Greetings Fellow Travelers. Thank you for coming to my blog. I hope you will find it interesting, fascinating, absorbing, enthralling, perhaps even maddening, annoying, irritating, or infuriating. Most of all I hope you will find it a worthwhile read, and not - horror of horrors: boring.
I would like to know who stopped by and if you liked or disliked what you read here. You can leave comments, or reply to other comments and I highly encourage(plead with) you to do so. I encourage varied and/or opposing viewpoints. I enjoy robust exchange of ideas and do not take such, or mean such, personally. So... please do not just read posts and then leave thinking me misguided or brilliant; Tell me why, and where I have gone horribly wrong. Perhaps just add an angle to the idea that I had not thought of. Your comments often make my little blog far more interesting than I can alone.Anyway, thanks again for stopping by.
Now on the disquisition.
Your Humble Contrarian
Thought of the Day
So in the vein of the law prohibiting insurance companies to refuse customers for preexisting conditions I think we should expand that to include all insurance: Life insurance for example. I think I should be able to call up an insurance company after my spouse dies and demand that they provide me with life insurance coverage. About 5 million dollars worth would be just about right.
Similarly I should be able to call a 24 hour hotline from the scene of an accident to demand coverage for my totaled car.
Yep I can see endless possibilities here.
Ben-ism of the Day
Optimism: Pathological ignorance of imminent doom.
"There is nothing to fear but fear Itself!" - The phrase most often used to lure a bunch of half-wits that do not consider the factuality (or idiocy) of that statement to their doom.
Those who lack the courage to attempt the impossible may forever deny themselves the knowledge of just how majestically they can fail... (B. Owen 2011)
So the Gop is outraged at Alan Graysons 3rd grade-esque school-yard taunts and fiery un-statesmanlike rants? I say let him speak. As a matter of fact if it were up to me I would assign a film crew to do nothing but follow him around and have a microphone in his face every possible moment. My only question is who can we get to play Beevis? I would make him famous - The face of the Democratic party. For there was rarely anything more aptly said than that: There is nothing worse you can do to a fool than to let him speak. You Go Alan!
Hey I was worried for quite some time about the absurd amounts of money that we have been borrowing from China. They seemed to be increasingly nervous about extending us more credit. And Moody's, those guys that actually establish the worlds credit ratings; They have directly warned in no uncertain terms that our credit rating is at risk if we continue as we are. Many countries that have lent us money in the past have stopped doing so. Economists everywhere within our country and around the world are feverishly sounding alarm bells to anyone that will listen. Pundits and politicians from the far left, to the far right are wringing their hands and predicting dire consequences of continuing to race obliviously toward the cliff. It's all enough to give one anxiety attacks. I was becoming extremely worried until recently reassured by our peerless Tim Geithner. When faced with this barrage of facts, queries and admonitions, from the ostensible Goliath before him of the Congressional Inquisition he stood his ground unwaveringly and proclaimed boldly that all is well. He assured us that we will never lose our triple A credit Rating. Thus sayeth Tim Geithner - Thus shall it be. Whew! Thank the lord, I was really worried there. Well I for one have the weight of the world off of my shoulders. I am going to just go get a job right away. Hell, maybe I'll even start a new business and create [or save] a bunch of new jobs! After all if you can't trust the guy who can't get his own taxes right for several years, and was part of the agency at the epicenter of the meltdown and never saw it coming who can ya trust to see cataclysmic economic events bearing down on us. Good thing Tim set Moody's and the Chinese straight. You go Tim!
So John Murtha has finally come up against the only real Congressional Term Limit... Finally. Rumor has it that he left a note saying that:
"in case anything went wrong it was not an accident but a conspiracy by a bunch of marines that sneaked into my room and killed me while I slept, peacefully dreaming of how to get reelected by my ignorant, racist, red-neck constituents."
By the way - gutsy move Jack; calling the military a bunch of cold blooded killers before going under anesthesia in a miltary hospital! And if you think I am evil for speaking ill of the dead before he is even cold I have a few things I'd like to share:
In those great scales in the sky, the world is better off without John Murtha: I am glad he's dead.
I will apologize when he apologizes for falsely accusing those marines of "Killing innocent civilians in cold blood."
Murtha has proved [long before he died]there actually is such a thing as an Ex-marine.
So there's Obama and Calderon up there doing their version of "Dueling Banjo's," each trying to out platitude the other. I noticed a few things that were, as usual, evidently lost on the media.
Calderon mentioned in his speech that they have done, and will continue to do all in their power to stem the tide of guns, drugs and money across the border. Do you notice anything distinctly absent from that sentence?
Well here's a hint: he reaffirmed their absolute opposition to "any attempt to criminalize immigration." Huh? What in the hell is criminalizing immigration? Does that mean we should not have any control over who comes to this country, and under what circumstances? Can you name one country in the world who does such a thing? Do Calderon and Mexico just throw open their borders to assure the respect of "human rights" to any that can sneak across their border? Just try that Schtick when ILLEGALY crossing Mexico's southern border. When caught there doing so by Mexican officials you will generally be either beaten, robbed, raped, and/or killed, and tossed back over the border.
My question to El Presidente is: How would you like if we just adopt your country's immigration policies and practices?
Note to El Presidente: I don't care how flowery your platitudes about our mutual slobbering adoration and friendship, if you do not respect my country's border you are no mi amigo.
PS: And by the way Felipe, If you are running your own country so damn great why is everyone that can swim, wade, run, or climb a fence leaving there?
So I am checking out potential hot new stock picks, and I come upon Solyndra, Inc. Well, with all of the "Green" job fervor I am thinking that I may be on to something here. Looking closer I am seeing some fascinating and promising details about the company. Their website sure looks amazing. And hey, these guys are everywhere in the forefront of Green news. It seems everyone who is someone is endorsing, visiting, or doing photo-ops with them. They have just built two huge new state-of-the-art solar-power factories. They have stated that they expect a 250% boost in capacity in the next year!
Wow! - but wait...theres more! The Federal government just gave them a $535 million loan guarantee [The Federal Green-for-Green initiatives - I just made that term up :) Add to that over a [b]illion in private equity funding, and visits and endorsements from Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and President Barack Obama. and I am just starting to salivate. It is all enough to make one bow to Ra - The Sun God. Except... except... There is the little fact... inconsequential really, that Solyndra is currently doing there best Hindenburg impression.
