Search This Blog

Friday, May 27, 2016

Fat drunk and stupid, is no way to go through life, son.

That's a scene from Animal House, a raunchy teen movie about horny sybaritic college kids who care more about partying and getting it on than about their future. Hmmm that sounds exactly like practically every young person I know! When I was in my twenties I'm sure I thought I knew everything that was worth knowing. I assume that older people in dealing with me must have felt about like how I feel in dealing with twenty-somethings who already know everything there is to know. You can't tell them shit. If you're in your forties or fifties you must have met younger people [kids to be honest] who reflexively contradict almost everything you say, without even bothering to parse what you just said.

I saw something this morning that amazed me, and also saddened me. A young black woman was ahead of me in line at McDonald's. She carefully counted her money and finally ordered. She ordered a sausage, egg, and cheese biscuit and a small water. Her order came to right at four bucks. I never intervene in these things, by the way. If the lady wants to order that, far be it from me to try to tell her anything, but let's face facts, I've tried to tell young people things lots of times and its always been a complete waste of breath. The lady at the McDonald's is black and I'm white, therefore I don't know shit. She's young and I'm old, therefore I don't know shit. She's a woman and I'm a man...therefore I don't know shit. So since I don't know shit, I bit my tongue and never mentioned that a sausage biscuit at McDonald's is $1.00, and that an egg and cheese biscuit is $1.40.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Fisking Elizabeth Holtzman's logic about "Male Logic"

With the presumptive GOP nominee having just predictably pledged fealty to the gun lobby, the time has come to scrutinize carefully one of the key legal underpinnings of Second Amendment rights in America.
Elizabeth, don't you also predictably think the time has come to scrutinize carefully one of the key legal underpinnings of Second Amendment rights every time some nutjob brings his assault rifle to a gun-free zone?
This is the idea that gun rights are sacrosanct because firearms are crucial for heads of household — meaning, mostly men — to protect their families from intruders. It was most famously articulated by the late Antonin Scalia, whom Donald Trump has called “a brilliant Supreme Court justice.”
No Elizabeth, gun rights are "sacrosanct," in the same way that freedom of religion is sacrosanct, in the same way that freedom of speech is sacrosanct. Our freedoms are sacrosanct: our freedom to assemble, the right of due process, the freedom to come and go, the freedom to live our lives freely without the heavy boot of government stepping on our necks.

Isn't that what you really abhor Elizabeth Holtzman, the lack of a heavy government boot on our necks? You want to grind us all down so that everyone can be as abjectly miserable as you apparently are. Misery loves company, and you miserable left-wing control-freaks are freaking out because with all these guns, Americans can fight back when people like you come for us with the metaphorical slave collars of higher taxes, price controls, wage controls, mandatory this, that, and the other thing. You want to take our guns because that's the first step which leads to the next step where you raise taxes, and the step after that has you raising taxes again. And the step after that has you enacting price and rent controls, and printing more money, and more money and more money and raising taxes and because of the price controls and the worthless fiat money there won't be any more products on grocery store shelves. The next step has people of your ilk, Elizabeth, trying to control—by fiat—currency valuations, and the list of government controls and manipulation goes on and on. Demanding the people do what you say at gunpoint is what you want...because you people—politburo apparatchiks and your goons—will still have guns, but nobody else will.

If you want to watch it in action, take a look at Venezuela. Their whole economy was based on the sale of one product. The socialist regime—which you desire Elizabeth—was unable to attract entrepreneurs of any kind to its shores, because ... hello socialism! Thus they rode the oil wave until "predictably," they wiped out.
In 2008, Scalia wrote the Supreme Court opinion striking down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns (District of Columbia vs. Heller). He argued that it violated an individual’s Second Amendment right of self-defense — even though the Second Amendment does not mention any right of self-defense, and refers to the right to bear arms only in the context of a “well-regulated” militia.
The Second Amendment states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sentence states two separate things, separated by a comma. Notice that it does not say "As long as a well regulated militia is necessary, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment's semantic "logic" is inescapable, Elizabeth. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! It's simple English Elizabeth, yet you keep trying to twist it to mean something else. I've already told you why you keep trying, deny it though you will.
In re-reading the justice’s opinion recently, I realized that it was rooted in sexist stereotypes that seriously taint his analysis.

