-far—most prosperous economy in the history of the world has been under assault by the forces of evil for the past fifty or sixty years. The stakes are these: Heaven or Hell. You want hell, vote for the UAW or BCTGM. As you smile in satisfaction at your slightly higher paycheck, and pat your own back in satisfaction, consider a famous man who made a similar choice.
Matthew 26
14 Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, 15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver [Jesus] unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. 16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray [Jesus].
There will always be those who'd sell their own mother, their own children if the price was right. Don't bother asking what's wrong with these people. What's wrong is that if they ever had a soul, they sold it long long ago.

Consider these facts: Unions were originally formed to protect workers from unsafe working conditions. We have OSHA now, so we no longer need unions for that. We have minimum wages, and a free market economy, the internet, MONSTER.COM, and a host of other avenues for skilled workers to shop around for the most advantageous position and wages, so we no longer need unions for that. What then, is the modern day purpose of a labor union? The technical term is: Extortion.
1. the practice of obtaining something, esp. money, through force or threats.
synonyms: blackmail, shakedown; formal exaction
"arrested on a charge of extortion"
If somebody knocks on your front door and says: I'm going to burn your house down unless you give me money. That extortionist can and probably will be arrested on a charge of extortion. In any civilized society, we can't have people threatening to destroy something if they don't get what they're demanding...which brings me to organized labor. Unions threaten business with destruction, bankruptcy, ruin, unless they get what they demand. How is this legal? I'm sure there's some fancypants lawyer out there with a ten-thousand word explanation that defies explanation. But if you took the trouble to boil all that obfuscatory bullshit down to plain English what you'd wind up with is simply one word: "BECAUSE."

Labor unions engage in legalized extortion and the kicker is this: Employers can't even fire the disloyal scumbags who've turned on them. Tennessee is a right-to-work state, which means that even if labor unions have managed to bamboozle the workers at some factory, they still can't require new-hires to join their damned union. Furthermore, and more to the point, in Chattanooga at least, you've got a small majority of people who A: want to work, and B: don't feel like blackmailing their employer. Sounds to me like Tennessee is a great place to come if you want to open a factory, plant, business, shopping center, etc. The Volunteer State is an okay slogan, but maybe it needs an update. Tennessee: Where You Won't be Blackmailed!

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Survival 101

Rule Number One: Stay off of Lists.

Your job is to stay alive, and to stay alive you've got to be invisible. Protective camouflage would see you adopting patterns of behavior similar to the ruling power. "When in rome..." as they say. There will be lots of fact checking going on. The information age could well be your undoing. Every list your name is found upon is another clue, a data point, a potential death-sentence.
  • Who do you know, and who knows you?
  • Who and what have you emailed?
  • What blogs have you read?
  • What comments have you typed?
  • What party affiliation do you claim?
  • Is your gun "registered?"
  • Do you have a concealed carry permit?
  • What church do you attend
  • Race, nationality, sex, sexual orientation, age, income and educational strata, etc.
Keep in mind that in order for a fascist big-government organization to successfully remain in power, there must be both external and internal enemies for the populace to focus their animosity upon, to blame for economic woes, and to provide them with the ever-necessary emotions of rage and vindication. You don't want to be identified as either an internal or an external "enemy." WWII is a text-book example of all of the foregoing. Jews were identified through lists, all kinds of lists.
HOW DID THE PERPETRATORS KNOW WHO WAS JEWISH?
German officials identified Jews residing in Germany through census records, tax returns, synagogue membership lists, parish records (for converted Jews), routine but mandatory police registration forms, the questioning of relatives, and from information provided by neighbors and officials. In territory occupied by Nazi Germany or its Axis partners, Jews were identified largely through Jewish community membership lists, individual identity papers, captured census documents and police records, and local intelligence networks.
At this point in the mercurial evolution of our new fascist nation, it is still unclear what factions of the American populace will eventually be deemed "The Enemy" but the handwriting is nevertheless on the wall. Gun owners are at the top of any tentative list. They must first be identified, and then thoroughly demonized before they can later be disarmed.

Rule Number Two: Have an exit strategy,

Do you have a passport, emergency cash, nonperishable food, warm nondescript clothing, blankets, bottles of water, and fuel efficient transportation? Do you have a place to go that's out of the way, or off the grid, or—especially—out of the country? Having an exit strategy is useless if you procrastinate past the point where leaving is possible. Case in point:
ESCAPE FROM GERMAN-OCCUPIED EUROPE
Even before the beginning of World War II, many Jews sought to escape from countries under Nazi control. Between 1933 and 1939, more than 90,000 German and Austrian Jews fled to neighboring countries (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, and Switzerland). After the war began on September 1, 1939, escape became much more difficult. Nazi Germany technically permitted emigration from the Reich until November 1941. However, there were few countries willing to accept Jewish refugees and wartime conditions hindered those trying to escape. In 1941-1942, with the beginning of systematic shooting of Jews in the Soviet Union and the deportation of European Jews to extermination camps, escape literally became a matter of life and death.
Rule Number Three: Know Thy Enemy.