(Hindenburg Pic Here)Well, That new [second] factory is quite impressive by all accounts. (I have family that drive by it frequently.) Too bad their first factory is now dead as Detroit. Makes you wonder what the investors of Solyndra (and the Hindenburg) must have been thinking. Yep everything seemed to be going splendidly right up to the moment that it all went up in a gigantic fireball. Well Solyndra is now closing it's first factory just after opening their second. The second plant is as quiet as Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory during an OOmpa Loompa Strike. It's founding CEO has "stepped down." Solyndra has announced that expansion at the new plant will be "delayed" by about half of their previous claims.
Luckily the Obama Administration has "Saved-or-Created" about a zillion new-and-used "Green Jobs" for the approximately 140 employees that Solyndra have recently "let go."(Laid off) Yep I am definitely going to give all due consideration to investing in the new "Green" technologies.
Too Big To Fail - Squawk
Too Big To Fail - Squawk
Deregulation Bad - Squawk
Deregulation Bad - Squawk.
Polly want a cracker....
Listen you morons. Do you want to commit the perfect murder, without leaving any trace? Just parrot the "deregulation is bad" nonsense in my presence one more time and I will probably drop over dead of an embolism on the spot. There is no such thing as "Deregulation." Deregulation is a slogan created to portray political enemies as allowing large companies to pour nuclear and toxic waste into rivers and kiddie pools, and greedy corporate fat cats to commit fraud on gargantuan scales, and throw the "little guys" from the parapets of their ivory towers over lunch just for fun.<!--more-->
Lesson #1 from Ben's book of deregulation for idiots is: Huge companies love regulations. The more the better. Regulations always create an expense. Lots and lots of expense. Ginormous Multinational Corporations can absorb these costs easily without so much as a blink, while passing them to their customer's virtually imperceptibly. A regulation that costs every company twenty million dollars can be spread over a huge company's products and only raise the cost of each of their products by a few tenths of a cent. Small companies that must also comply with the same regulation and incur the same expense will necessarily raise their competing products to an exponentially higher degree, giving them a glaring, and potentially insurmountable competitive disadvantage. Regulations are the most effective tool large companies have to hammer their smaller and often better competitors into oblivion. So for all of you progressives "looking out for the underdog," how is putting the little guy out of business "Looking out for him?" If you will stop chanting your idiot mantra's just for a moment you might hear the desperate pleas of "little guy's" everywhere begging "Please stop helping!"
Lesson # 2 from Ben's book of deregulation for dummies. If you are a Progressive, please put down your Chai Latte for a moment, and try to follow along. Insurance companies cannot currently do business across state lines. This applies to the big guys, and the "little guys." In reality, there are no "Little Guy's" in insurance. After all, who wants to be insured by a little guy with little resources, who could be put out of business by the smallest run on their resources. So, far from limiting these companies the regulations have actually created insurance Monopolies in each state. Republicans want to allow [and force] these companies to compete. Competition always lowers consumer prices. [Yes I know this is a no-brainer - be patient, I am trying to explain this to the liberals.] So OK, follow the slowly bouncing ball: "Allowing Competition Is Deregulation." It's maybe not as simple or as catchy as "Deregulation Bad," or "Polly wants a Cracker," but it is a fact, and I am inviting any Progressives reading this to join us in our fact-based universe. Deregulation is what happened to Ma-Bell in the eighties, which is why you don't have one phone company option at $300 per month.
Lesson # 3 from Ben's book of deregulation for Morons: "Deregulation" was not the cause of the bubble or the collapse of the bubble. Absurd feel good regulations created an artificial and unsustainable bubble that could not do anything but eventually collapse. The CRA and other Regulations forced banks to make loans that they knew would fail. They forced Banks to loan in sectors that had proven historically to fail like lemmings heading to a fun day at the beach. The government in return promised to absorb the impact when the inevitable collapse came, thereby passing the loss back to the little guy. This portal to shuttle the risk and the bad debt back to you and me we call Fannie, and Freddie. So the government says go ahead and hand out bad loans like Halloween candy to anyone that rings your doorbell and then just pass these bad loans to bigger banks, who will pass them to the Government insured Behemoths of Fannie and Freddie, who will then just pass them to us, and we will pass them on back to the little people, all the while blaming corporate greed. Oh, and meanwhile we will hopscotch back and forth between our executive jobs at these "Evil" ginormous banks and government jobs created to "oversee and regulate them," raking off millions from these companies that we were "regulating" and excoriating the week before from our government perches.
So now President OBags-a-money and his bevy of former Wall Street Fat Cats now working for him are going to stick it too these greedy bastards. They are going to create new regulations to protect the little guy. Why does that sound to me like Deja Vu all over again? Tell me, how are the previous round of regulations to protect the little guy working out for you so far? So, OK, OK, I know, the the Progressive mission statement must prevail: "If something has been proven to be a bad idea do it on a larger and larger scale until it works." If you will stop squawking your mantras for even a moment and pay attention you might notice that some of the most prolific recipients of Fat Cat contributions are the very guys now creating these new "consumer protections." If you pay attention at all you will see these same politicians pounding the podium with one fist and decrying these evil greedy bastards and promising crushing regulations while these same Fat Cats are shoving wads of cash into the other fist behind their back. Did you notice for instance that all of these regulations completely ignore Fannie and Freddie, who trade executives back and forth with the government at a pace that would make a world Ping-pong champion dizzy?
Lesson #4, from Ben's book of "Orwellian Government-speak for dummies: "Too Big Too Fail," is the tool that those who are in Companies who have found favor with the government [read: contribution/bribe] use to disassemble their competitors with the gleeful abandon of the neighborhood bully knocking over your Dominoes, your lovingly created house of cards or sticking a pin in your balloon with a loud "pop" and a sincere "Oh, sorry." If you stop your parroting of the latest slogan for just a moment you might notice that the largest, most government protected, and the most rife with politician/executive Ping-pong balls entities of Fannie and Freddie are once again specifically excluded from these "consumer protections." If anyone is to0 massive to fail would it not be Fannie and Freddie, who are ate the very top of the heap?
Who else by the way, is "Too Big To Fail?" Well, the term was specifically used to justify the massive and continuing infusions of taxpayer blood into those glorious examples of corporate thrift and innovation: GM and Chrysler. After all without raping the taxpayer to save all of these union jobs we may never again be blessed with such technological marvels as the Pinto, The Gremlin, The Pacer, the Edsel, and the Corvair. And isn't it interesting that these same government money vending machine-politicians that rained down money on Chrysler and GM are now wagging their fingers at Toyota, promising to stomp on the necks of one of their primary competitors with the rapt attention of a cat atop a quivering mouse. Yep, no conflict there.