Scalia’s support for the right to keep a loaded handgun in the house is based on his image of a “person in the founding era” (when the Constitution was adopted), who uses “a gun to protect him and his family.” While not restricting self-defense rights to men, the justice’s language suggests a traditional, outdated scenario where the man of the house with his gun wards off the intruder bent on harming his wife and children. For Scalia, “defense of hearth and home” is central to the Second Amendment, as is his assumption that the man of the house is the protector of its occupants.
Oh, here we go! It seems as though Elizabeth has gone off the rails of her gun control rant and into some wacky feminist screed where she angrily denounces the Patriarchy and all its baggage of which guns are a traditional part. Guns and men. Soldiers, cowboys, Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson ... So a man protecting his home with a gun pisses you off? Seriously? Well please, tell us why that might be?
But, the scenario in Scalia’s mind is not the only way guns present themselves in American homes. In reality, the man of the house may be a batterer, child abuser, an alcoholic, under the influence of drugs or mentally unstable — and pose a grave danger with his gun to other members of the family.
It doesn't matter! If the "man of the house"—or woman of the house Elizabeth—is a batterer, child abuser, alcoholic, drug user, mentally unstable, then the problem is the man or woman of the house. Are you going to take all the knives, all the forks, all the furniture, the blunt objects, the strangling cords and rope, the walls themselves? If somebody wants to hurt somebody else, they don't need a gun to do it.
Even when the gun owner’s motives are benign, a gun in the house creates an enormous risk to its occupants. By focusing seemingly exclusively on the gun owner’s self-defense rights in the rare case of a criminal intruder, Justice Scalia blinds himself to the much more common case where the rights of family members and others to personal safety are jeopardized/threatened by the rights of the gun owner.

Consider the statistics on gun violence in the home. As the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has noted, a “gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.”

Over 80% of firearm deaths among children under 14 take place in the home —- mostly through accidental use of a gun by children. As Brooklyn district attorney, I would get on my desk the tragic reports of children killed by other children while playing with a loaded gun at home.

Firearm suicides among young people are also facilitated by guns in the home. Eighty-two per cent of young people under 18 who committed suicide with a gun got the gun from their home.