You must study your enemy. You must understand why he makes the decisions that he makes. You must learn from him so that when the time comes you'll be able to anticipate the decisions that he'll make in the future. Above all never forget that your enemy is also studying you, to obtain the same objectives. If you follow Rule Number One—Stay off of Lists—your enemy will have a difficult time anticipating your own—possibly life-saving—decisions.

One advantage that we have is that—right now anyway—we know the rules. The enemy is forced to operate by the laws and cultural mores existent in our society. However, remember that if your enemy is able to make the rules and change the rules, then your lead time to respond is dangerously shortened. This is especially the case if you're not hyper-alert and fully immersed in the mechanics of rule creation and alteration ... i.e. Congress. Complacency is a killer. A brief mention of frogs in pots of warming water should suffice as a word to the wise. I'm not suggesting you cultivate an obsession with C-Span, but I am suggesting you give it more than a passing glance. Develop and manage a regular list of blogs and on-line news outlets. Google News is fairly decent—today—but it doesn't tell the whole story. For the rest of the story you'll have to browse around.

Rule Number Four: You can leave everything behind.

Imagine that your house is on fire. You have seconds to decide what to take, what to leave for the fire. Now GO! That's how quickly your world can burn down around you. If you want to survive you have to be ready to go, just go. All the preparedness in the world is useless if you go home to get your things and your enemy is waiting there for you.


UPDATE 02/14/2014 1:02PM CST

The preceding post is fully proven and illustrated by daily examples. Today's example is right here:
San Francisco police brutality story: Hat Tip IOWNTHEWORLD.com.

Said one commenter: The [victim's] first, second and fifteenth mistakes [were] not keeping [her] mouth shut. That's true but it doesn't go far enough. The real mistake was the victim's foolish assumption that she still had constitutional rights. There are lords and there are peasants. When a lord orders, a peasant obeys ... or she will get the hose. Keep your head down. Don't be noticed. Pretend you are a visitor in 1970's era East Germany. They can make you disappear!

UPDATE 02/15/2014 8:29AM CST

Day after day after day, the proof that we citizens have lost our constitutional rights keeps being proven over and over. Police Assassination
Hat Tip IOWNTHEWORLD.com.

Saturday, February 8, 2014

America the leaky life-boat


Insanely high marginal tax rates are a disincentive. They cause the wealthy to seek methods or avenues to avoid being punished for their own success. The United States has in the past had marginal rates as high as 94%! Whether you term these rates punishment or disincentive, either way they discourage further output/effort/work once these near-total confiscatory brackets have been reached. If you think of the government as a parasite, then for the very rich it's almost as though they had a government-tapeworm—Uncle Worm?—that was so big it blocked off 94% of their intestine.

Metaphors are useful shortcuts to help describe a concept which would otherwise be difficult to put into words. Those with only a modicum of common sense nevertheless usually understand that creating disincentives to engaging in certain behaviors, tends to reduce engaging in those behaviors. It seems to be self-evident—to me at least—that if I could earn more money by not working, than I could by working, then I would almost certainly choose to not work.

Let me eliminate the obligatory preliminary objections at this point. Yes, it's true...people on unemployment are not exactly living high on the hog. They're making less than they did when they were actively employed. However, even though this is the case, they may still not be able to find a job that pays significantly more than their unemployment benefits. A family on unemployment receiving only 50 or 65% percent of their former $200,000 income may well have to subsist for 99 weeks on a mere $130,000.00! As you can see, because unemployment is based on what you used to make, not what you can make, there's a certain type of person—perhaps existing in their millions—that will happily beat that dead horse until it turns into Maggot Mountain.

Do you think it's fair or unfair to describe unemployment benefits as being paid not to work? The answer to that question goes a long way towards indicating whether you are a conservative or a liberal. Do you believe that people are masters of their own destiny or victims of fate? If an excuse is always your answer to failure, you might be a liberal.

We Americans are all living in this leaky life-boat together. There's a bunch of people paddling. There's a bunch of people bailing. There's a bunch of people who're making sure the paddlers keep paddling and the bailers keep bailing—and making up new rules all the time about the proper methods whereby each task must be accomplished. Finally there's a bunch of people—about 47% who're just sitting there, not doing anything. Some of these are too old. Some are too infirm. Some of them were treated badly back before the cruise ship sank. Some of them are from other life-boats and they didn't like the less than optimal conditions on those other life-boats, so they swam over to the only one that seems to be making any headway.

Metaphors are useful but they always lack that certain something. How about a little reality? There is this video I saw today on www.therightscoop.com, that really gets to the heart of this idea. These two guys are—I kid you not—debating about whether it's a good or bad thing for a person to decide whether-or-not they will live off the sweat and labor of someone else. To be a parasite or not to be...that is the question?

Can you imagine it? The left is arguing that it's great that people have the option to jump on the back of the hard working and just ride them wherever they feel like going. A parable must be mentioned! Going the second mile. I encourage you to read the entire text of Jesus's third way by Walter Wink. It is an exegesis of the Bible that is compelling and provoking. If you thought of Jesus as a pacifist then you need to re-read his words in the context in which they were uttered.