So, yeah, if we should start dismantling companies that are "Too Big To Fail," that "caused" the meltdown, perhaps we should start with those companies that are currently engaged in a deep french kiss with Washington, that have their hands deep in the pockets of our current savior-politicians. Perhaps we should start by dismantling Fanny and Freddie brick by brick and draining the corporate swimming pool of the ostensible tons of "spare" cash, and putting the public soaking executive/politicians in the driveway with the pile of other obsolete items for the Goodwill trucks to pick up. Next I say we dismantle GM and Chrysler into a bunch of competing little companies, and see how well they do against our foreign competitors who don't think it a winning economic policy to hobble their largest employers.
Or... perhaps we could as a society endeavor to actually exist in a fact based universe and actually learn something about how we are being used once again by the same Populist Preachers promising us the salvation of "Redistribution, Regulation, Rainbows, and lollipops."
So there I am just minding my own business... and then... and then... Well I have long said for many years now, that Chief Joseph and I - "will fight no more forever." I have really been such a good compliant citizen for so any years now. Just as Billy Joel opined in his song; "I once believed in causes too. I had my pointless point of view. I found that just surviving... was a noble fight, da da deh..." So Chief Joseph, Billy, and I were henceforth determined to just "Let it be." And did our dear Federal government hold similar sentiments? Well as it turns out - Not so much.<!--more-->
So... as I say, I am just going through my mail when I see it; "YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW." Now that's scary lookin, thinks I. So as it turns out, it is the census. So I, the diligent civic minded citizen open the envelope to see what "Response" is "Required." Well I remember from my senior year civics class somethin about them countin us to determine how many representatives to "apportion" for our congressional district. I also have watched the recent barrage of commercials jingling on about the government not being able to go on till they received our census response. [Well we could only hope!] So, anyway, thinks I, counting how many people are in the area sure seems reasonable. So I go to answer how many people are at the residence and I then notice something very odd... Well it seems that in addition to how many people are in the residence they want to know what the racial make-up is of the house, along with my marital relationship and that of everyone in the house, where I work, and a whole lot of private information about myself, and anyone who lived here but has recently left. So now I am starting to get bugged.
So now I am thinking that they are really asking a whole lot of information that they just have no right to. "But do they?" I wonder. So I fire up my "Google - Everything you ever wanted to know about anything machine" and soon am in possession of the pertinent statutes. They are 13USC Sections 221, and 223 respectively. I will post them under the documents tab with the pertinent section of the constitution but for simplicity I will truncate or paraphrase them here.
Well as it turns out 13 USC Section 221 does specifically require everyone to answer any and all questions put to them without limitation. It specifies a $100 fine for non-compliance or neglect, and a $500 fine for lying. Section 223 further specifies a $500 fine for refusing to grant access to any agent, etc. of the census bureau to your house for the purpose of gathering whatever information the deem important. So now I am getting reeaaalllly bugged.
So I, knowing a teensy bit about the constitution, know that they can only require information specifically authorized therein. The downside to this of course is if the constitution just vaguely specifies "Information" or some other ridiculous non-specific drivel. But as I recall the authors of the document were rather careful and specific about their wording. So I crank up the old Google again and soon am staring at our precious constitution, and more specifically Article 1, Section 2. This is the section that talks about "enumerating" the people for the purposes of determining numbers of representatives and "apportioning" taxes. So right there in the text it clearly and unambiguously defines the limits of the granted authority and the exact associated requirements of all citizens pertaining to it. So what does it say exactly?
Well it says they can tally up all "free persons," and all "Indians not taxed," and "Three fifth of all other persons." Now as for the tree fifths persons, you'll probably remember from high school civics that this was referring to blacks, who would conveniently only be counted as three fifths of a person. This has of course been changed, and they are now counted amongst the free persons as whole people. And of course the Fourteenth Amendment has made the "Free" persons" designation obsolete as well. So that leaves two things specifically authorized to ask the citizens in regard to "enumerating" them. They are authorized to ask how many persons reside at each residence, and how many are "Indians not taxed." Now after very careful examination I cannot find anything in the original article or any subsequent amendments authorizing them to gather any further information for any purpose whatsoever. Now it could be there, but it isn't in any copy of the constitution I have ever seen.
So this all got me wondering what would happen if I just answered these two questions and nothing more. Sooo... back I go to Google. Well it seems that there are a lot of people disenchanted with the arbitrary ignoring of the constitution and Draconian pronouncements of the heavy boot of governmental displeasure on the necks of any citizens with the impudence to insist on them remaining within their constitutional restraints. So included in this bunch of 'Wackos" refusing to answer arbitrary, private, and unauthorized inquiries is none other than Congresswoman Michelle Bachman. Ms. Bachman has stated unequivocally that she is only answering as to the number of persons residing at her premises, and answering not a word more. So in deference to Keith Olberman I am hereby proclaiming Ms. Bachman this weeks winner of my Bestest person award. Ms. Bachman's spine [and soul] are clearly intact.
So wandering further throughout the web I happen upon the musings of disgruntled, and gruntled former census SS operatives. My favorite amongst these is the one who explains various techniques of garnering information from the neighbors of the non-compliant. Additionally he/she suggests to the new crop of Gestapo goons that as a last resort they could bring the local police to the door to intimidate the impudent residents into compliance. "This always," he/she insists,"does the trick." So now I' getting reeeaallly, reeaally bugged.
So, a short time later I am, statutes and pertinent constitutional section in hand, standing in front of the local police commander. So I am asking him if the portrayed scenario is likely, and if they would be raising the stakes from a civil infraction to some kind of obstruction/refusal to cooperate situation. I am especially concerned with Section 223 that specifies that we must grant access to our house to these thugs or face a fine. Well he assures me that they will never allow any governmental operative to enter our home and would never do so themselves absent some probable cause to believe a crime was taking place or some imminent harm to someone therein. In regard to them bringing along a constable for the intimidation factor the police Commander stated most emphatically that any such request would be met with the unequivocal suggestion that they "Pack Sand."