The danger to women also rises dramatically when a domestic abuser has a gun. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if he owns a firearm.
Okay, lets take these "statistics" in order. Gun 22 times more likely to be used in suicide homicide or accidentally than to protect the home. Tell me Elizabeth, does using consist only of shooting? If I use my gun to scare away a home intruder, did I "use" the gun? I doubt it. That statistic is vastly overstated and until you tell me how many homes were protected by having possession of a gun—not necessarily "using" it, then your premise at stated must be seen as false on its face. That "80% of firearm deaths among children take place in the home," statistic is so stupid! Really? Where else would you like them to be shot? Maybe at school? Or the playground? Seriously? That you threw that out there smacks of desperation and straw-grasping, and the "mostly through accidental use of a gun by children" is also so obvious it begs the question else would you like children to be shot? By their parents accidentally, or by their siblings or friends on purpose? Grasp grasp grasp Elizabeth, it's pathetic! Oh and I love the next one. 82% of children who kill themselves with a gun got the gun from home. Okay Elizabeth again, where would you like them to get it? From a gun store? No wait, from a friend's house. Hey Billy can you come out and play? Hey go get your dad's pistol I need to shoot myself in the head! Weak straw. The last straw has some strength to it. But we are talking about adults here. If you're abused you need to call the police. You need to go. The problem is the abuse, not the gun, so sorry Elizabeth but that straw pulled free as well.
Unless we reside in Scalia’s mythological realm where the gun owner acts only as protector, the Second Amendment does not and cannot leave the occupants of the house at the mercy of the gun owner. The right to protect oneself in the home against dangerous gun owners and their guns is just as important as the gun owner’s right to self-defense against the intruder.
Well, I hate to be snide here, but the right to keep and bear arms is a right. The right of others to protect themselves from the gun owner with their own gun is also a right. Of course children can't do that, but certainly one spouse could protect them from the other. Such a sad state of affairs where one parent must protect children from the other parent is the problem, not the gun. Another straw plucked free and your toehold of an argument is crumbling under your feet Elizabeth.
Who, then, will mediate between the rights of the gun owner and the rights of the occupants? Who will tell the gun owner to take the gun out of the house, or remove the bullets and lock it up safely? Who will require the gun owner to listen to the occupants of the house terrified that the gun will be used against them? Who will speak up for the victim against the gun-owner batterer? Who will give voice to the children who can’t even speak for themselves?
If mediation is required there are a vast number of services and mediators available. Counselors, police, attorneys, social workers, etc.
Government must have the power to prevent gun owners from endangering the lives of other occupants of the home. It must be able to write laws, for example, that would keep dangerous people from purchasing guns, require guns in the home to be kept under severe safety restrictions — or even, once the flimsy rationale of the Heller case is understood and discarded, reinstate an effective ban on handguns.
BOOM! You said it! I knew your were thinking it the whole time. "GOVERNMENT MUST HAVE THE POWER!" ... to reinstate the [unconstitutional] ban on handguns...To ban all guns eventually. Because you want the people to be raped, mugged, beaten, and robbed. You don't want the weak to be able to defend themselves against someone stronger. You certainly don't want them to be able to defend themselves against eventual—inevitable—tyranny. Throughout the ages, tyrants rise to power. They always have and they always will. The Constitution has protected us for quite a while, but termites like you have been chewing on it for better than two centuries and it's starting to look a little ragged these days.
In the meantime, courts should reject the world of macho make-believe underlying the Heller opinion, and recognize the fundamental right to safety of those whose lives are placed at risk by guns.
Earlier Elizabeth was quick to underscore the fact that the "Second Amendment does not mention any right of self-defense." No it doesn't. In fact nowhere in the entire Constitution does it mention self-defense, nor for that matter does the Constitution mention any "fundamental right to safety." You want safety Elizabeth? Get strapped.

I was perusing my blog roll when I came upon a story on This Ain't Hell entitled New York Times’ Untold Damage, with a veritable smorgasbord of 417 true stories where the good guys with guns saved the day. You should check it out!

Sunday, May 22, 2016

The US has now become a Kritarchy

Kritarchy is a system of rule by judges (Hebrew: שופטים‎, shoftim) in the tribal confederacy of ancient Israel during the period of time described in the Book of Judges, following Joshua's conquest of Canaan and prior to the united monarchy under Saul.[1] Because it is a compound of the Greek words κριτής, krites ("judge") and ἄρχω, árkhō ("to rule"), its use has expanded to cover rule by judges in the modern sense as well, as in the case of Somalia, ruled by judges with the polycentric legal tradition of xeer,[2] and arguably the Islamic Courts Union.
The way the founding fathers designed our government was as a system of checks and balances. The President had power over the legislature by right of veto. The legislature could override that veto but only with a two-thirds vote in both houses. The two house system was also a check on Congress's power. This was the balance of power the framers of the Constitution sought. That's the way the entire document reads. They never imagined that the very brief Article III section—which was included merely to delineate specifically a judicial court which was above all the lower courts—would usher in nine de facto Kings For Life, holding the power to bestow wealth and favor on some and damnation and misery on others. That was never supposed to be their role. When the framers of the Constitution finished writing it, they expected it to be read and interpreted as written. When it was ratified by all the states, they ratified the words that were specifically written. But they were all of them deceived!

If you could have gone back in time and told the framers what has happened today. If you could have gone back in time and told the states what has happened today, if they had known that a few sentences in the Constitution would one day allow the ascension of Nine Supreme Overlords—well only eight right now get the point. The Supreme Court gave themselves the power of judicial review. They gave themselves the power to, not rewrite the words of constitution, but to reinterpret the meaning of words themselves. You know as in: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, etc.