I should work more hours so that somebody else can sit at home resting? This is not just redistribution, this is slavery! I want a nice life for my wife and children, but apparently that "nice" life comes at a premium. I have to subsidize the exiguous yet indolent lifestyle of a multitude of families before I can purchase a bowl of gruel for my own children?

Now is the time when I tell you something surprising. I've told several people this fact and watched as their faces rapidly displayed a variety of expressions. The most prevalent was disbelief. We are all so used to lies. So many people tell lies—as a matter of policy apparently—that our first instinct is to immediately disbelieve. Here it is: I work 75 to 80 hours per week. Now, when I say that. I don't mean that I'm at home working. I don't mean that I'm driving long miles in my car on the clock. What I mean—in unequivocal terms—is that I clock-in on Monday at 7:00 AM and I clock-out at 7:00 PM. The same is true on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. On Sunday I get a break. I only work a half day.

Let's not talk about choices. Those of us who work for a living really have very few choices. We work because we have no choice. If working was really what we wanted to do, all along, they probably wouldn't pay us to do it. Let's instead talk about audacity. The question of the moment is how dare they?

Christ Hayes of MSNBC pigeon-holes the debate as this: Liberals want to allow people the choice to work fewer hours—via redistribution—while the mean heartless conservatives want everyone to have to work full-time—perhaps even ... gasp! more than full-time!

Because I work 75 to 80 hours per week to support my family of six in a nice neighborhood with good schools, because I want more for my children than a mediocre high-school diploma, because I dream of one day retiring at the age of sixty-five or seventy, and because the accomplishment of all the foregoing requires not just hard work but long, long hours ... does any of that ... give my opinion any weight or substance at all? Do I have standing to argue my own case? Is it fair that I work twice as much as some people and that other people live almost as comfortably as I do and they don't work a single minute? And this absurd fact is made possible for the sole reason that twenty-five to thirty percent of my paycheck is siphoned off-the-top to allow them their indolent choice? Should these people actually be allowed to have the choice to make people like me be their slaves? How dare they!

The contempt I feel towards the left is a sentiment that is ineffable and infinite. The desire I feel to curse and scream and—I must admit—do extreme violence—is almost ineluctable. Is this some kind of nightmare? Is it a joke? Are they serious? 2.3 million more unemployed living off my eighty-hours-per-week sweat and toil is a choice?

As a discouraged and pissed-off Tiny Tim might well scream... God damn them, every one!

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Groundhog's Day Escape


An Agent of the King in Every Home

We are at the breaking point. There are plenty of people who think that January's stock-market avalanche was caused by the Fed's trimming back of it's money printing program, but of course these people fail to realize that when you grab the tiger by the tail, you've trimmed the choices down to only two...keep doing what your doing or get eaten. The market's reaction was predictable. The FED has two choices, ramp-up the money printing, or watch as the stock-market pulls a belly-flop that will make 1987's Black Monday look like a picnic in comparison. All of us have been tiptoeing around this. I bet you've felt it. You've probably even pointed it out. If you're like me, you've wondered...is it just me? Am I Cassandra or Harold Camping?

Government behavior that would have been unimaginable only 10 years ago, goes unremarked upon today. Ho-hum...just another day in Neo-America. Doctors and police colluded in the rape and torture of American citizens in New Mexico. The Attorney General of the United States of America...Eric Holder initiated a one-man war against the Tea-Party ... I could recite the litany of constitutional abuses as well as you could...Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS vs. Tea Party, Executive Orders gone wild, NSA vs. All of us, Dinesh D'Souza charged with ... what?

I think we can all see the handwriting on the wall. If you speak up, if you complain, if you rock the boat, that's your ass. There's no more freedom of speech. There's no more protection from the government against unreasonable search and seizure. You have the right to remain silent...until the Supreme court decides that torture is okay as long as it's in a good cause.

I'm turned around and lost. I keep going back to my experience with the really nail-biting fictional novels that have sustained and teased me past eternities of tedious boredom over the years. One thing you can depend on. When things are seemingly at their worst, the plot is about to twist, and somehow it will get even worse! Until magically the stars will align, the seas really will stop rising, the angels will sing Hosanna and everything will somehow turn out just perfect! I can't wait for the happily-ever-after. I'm waiting. When does the Deus-ex-machina make everything become totally perfect? I just re-read Dave Duncan's Handful of Men series. Four exciting books full of wonderful escape, that will allow you to—at times—forget the tidal-wave of reality looming on the horizon.

Read the fourteen gargantuan books in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time. I did, over and over and over. Watch Groundhog's day with Bill Murray. I did, over and over and over. The problem is that it's just not working anymore. It's getting harder and harder to forget the ever-tightening noose that's choking us. As freedom and the pursuit of happiness fades into a distant daydream, as the same gray morning dawns cold and evermore pointlessly over and over, it makes me wonder when...

When will the author of this horror story we're all living in introduce a ray of hope?
You want a prediction about the weather, you're asking the wrong Phil. I'll give you a winter prediction: It's gonna be cold, it's gonna be grey, and it's gonna last you for the rest of your life.