So, I like the good citizen that I am go home and answer the "Required" parts of the "Census Confession." For question #1 I state that there are two persons residing at the residence. I then scrawl across the rest of the document in bold red Sharpe: "See Attached." I then attach a letter properly addressed to the Census Bureau stating briefly: "I believe you are confused as to the limits of your constitutional authority. I have included them for your review." I then go on to include all of Article 1, section 2 of the constitution. I conclude with: "In compliance with my civic duty and with consideration to your constitutional authority and limitations I will tell you that there are two persons residing at [this address], and they are not "Indians not taxed." And I sign it Sincerely the resident of....
epilogue: Well it is my understanding that in a few months the governmental worker bees will be descending on the neighborhoods, clipboards in hands, to round up the missing information from the "neglectful" and the "disobedient." I have printed up additional copies of the letter to provide them when they come calling. I am eager to ask them to show me from where in the constitution they derive their authority to demand any additional information. I am fascinated to ponder what their response will be.
Those who lack the courage to attempt the impossible may forever deny themeselves the knowledge of just how majestically they can fail... (B. Owen 2011)
Who is braver? The optimist that believes he will eventually win through perseverence, and a little luck, or the man who marches stoically on to certain doom?
Optimism: Pathological ignorance of imminent doom. (B. Owen 2011)
We Can do this!" - The phrase most often used to lead an army of well-meaning idiots to their deaths. (B. Owen 2011)
"There is nothing to fear but fear Itself!" - The phrase most often used to lure a bunch of half-wits that do not consider the factuality (or idiocy) of that statement to their doom.
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." Credited to Admiral David Farragut during the civil war but actually coined by two others before him... who could not take credit because they were blown up.
So Bill O'Reilly was going on about the Superbowl Taco Bell commercial being disrespectful of the elderly. I have enclosed my reponse:
Old idiots deserve no more respect than young idiots. They have just been stupid longer. I reserve my respect for the good and the wise: not for those who have been stupid longer than I have been alive.
So I get this email that has been forwarded about a zillion times; Huge panic. Obama is going to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens. And hey, why are they suddenly no longer "Undocumented Workers?" But I digress. So suddenly everyone is freaked out. Let's all play "sign the petition." yada yada... After all, Obama will certainly give in to public pressure. [tongue firmly in cheek.]
Soooo anyway, It's all a big hoax. There's no petition, No Social Security for illegal's, and according to the left, there aren't even any Illegal Aliens.
Irregardless of this [Yes I know that that is a double negative and not a real word but I like the way it sounds; kind of "extra-regardless.] so [r]egardless of these facts the frantic plea got the old juices flowing, and here was, and is, my response:
First: I realize that this is a hoax. With that said
This is truly unbelievable! Not that he would do this, but that you are surprised by it. Barack Obama is a far left liberal; the most far left that has ever gotten access to the most powerful position in the world. Of course he is going to give all governmental handouts to everyone. He has promised it since he came onto the national scene. He promised it long before. I have been begging everyone I know to do the most cursory research, to just be informed, and I have been blown off as the right wing loon. This is the "social justice" that he has promised ad nauseam. He has promised Amnesty to all of the illegal's, although it will be called "A path out of the shadows" or some other Orwellian title. He will swear it is not amnesty but it will have all of it's disastrous effects.
Social Security is already bankrupt. It is already a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Maddoff blush. The federal courts, and even the Supreme Court have stated exactly that. Social Security is on track to implode by 2017 unless massive tax infusions are added (that's right, substantial new payroll taxes taken from your checks) George Bush tried to address this, albeit weakly, and the left wing stuck their fingers in their ears and called him a moron for it.
The Supreme Court has already ruled several times that any benefit given to one person must be available to all "persons," regardless of their citizenship status. This is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and cannot be abrogated by any law. That is why illegal's cannot be turned away from emergency rooms. That is why illegal's currently get L&I ( Workers Comp.) and other state and federal benefits. That is already the law of the land. That is why all of the current twenty million or so illegal's and any of their kin who can swim, wade, walk, crawl, etc here will have access to the new healthcare regardless of what Obama or anyone promises. It already is the law of the land, and cannot be changed.
The supreme court decided decades ago that the government can give Social Security to anyone it wished regardless if they ever paid into it. They further stated that it is simply a tax, and does not obligate the government to pay any money out to anyone ever, as long as they provide benefits equally to all. In other words they can kill Social Security at any time and not owe one cent to anyone. Social Security will be unsustainable within the next decade. That is no ones opinion. It is simply an accounting fact.</p>
Medicare and it's bastard child, Medicaid are actually much worse, at something like $50 trillion dollars in the red, currently. As more and more doctors cease to take these patients due to ridiculously declining reimbursements the signs are becoming impossible not to see. These too will inevitably implode under their own weight. Continuing to pretend otherwise will not protect us from it.
This is the path we are on. We are racing down it while the liberals and progressives remain blissfully ignorant, holding hands, singing Kumbaya as they drag us all over the cliff with them.</p>
This is the Hope and change your hero promised. He promised repeatedly to "fundamentally change America." he promised ad nauseam to drag America kicking and screaming to a world of Left Wing Nirvana of "Social Justice." This is who Obama is. This is who he promised to be. You were warned. This is just the tip of a massive iceberg of disastrous things he is doing right now and promises to do in the near future. This is what I have been ranting about for a very long time, that people have not wanted to listen to. This is the natural course of a left wing world view. Obama is just the latest and best of socialist / fascist demagogues preaching clever rhetorical platitudes to an ignorant populace who have no desire for any distressing and inconvenient facts.
Once again the "progressives" have fallen for the same old "We"ll only tax the evil rich" nonsense. Once again they are learning that in trying to save the world with other peoples money they have only picked their own pockets and all of their neighbors. Thus has it always been. Thus must it always be.
No stupid petition is going to stop the deluge. It is simply the proverbial finger in the dike. If you put 12 progressives in a boat you can guarantee that 3 will be busy patching holes, three will be drilling new holes, three will be bailing out the water, and three will be congratulating everyone on the full employment they have created for everyone in the boat. The hard thing for me is the whining of the left as they realize that actual consequences and outcomes are more important than good intentions.
Your friendly neighborhood Right Wing Whacko.