It wasn't George Orwell who invented Newspeak; the Supreme Court has being doing it for two-hundred years. They have slowly over the generations of justices given themselves more and more power to the point where today, they can put a tranny in the same bathroom your daughter is using. Today they can force a Christian doctor, nurse, priest, even bakers and photographers, restaurant owners—let's face it anybody at all—to commit acts which they consider sins against their faith. And if they refuse, if you refuse, you'll all face both financial and criminal sanctions for refusing.

You can now be forced by your nine slave masters to create artwork that deeply offends you. You can be forced to share a public bathroom with a member of the opposite sex, who might be a rapist or a pedophile. We are one Supreme Court justice away from a reinterpretation of the Second Amendment. A national registry would be followed by a ban similar to the ones found in other disintegrating first-world countries like Great Britain and Australia. Voluntary turn ins would be followed by confiscations and then ever-harsher penalties for gun possession. When every gun has been taken you will bend the knee. You will bend the neck. You will be a slave. It doesn't require a slave collar to be a slave. All it requires is a master telling you what to do and you being forced to do it, against your will.

Below is what the Constitution says about the Supreme Court. Notice there's nothing in there about reinventing the English language. Nothing in their about creating identity people, forcing people to accept pedophiles into the same room where their daughter is trying to pee. Nothing in there about reinterpreting the words: "shall not be infringed" to mean: shall be forbidden.
U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

If there were only vegans, life on earth would not exist

The main argument that vegans use is that eating meat, dairy, and eggs is immoral. It's wrong because it causes suffering to the slaughtered animals, causes suffering to the perpetually milked and thereby exploited cows. In similar vein chickens forced to lay sterile eggs are being exploited. There's just a little bit more to this immoral carnivore argument that must be explained. A vegan believes ... Get this ... it's only when we know that eating meat is wrong, that it becomes wrong. This artful bit of sophistry I'll entitle "Carnivorous Mens Rea." Got that? Lions don't know they're evil carnivores heartlessly slaughtering helpless little gazelles, therefore it's perfectly fine. The mosquito doesn't know any better. The bigger fish eating the smaller one is innocent of sentience and therefore innocent of evil.

I can absolutely counter that vegan argument and prove to anyone with eyes to see and at least a bare modicum of intellect to understand, that the "immoral argument" is false. I can do this in a variety of ways, and in fact I shall do just that!

I'll start with the simplest argument which is simply self-preservation. A ship-wrecked man stuck on an island with very few, if any, fruit-bearing trees might nevertheless manage to supplement his diet by catching fish, finding small crabs and other crustaceans, as well as other sea-life like prawns, oysters, shellfish, etc. Yet if he was a vegan and tried to live on the odd coconut along with a big bowl of seaweed, he'd quickly—in a month maybe?—die of starvation. So in the case of simple survival it's okay to eat meat? Well ship-wrecked vegan do you lay down and die?

Maybe the well-fed vegan will argue that it's very rare to be ship-wrecked on a desert island. Well sure it is. Okay how about a real desert? Nomads wandering through the dunes might find precious few acres of wheat, corn, rice, soy bean, wheat grass, etc. They have their camels and their livestock, goats or something. That's how they survive. Do the desert nomads have a choice? They are—if you'll forgive my somewhat arid pun—in the same boat as the shipwrecked sailor.

An honest vegan would admit that there are, and historically have been throughout the age of mankind, many many times when the simple survival of the family, clan, tribe, or troupe, required the killing and eating of meat. Do you disagree? In truth, the most damning accusation that a vegan can factually say about the "immoral eating of meat," is that if there is a surfeit of alternative non-meat non-dairy options then perhaps—and only then—can it be considered "immoral."

Well it seems the vegan's case for immorality has been seriously weakened, but that's not all! The best argument for eating meat is that it's what makes this entire world work. Without eating meat we'd all be gone, every blade of grass, every tree, every tick and gazelle and ape and you! ... everything dead dead dead! I'll prove this fact with reductio ad absurdum.
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: "argument to absurdity", pl.: argumenta ad absurdum), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.[1]
So I'm God or Yahweh or Satan or Thor and now I'm going to create the perfect Vegan world. Not only are all the humans vegans, so is every animate life form from the tiniest bug to the biggest fish. They all live on plants, and in return the plants live on them. All are happy. It's the Garden of Eden y'all!