So there's Eric Holder at the obligatory news conference telling us all about the car-bomb in Times Square. You've really gotta appreciate his ability to talk on and on without taking a position on anything. I am in constant awe of the seeming pinnacle of the evolution of the Yellow-bellied Ass-Covering Bureaucrat. [Beuaracratus-Slickious] So Eric is going on about not being too hasty and jumping to any conclusions about the possibility of this being a terrorist event. Huh?<!--more--> What in the hell would a car-bomb left in probably the busiest public square on the planet be other than a terrorist plot? Does he think that someone accidentally misplaced their bomb? Does he think that some senile grandma is wondering to herself "Now where did I leave that car full of explosives? I am just so addled these days!" Perhaps Eric should have gone on national TV and just asked: "Hey, did any of y'all out there lose a Bomb?" We'd really like to get it back to the rightful owner. Oh, and you are also illegally parked."
So just two short days later Mr. Holder; the ostensibly indispensable and smartest guy in the Justice Department has decided that an abandoned smoking car bomb in Times Square is an actual Terrorist Activity. Thank you Captain Obvious! Well with guys like this in charge of protecting us; as well as Treasury Secretaries who don't see the relevance of their tax dodging to their job, or Homeland Security chiefs saying that terrorists getting bombs onto our planes is evidence that "the system is working," I sure feel safe; How 'bout you? Yeah, Kudos Eric on your firm grasp of what everyone else on the planet figured out days ago. Way to sniff out the clues McGruff!
So the first black person I really knew was Tony.
He was a total cliche. He was quite a bit taller than any of our classmates,
and taller still with his large Afro. He was untouchable at basketball, and
most sports for that matter. I didn't think much about his race, except
that he was a rarity as the only black person in our school. We didn't call
them African American's yet. I think we were just switching over from
"Colored," to "Black" We still heard a few
"nigger" jokes, but these were already mostly out of vogue and
mostly spoken only in hushed tones. I was unaware of any great racial divide
and I don't know if Tony had any special animus against whites.
Over the years I met many more blacks as they
slowly filtered into our region, and as I moved around to other regions. I
never experienced much racial tension. Though the news told us continually that
racial tensions were high all around us. I never noticed that much
difference in them in regard to the old stereotypes and prejudices. They
did not seem any less intelligent or honest or anything "less than"
the whites around me. Over the years I began however to notice a quite inescapable
trend. The blacks seemed to have an increasing self imposed
segregation from the whites. It's not that they resided apart; there were
actually no ghetto’s, slums, or racially segregated zones where I lived. It's
just that they just seemed to associate mostly just among themselves, at
school, and around town. They seemed more and more to glance at us from
"over there" in their huddled cliques. When they glanced outwardly
toward "us" they seemed increasingly angry and accusing. In time the
animosity became more direct and outspoken. We began to be informed that
"we" were racists, and that we were "keeping them down." As
Stevie and Paul harmonized their ode to piano's and race relations, crooning
how well their black and white piano keys got along, while lamenting "Why
can't we," I continually wondered “ I thought we already were. [?]”
So let’s get something out of the way up front.
The word: “Nigger.” I will not use the politically correct euphemism of “The N
Word.” I refuse. I will never call or associate any person with the word, but
if we are constrained to cripple our speech so much as to not use a word simply
because it is rhetorically charged or because someone might decide that they
should be personally offended just by the utterance of the word then we might
as well not even bothering to speak at all.- [Yes, I am aware that that is a rampant run-on sentence].
So, to the meat of my rant – [finally].
1.If you are alive today [as evidenced by the fact that
you are reading this] you know nothing more than I do about slavery than I that
you didn’t read in a book, regardless of the color of your skin.
2.If you are in
your mid 40’s or younger you never experienced any of the Jim Crow laws
directly. You never drank from a different fountain, used another restroom,
rode in the “back of the bus,” or any other “separate but equal” or even
separate but unequal treatment. Regardless of what your parents may have told
you of their personal experiences there is far more information available to
anyone of any race in the thousands of books, videos, and photographs on the
3.If you are black man in America the only one more
protected and favored by law than you is a black woman or perhaps a black gay
4.You are not an African-American unless you hold dual
citizenship to both of those countries.
5.If you are a “black” American you are probably nowhere
near black, and most likely a pleasant shade of brown. Your hair may credibly
be called black. This ink is black. You are most likely not.
6.I am not white. The inside of your refrigerator is
white. This page is white. I am somewhat lighter shade of brown than most
7.Being Black in America does not mean you are
automatically a descendant of slaves.
8.Many Blacks in America today, or their ancestors came
here willingly from Africa.
9.Being a White American does not mean I am a descendant
of slave owners.
first leg of the slave trade was Africans selling Africans. Your ancestors
could have been slave traders as well as slaves, or perhaps even both.
ancestors could have been with the Underground Railroad or myriad other
abolitionist groups risking their lives and all that they had to free slaves.
upon thousands of White Americans died in the civil war freeing the slaves.
that look “Black” and self-designate as black are actually quite often Black
& White, often with several other races mixed in.
you are the descendant of Slaves in America you have probably been done a huge
favor. When your eyes stop bleeding and you stop screaming at your monitor take
a breath and think this through dispassionately and logically. Yes your
ancestors were definitely screwed. I am certain that it was as inhuman and
horrifying for them as has ever been described to us, but; Africa is a
hellhole. Millions upon millions have died there in the past several hundred
years from epidemics, plagues, war, ethnic machete massacres, and any other
groovy way to die that you can imagine. Slavery is still rampant there. Ethnic
massacres are rampant. Aids has wiped out vast numbers of the population and
ravaged the continent. There seems to be only two
classes: The corrupt and the destitute, the strong and their prey. The odds are
enormous that had your ancestors not been dragged here, and brutalized that you
would be there in Africa today experiencing horrors that can hardly be
imagined, or that your lineage would have been destroyed long before you
I want to start by being absolutely clear that Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta is an extraordinary hero. In the same circumstance that he found himself in that prompted his being granted the Medal Of Honor I may very well have simply huddled in a corner blubbering and wetting my pants.
With that said I wish to examine the dynamics of what creates this and our other decorated heroes. Staff Sgt. Giunta has gone to great lengths to downplay his actions with the old “Aw shucks, I was just doing my job ma’am” mantra. I expect that the humility is real, and that he really feels that way. Now again, I do not wish to downplay Staff Sgt Giunta’s extraordinary heroism at all, but rather to emphasize all of the heroes that we will never know of. We will never know of them or recognize their equal heroism to Staff Sgt Giunta’s because the bullet was two feet to the left or right, or because they were first in line instead of third.
many burning or otherwise desecrating the American flag is hugely offensive,
even an abomination worthy of substantial criminal penalties. I believe the
opposite: that desecration of the American flag without civil or criminal
penalties is the highest homage that can be paid to that majestic flag. While I
too find the act in what it represents incredibly offensive to the good and the
freedoms it represents and the sacrifices of so many to defend those freedoms
on the one hand, the freedom to do so also demonstrates those principles even
virtually everyone is outraged about the Donald Sterling Situation: everyone
but me that is. I am absolutely thrilled… tickled. Let me explain.
Donald Sterling is a closet racist and majestic hypocrite, enriching himself
off of a mostly black team and having a half-black girlfriend while secretly
despising the race. And had the girlfriend not set him up we would not have any
idea of the depth of his bigotry. So a secret bigot has been outed, and he
cannot act in bigoted ways secretly anymore. So that is a good thing. But the
great thing that has me delirious with “I-told-you-so-esque” glee is the
absolutely united outrage at the bigotry.
Well its 2:26 AM and as I flail about tossing and turning
angrily I have come to the realization
that there will be no more sleep tonight until I put these burning thoughts to
paper: which probably means I will again watch the sun rise…
I just watched the Movie American History X, (again) with
Edward Norton and though I am not generally inclined to midnight movie reviews
this movie and its theme are important and common enough to rate some ink, some
insomnia, and a few antacids.
are not dangerous: they are just a misunderstood breed."
have rarely heard a more absurd statement then that. Pitbulls are dogs: they
are animals. All animals and all dogs bite for many reasons. They bite because
they are afraid, or hurt, or annoyed, or defending their space or property. Just as a
toddler will smack her/his brother or sister defending their current possession
of a favored toy, dogs will defend against perceived threat of taking of their
bone. Dogs do not have opposable thumbs to hang onto their stuff, and they have
no hands or fists to punch or slap a perceived aggressor or thief. Their natural instinct
when being hurt is to defend themselves by biting back. Statistics show that there
are approximately 4 million dog bites every year in America with about 1
million of those (1/4) requiring a doctor or emergency room visit. That is a
whole lot of dog bites, and it would be ridiculous to think that Pitbulls would
not be among that number.
A certain unnamed ObamaCare sycophant told me recently that ObamaCare would cause the
very rich to pay more into the insurance pool, therefore helping the poor who
cannot afford the extravagant care afforded the very rich. My question is in
regard to how that works mathematically?
So I just listened to Obama's budget Spiel.
I had two thoughts on it. The first was "My ears are bleeding!" The
second was "Damn he's good." The fascinating question I always ponder
when listening to his speeches and watching him is "Does he really believe
the words that are coming out of his mouth?" I mean really, does he
actually believe what he's saying or is he so committed ideologically or
politically to his position that facts really just don't matter? As the late
great Tony Snow would oft muse: "He's living in a fact free universe!"
It really is amazing; He will state his position or intentions repeatedly on
camera, and then he will unequivocally reverse his position, again on camera.
When Fox News puts the two videotapes side by side to highlight
the competing Obama's he simply goes on TV again and does his amazing
Jedi mind trick. He stares directly in the camera without flinching and say's
most emphatically In that Obi Wan Kenobi voice: "I did not say what you
just heard me say. So I sit in front of the screen, probably like millions of
others across the land staring blankly at the screen. The words come dully from
my lips: "You did not say what I just heard you say." I get up
and shuffle blankly to the fridge to pour myself a glass of milk while
muttering the words Hope... Change... I sit here pondering the half empty
glass of milk, my breathing becoming tight an wheezy as I remember that I am
allergic to milk. There's something I was supposed to remember. Something
important, but I can't remember what it was. All is well... hope...change...
I remember quite vividly the passionate apologetics of a younger me arguing against many a viewpoint that I believe so strongly in today. I remember the talking points, the slogans, the chants, that I felt so sure of to my very core. I remember being so perturbed at those so like the me of today that seemed so obstinate and obtuse. I wonder what that younger me would do upon encountering the equally passionate me of today. Would he try to persuade him of his ignorance and closed-mindedness, or would he simply flip him off and walk away in utter certainty of the superiority of his knowledge and wisdom. I am certain that that younger me would think it. Indeed, if those two were to meet today I expect each would find little compelling about the other, and even less to agree upon.
So here begins my series I will call Constitution for
Dummies – Part 1.This issue has been
percolating for years really, but Bloomberg and his anti-constitution buddies
really have my undies in a wad.It
really is maddening to watch politicians raise their hand and swear to defend
and uphold the constitution and then in the next breath as soon as their hand
drops to diligently attack and erode those parts that their left-wing
sensibilities despise.It is just as
maddening to see these
idiots out there who support such duplicity as long as
these duplicitous traitors only go after the parts of the constitution they
also disagree with.They are really just
like the guy who buys hot goodies from the local thief, but then are outraged
when their home is burglarized.So let’s
talk about those enemies – foreign and domestic, especially those domestic, who
I also raised my hand and swore to defend the constitution from. And unlike
Mayor Bloomberg and his ilk, I meant what I said.
Person A and Person B
get drunk and have sex. Both are quite drunk. There is a claim made that A was “Too
drunk to form proper consent” thus was raped by B. B also claims to have been “Too drunk to form proper consent” and
was thus raped by A. Who, if any was raped?
So what does “Too Drunk to Form Proper Consent” mean?
Well I will cut and paste the exact words from a complaint about legislators’
attempts to actually define the word: “…under
the influence of alcohol.” Yep, if she had anything to drink, he is a rapist. How cool is that?So, yeah, you know me… can’t leave well
enough alone – I have a couple of teensy weensy questions.