The two videos above are from the real world—where birds eat bugs, foxes, weasels, owls, and hawks eat mice. Imagine, if you can, my world? No predators to eat the locusts. No predators to eat the mice. No predators either to eat the goats, sheep, gazelles, and a hundred other plant eating herbivores. Do you know that they call it when too many plant eaters consume every plant there is? It's called a desert. There's nothing in a desert but skeletons under many feet of sand. It is the carnivores that keep the herbivore population under control so that they don't breed out of control until there is nothing left but extinction. The rational vegan imagining my silly world of "only vegans," must realize at this point that such a world could never work.

It is not just the lion's duty. It's not just the hawk's. All predators—including humans—must see to it that the plant-eaters are kept in manageable numbers so they don't kill us all.

So vegan, two things are true. 1.) If you must eat meat to survive then you should eat meat. 2.) Something, or someone's, gotta eat all that meat or we all die, vegan and carnivore alike.

Finally, as a last ditch argument, vegans will claim that eating meat and dairy is unhealthy. Yes of course! Why didn't we notice that 20,000 years ago? If only lions would start grazing, who knows, they might live to age seventy instead of only 10 to 14. If dairy is so unhealthy, just imagine how much better off babies would be without breast milk or formula! Instead of cramming that nipple in poor baby's little mouth, how about letting junior nosh on a nice clump of wheat grass!

Saturday, May 14, 2016

UPDATED Abandon Hope Ye Who Live Here

The Trump crazies—with tinfoil hats in hand—have come flooding out of the woodwork, like a houseful of cockroaches just bombed with an old-school DDT canister. They're screaming TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP with wild abandon, and trashtalking Cruz in the same crazed Howard Dean-esque, "Hooyah."

Meanwhile Kasich is eating pickles instead of crow ...

... and Chaos rules. I could give you the litany of what ails this country which—for analogy's sake—would read like the text from the bedside medical chart of a terminal cancer patient accompanied by a gaggle of relatives gathered round for final last words. Stick a fork in it Margaret. It's done.

Listen, I don't want to come across as pessimistic. Far from it. I'm totally and completely upbeat at this point! I know that from where I'm at—absolute rock-bottom—that from here on out, it's impossible that it could get any worse. Okay let's face facts. Howard Dean Trump is NOT going to win the election. He's got zero governing experience, zero law-making experience, zero foreign policy experience, and zero political experience. The mainstream media successfully foisted this piece of shit onto the GOP and now that he's the presumptive nominee, the same people that used to beat his drum and march behind him, will now hamstring and crucify him on every single channel, in every magazine, on every radio station, in every newspaper, across the width and breadth of this country.

You don't have to believe me, just go to youtube and rewatch political coverage from 2008 of the "First Back President." The first female president is, as of today, a fait accompli. Now I'm sure all of you know what a dishonest, conniving, murdering, greedy, corrupt, and literally pestilential shrew Hillary Clinton is. However, I ask you: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

The debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump promise to amuse and titillate, in exactly the same fashion as an old-school WWE wrestling match where the bad-guy hits the good-guy with a chair while the clueless referee—AKA mainstream media—is busy chastising an uninvolved on-looker from the audience. All the positive spin for Trump ends today, May 4th, 2016. Mark my words, write them down, highlight, and underline them. You won't see anymore positive press for Donald Trump. I hope I'm wrong. You know I'm not.

So, you might ask, where do we go from here? Well, South America is a possibility. How's your Español?
UPDATE 05/14/2016
I told you so on 05/04/2016, and now I'll prove it. As the negative news rolls down on The Donald I'll be posting links on this daily updated post which is still entitled "Abandon Hope, Ye who live here." You voted for The Donald. You dope! You ignoranimous!

You were played and scammed and conned and bled. You are the host and the MSM has your blood in its belly. Well done I say! Wonderful! You thought Donald Trump was going to change it all but of course you might as well have sent your money order to Nigeria where a prince's fortune is waiting in a bank for you to collect it. Go ahead. Go on! Send in that money order. Sooner or later there's bound to be a prince's fortune just waiting for a rube like you to finally see his ship come in.