Unless one has lived their entire life in a cave there is
very little chance they have not heard that pithy phrase. And of course most
know that it is attributed to Sgt. Joe Friday, played by Jack Webb on the 1960’s
police drama, “Dragnet.” I still have that clip of Sgt. Friday, and his equally
dispassionate partner, Bill Gannon, played by Harry Morgan of later MASH fame
as Colonel Henry Potter locked in my head from seeing it so many times all
those decades ago. And as I went researching that for this blog post I found it
fortuitously even more germane than I imagined to the current subject, As Sgt. Joe
Friday never said that. And isn’t that ironic, that I and probably many many
more can both see and hear that video clip of Sgt. Friday dispassionately
saying “Just the Facts Ma’am” in our heads when The facts are that he never
said it: Nor did Harry Morgan. (You can find what Sgt. Friday actually said at:
So several have asked when I intend to blog about the Zimmerman - Martin issue(s). Rest assured I have blathered and ranted on about it ad infinitum and ad nauseam but the case, the trial and the issues have been far too multi-faceted and dynamic to put to ink before some other fascinating and/or maddening aspect came to light. I have however blasted off several email and twitter screeds to those particular commentators or "experts" who really got my goat. So here is a freshly minted response to Dr. Marc Lamont Hill. Dr. Hill is an extremely talented, erudite, and eloquent spokesman for the perpetual and eloquent intractably wrong. This is in response to Dr. Hills exceptional article "Travon Martin Was Put on Trial," found on the blog website: Black Enterprise.com (http://www.blackenterprise.com/blogs/zimmerman-not-guilty-verdict-marc-lamont-hill/)
So this is an exchange with an aquaintance and myself that really got my goat. I had wtitten about an article discussing how a growing number of police agencies are carrying devices that can extract all of your private information from your cellphone during a routine traffic stop, including all texts, emails, geotags, photos, videos, etc., virtually anything on your phone including deleted items. Though such legislations and capabilities have been challenged profusely in court, several courts have deemed these warrantless search and seizures of ones property completely constitutional and legal. To my objections of such my acquaintance submitted the following: (My response follows)
So now Obama is claiming to be a Skeet shooter and that he shoots all the time at Camp David. (Yeah right.) Well there are no pictures, strangely since there are pictures of Obama doing everything but brushing his teeth, but here's the transcript of the audio from one of his skeet shooting outings:
What Just Happened? - Examining the 2012 Election Results
Just when you thought we could all let out one collective
sigh of relief that it is finally over the realization now is setting in that
it really isn’t. Now, for the next few months comes the barrage of
gloating, recriminations, and an endless stream of opinions as to what went
wrong or right, and what it means for the country. In that spirit I thought I
should try to get in my two cents before y’all turn off the TVs and radios, and cancel
your newspaper subscriptions altogether…
I noticed a timely announcement in the news this morning,
right next to the reports of the plunging stock market. Evidently Anheuser Busch is
planning to release a stronger Budweiser beer. Could there be a timelier
announcement, as half the country wants to celebrate and the other half to just
get really drunk…?
There's really nothing like Progressive talk radio to get the old juices flowing. So I am listening to some obscure left wing talkee named Ed Schultz on my local Progressive talk radio station. I hear some leftee going on about how he wants to throw a brick through the TV every time he watches Fox News. I have a similar response when listening to Left Wing radio, but what I have a desperate urge to do is ask them questions. Also, unlike the leftee's I see nothing to be gained by destroying my own property. But then, I bought it myself, rather that relying on other people’s money to procure it for me.
So Ed is listening to a "99er," which is a person who has been unemployed for 99 weeks. She is going on anecdotally about being out of work for an extensive period, and how she is about to get kicked out on the street with her three children. She raves on about not being able to get so much as an interview after her phone service technician job got outsourced to India. Ed finds the woman compelling and promises to get her on his show. Someone please get me some tissue. I am sobbing all over my keyboard... Please.
Where the buck stops is a very interesting and unavoidable question, and I
would do a disservice to the very idea of where the buck stops were I to just respond with a
thoughtless sound-bite in response to a question of such import. Indeed were
one to just blurt out some clever slogan for political gain to deflect from the
momentous import of such inquiry, the injustice done to the deeper truths of
the actions taken, and to the intent of so many who have given so much to this
country in their years of service; American heroes all, would be in
contradiction to the very ideals we all hold so dear as the bedrock of our
Well now that I have your full attention... I didn't actually blackmail either Petraeus or his mistress, Paula Broadwell or anyone who may have been covering for him, but you'll just never know for sure...
You see that is the point. The military, and US governmental agencies issuing security clearances take adultery very seriously because it provides a very great danger to blackmail, and the most common way that foreign spies compromise holders of security clearances with access to Secret and Top-secret information. This truly is the oldest trick in the book. Once a person with access to secret information is compromised through elicit affairs or other acts they would wish to keep secret they are vulnerable to blackmail to pass on secrets, ignore or destroy pertinent intelligence, or to act in other ways detrimental to the security of the people they are entrusted to protect. For this simple reason adultery, and other compromising activities are actually criminal offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and also in civilian statutes regarding US Security personnel. The issue is not so much when such are discovered but the time that they are compromised before discovery.
It was very cute, when Sargent Shultz would happen upon the latest schemes of Hogan's merry band of willing prisoner's of war and saboteurs extraordinaire. Of course that was television, and Colonel Hogan and his crew were the good guys. When it is the real world and our own national security at risk such cynical "Insulation-by-Obliviousness" of the current administration is not nearly as endearing: not really acceptable at all, except evidently, by the administration: and their sycophantic press. So as the various scandals are unfolding in increasing numbers and rapidity Jay Carney, Barack Obama, Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, and Eric Holder evidently find the constant refrain of "we didn't know: we weren't told" to be an entirely acceptable answer to challenges and questions of the people.
So anyone that knows me knows I am no fan of Barack Obama.
Given any political viewpoint and virtually any speech and statement he has
made I can be counted on pretty much to disagree upon virtually every word
including “and,” and “the.” No, Barack Obama and I just see the world
differently: probably always have, and most likely always will. So it will
surely come as no surprise that I disagree wholeheartedly with his latest
blather on who is responsible for the success of business’s and people in
America. So our disagreement is axiomatic on this issue but to say that I
vehemently disagree on this latest stupidity would be a profound
understatement. The very fact that such absurdity would even require a rebuttal
is disheartening enough. The fact that there are people who would bob their
empty heads in vacuous sycophantic union is maddening.
So I left the "compound" for a little while this afternoon in the pickup: went down to the big city. On the way I thought I'd treat myself to a Little "Progressive Talk radio." As soon as I returned I jogged up the stairs to the computer to do a little ranting before my head exploded. So okay, I am going to keep this as concise as possible. I have a question, and it is sincere. I have asked it many times over the past few years and received no answer at all. Please if you are a liberal, progressive or any other kind of collectivist explain to me this one core question that divides us:
the mantra goes: “Why does a CEO make 700 times what his average worker makes?”
The ostensible killer punch line then goes: “Does he work 700 times as hard?