I told you. We all told you. Now that The Donald is the Republican Nominee the MSM kid gloves come off and it's time for The Donald to get his well-deserved bitch-slapping. They played you all and the rest of us who saw it coming are sitting down on our collective couches waiting with baited breath—and on tenterhooks no less—for your well-deserved howls of outrage, to provide at least a glimmer of silver lining in this Pyrrhic Victory where we lose to Hillary in this the third saddest election in America's history. 2008 and 2012 will never be matched as the saddest and 2nd saddest in history, obviously. If you voted for Trump go ahead and swim out into the sea as far as you can swim. If you feel yourself getting tired, don't worry, you're almost there. Keep going!

The list begins. I bet it's going to be a doozy!

  1. 05/12/16 Vanity Fair interviews Trump hating George Clooney who calls Trump a "disaster."
  2. 05/13/16 Washington Post says Donald Trump masqueraded as himself for publicity.
  3. 05/14/16 The New York Times publishes a 5000 word expose on how "Creepy" Donald Trump is!
  4. 05/14/16 CNBC says Donald Trump is "Thumbing his nose at time honored tradition."
  5. 05/14/16 TIME enjoys a fantasy mural of Trump French Kissing Vladimir Putin.
  6. 05/14/16 Entertainment Weekly: Michael Moore & Bill Maher pledge to "Take Down" Trump.
  7. 05/14/16 Huff Po says "Congress is OK" with "Handing Bomb throwing power" to "Bomb Throwing" Trump.
  8. 05/16/15 CNN video "Trump's Rough [New] Days"
  9. 05/16/15 ABC video Trump cheats on his taxes
  10. 05/16/16 New York Times Trump to attack Hillary's Character with "psychological warfare"

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

The New York Times Beclowns Itself Most Spectacularly!

"What We Can Learn From Donald Trump’s Unreleased Tax Returns"

You can't make this stuff up! "What can be learned from unknown information." Hmmmm okay I'll play ... Trump is actually Obama's real father and furthermore the actual conception occurred on board a pirate ship off the coast of Somalia. Well...lacking contrary information it could have happened that way...

A New York Times writer named Justin Wolfers has constructed a one-thousand word article on the topic of absolutely nothing at all! In a way you have to be impressed. So, your high-school English teacher has an assignment for you...write a one-thousand word paper on what can be learned from Santa Clause's unreleased "Naughty List." Now you don't have the list of course, but you can infer that because such a list might exist that if there were one and if you had access to it, you would perhaps assume—although of course we can't know or even in fact hazard a guess—that there might be people you know personally who could be listed on such a naughty list. Furthermore we could anticipate the possible revelation of all sorts of sordidly salacious sinful behavior from assorted known acquaintances who might well have dirty deeds detailed on this directory of dastardly dark doings. You could then having imagined the people and the deeds then construct a thousand word compendium of contemptible contemplation and crass conjecture. But to imagine, that such a dim-witted totally imagined fantasy essay would somehow find itself included in the so-called "paper of record," boggles every sane mind in creation itself.

The New York Times article spends paragraph after paragraph asking what perhaps a hypothetical Mr. X might do if he was Mother Teresa, or what he might do if he were average Joe and finally what he might do if he was the next in line to assume the unhuly mantle of the Anti-Christ himself. If you're curious I've linked the article below in the money making quote. In truth you see, you don't even have to read the entire convoluted asininely risible and absurd chain of "logic." You only have to read the paragraph that ends with:
Follow this logic, and you’re left to infer that the only person who won’t voluntarily release their tax returns must have the most to hide. It doesn’t just say that Mr. Trump has more to hide than Mrs. Clinton; it says that he has more to hide than any other candidate you could imagine.
No Justin, what is says, is that you're an imbecile and you've been punked more thoroughly than any punk ever got punked in the history of jailhouse punkings. Congratulations! He doesn't release his tax returns because he doesn't have to. In addition, once we see the Obama Birth Certificate, the Obama report cards, the your Obama redacted hidden thing from Benghazi to private servers to fast and furious to the IRS scandal to Project Destabilize the Mideast to Abandon Iraq to Operation Apologize to everyone to ...

Trump won't tell you something. That must upset you Justin Wolfers. Can you imagine it? A politician refuses to tell you what you want to know. Well, there's something that America wants to know. We've been asking this question for eight years now. Where have you been? Now you have questions? Now you want to know a candidate's history? Now, all of a sudden, it's important to find out all the facts about a potential President? Where were you in 2008? Where were you in 2012. Where were you Justin?

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Free Trade, NAFTA, Trump, and Conservative Values

I farted loudly at a 4th of July cookout some ten or twelve years ago. My relatives are not the type to find amusement in such an offering. It was not of course a literal fart. I'm well schooled in the discrete passing of gas over a period of time, as well as moving to a more remote location to break Independence Day wind. My analogous fart was the news to family that I wrote a letter to the editor of a prominent magazine and that I was in fact published. I was quite proud of the fact, the publishing, but my comments to the editor were not well received by my closest relatives. The gist of the letter was that China has been screwing us over for decades and the time to give them a taste of their own medicine was today.

I'll give you their argument first: If we tariff goods coming into this country, it's the same thing as another tax on the hard working Americans who make this country great. You raise taxes on Chinese imports and that instantly causes an increase in the cost of rice, grains, products, knick-knacks, paddiwacks, oh, and did I mention give the poor dog a bone?

So tariffing Chinese products hurts Americans is their argument. They really really believe that, by the way. Conservatives are completely and totally against tariffing any country no matter what, because in the end we only hurt ourselves. It's self-destructive you see. It hurts us. Is that it? Oh you were finished? Well, allow me to retort!

The following is a true story. It happened like this. I was on a week-end field trip along with my Baptist church school friends. It was a week-end long marathon of track-and-field events which we competed in. There were also board games like backgammon, checkers, and chess.

(I didn't win a single event ... because can't run can't jump, can't even play checkers very well.)

During the course of the week-end long competition, I happened across a twenty-dollar bill laying on the ground. I of course immediately picked it up and glanced around to see who saw my find. (By the way, this was forty years ago and twenty dollars was worth 91 dollars.) To a nine year old, that was a lot of money! It turns out that some kids did see me find it. The three of them ran over and demanded half. I said no. They said, "then we'll go tell on you." I told them I'd do them one better. I marched—with black-mailing kids in tow—straight to the school office and turned over that twenty, to the consternation of the school office worker who had probably never seen such a thing in her entire life. (Nine year olds are not exactly known for their rigorous moral uprightness and all that.) The moral of the story is really quite simple. I'd rather get nothing at all than bend over and take if from a gang of lowlifes.

And by the way, that's what America is doing, and has been doing, since WWII. We're bending over and taking it from China and we have been for years and years. Spin that fact any way you want to, but as much as I hate The Donald, he's straight to the mark on that one. China is wrong-holing us, and hard! It's got to stop. Stopping it is incredibly simple. You show them that you're willing to suffer a little bit if that ends up making them suffer even more. In a world where the Chinese are tariffed at 45% 50% 100%, that world will see the absolute end of ruinous Chinese tariffs, the end of rampant Chinese hackers stealing trade secrets, the end of all kinds of illegal drugs being shipped through the mail. The Chinese have been punking America like the 90 pound pretty boy gets punked at San Quentin. It's got to stop! We either fight back and take our lumps, or we keep taking it and taking it. What would you do?

I'm for a wall between us and Mexico. I'm for massive tariffs on Chinese goods. I hope The Donald has a bite as good as his bark. If he wins. If he really does it. If he can. If, if, if...

We have a trade agreement between our closest neighbors Canada and Mexico, called NAFTA. Trump promises that he'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. I assume he means with tariffs. Can he do that if it violates the terms of the NAFTA agreement? Does he even know what NAFTA is? Will he attempt to be King or President? Who is Donald Trump? What does he want?

So many questions and so few answers. What if the piñata I'm blindly swinging at, holds a nest of scorpions? You pays your money and you takes your chances. Life is all about the luck of the draw. I wonder what joker had the brilliant idea to put a couple of jokers like Clinton and Trump in the deck?