This reasoning, far from a profound expose on the unfairness of the capitalist
system really just shows abysmal lack of understanding of the relationship of
value to compensation. Now when Worker Joe hears this is he is generally quite
indignant. He believes that value is weighed as human worth. In business, and economics it is not. He
rightly believes that connecting “part A” to “Widget B” on an assembly line is
as important to a company as “The Suits” doing zillion dollar deals at
corporate luncheons. They are equally important, but they do not both bring
equal value to the company.
So Obama it seems has made it his mission to leave a legacy of “freedom” throughout the Middle East. So he is advocating, nudging, or shoving all of the dictators from their perches, supporting anyone purporting a “freedom” ideology, banner, or bumper-sticker. So throughout the Middle East dictators are being toppled like dominoes as we provide money, and clandestine troops and assistance and randomly lob missiles hither and thither. And it all seems to be going splendidly as “freedom-luvin” groups throughout Middle Eastern countries are suddenly inspired to get theirs.
That's "Part Two" for those of you who missed the hysterical Charlie Sheen Rambo - Part Two spoof.
So I have an update to the merry-go round post. It is another fascinating angle to the whole Health-care issue. I was watching O'Reilly and Beck doing a segment on this very topic and Beck raised a very good point. If we have to fund your Health-care we should be able to have a say in how you live your life so as to not squander our money. So I think we, or our government agents should be able to control what you eat, whether you smoke, and enforce that you get a proper amount of exercise, etc. Further, I think we should be able to control any dangerous activities that you might participate in that could put you at risk, and therefore raise the costs to all. Skiing and snowboarding would definitely be out. Likewise rock-climbing and skydiving. Oh, and those skyrocketing STD costs? Well we'll need to track and control your sexual liaisons to keep health-care costs in check.
Anti-death-penalty apologists will often tout Norway’s
abolishment of the death penalty in comparison to the United States’ “barbaric”
death penalty adherence. Apparently to these, killing a person for murdering
another is uncivilized.Well today’s ruling
out of Norway could not be a more fitting demonstration of what a “civilized”
country is, or is not.
I try to keep things simple here in Bens-blog land. I try to keep to the core of the conservative-progressive divide as much as possible and not chase after every news story du jour. To that end I'd like to address the ostensible heart of progressiveism; the idea of saving the world by helping the "little guy."
Now I think helping the little guy is a great thing. It is at the core of the social requirements of most religions and world views. Virtually every society holds up those that forego their own safety, welfare, or economic well being to help or protect the downtrodden as heroes; as well they should. If you are a charitable person, either with your vast wealth or even with a pittance that is all that you can realistically afford, you are a hero. If you have no money to give, but instead give of your time you likewise are a hero. There can be no argument that in this respect you are a person whose morals and soul are intact. You are truly a person worthy of admiration.
Not Even God Himself Can Sink The Titanic! I can't help but wonder how many times later in his life the man that coined that phrase thought about that boast and cringed. We have learned many things from that supposedly impossible disaster and ships have become much harder to sink. The only thing that doesn't seem to be much improved in the time since is that one unknown quantity - Man. Somehow we still manage to pile shipwrecks up on the rocks, or into the nearest bridge or just manage to inexplicably send them to the bottom with a resounding "Oops." And somehow we still manage to be astonished when the inevitable happens.
Don't y'all miss the good old days - before the government and the country was overtaken by a bunch of niggers, kikes, dykes, Mics, Spics, Wops, faggots, zipperheads, 'Ricans, Mexicans, women, liberals, progressives, and commies? (Did I miss anyone?). Well, at least if we can't keep em out of the country and out of the government, we can at least take some comfort that they will all eventually spend eternity burning in hell...
Every time I hear that I cringe. Every time I hear that statement I want to ask one question: Why? I want to ask that person if they have a basis for that statement or if they are just a mindless parrot squawking a line that they think makes them seem more cosmopolitan and enlightened. Really, is diversity for the sake of diversity a good thing? Is every culture worthy of our respect?
So I am at this dinner party at a relatives house. She had a very Liberal / Progressive friend over as well as family. This friend of hers and I had had several passionate discussions of various political issues at past gatherings. He was as passionate and assured of the correctness of his world view as was I. It was evident in everything about him that he was very bugged not only by my world view, but evidently by my ignorance, and general lack of intelligence. It had been clear for some time that he was just itching to set me straight on all of my misguided views. So I'm trying to avoid those hot potato subjects that might lead to a heated debate. "Better to keep this a peaceful family gathering," I'm thinking. So this lawyer is going on about all of his stuff that he owns including his new Beemer, and basically just being a pompous ass. So I, trying to avoid ideological landmines think "OK let's just fawn over his beemer if that's what will make him happy." "Can't go wrong there," thinks I.
I still recall hearing the news of
Steve Irwin’s death. You remember Steve Erwin - He was the Australian wildlife
guy famous for putting his head between the jaws of crocodiles, petting highly
venomous snakes or whatever other thing he could do to taunt death, and deadly animals for ratings.
So when I came upon the news story of Irwin’s death I was struck by an
incredible lack of surprise. I tried to Google the antonym of surprise but
could not find a word that could adequately convey my utter lack of
astonishment that Steve Irwin was killed by an annoyed stingray sticking a huge
venomous barb through his heart, which is stingray for “I’d really like for you
to leave me alone now!”
It is truly frightening, the thought that my freedom to be a bigot is being eroded.
"Your right to what?" you ask.
You heard me right: I am lamenting the slow death of my right to bigotry.
I did not, and do not mean that I wish to be a bigot, but rather that if I want to think and express stupid ideas, I want and believe that our constitution and our great experiment of personal freedom once protected my right to do so.
Theistic Evolution is a great alternative for those too cowardly to take a side. There' is only one problem with it. It is a self-refuting term. It is an oxymoron. This Pseudo-religious blather has gained some popularity of late for those who fancy themselves more "open-minded" and "Enlightened" but in reality are simply ignorant of the core religious teaching of the Christian scripture that wish to have one foot in each camp for their peace of mind. Those that profess this view show an amazing misunderstanding of the most basic of biblical principals and do not misunderstand or disagree with only various interpretations of part of the origin of man story of the bible but rather, refute the entirety of the whole story of the relationship of God and man. This is not another apologetic of the superiority of either the Evolutionary or Creationist world view but rather a clarification of the incompatibility of the two.
In wake of the justice department’s
civil rights division blocking Texas’s new law requiring voters to present
photo identification at the polls, Texas has now passed another law requiring
proof that voters at the polls are actually alive. Stating that voting is a
sacred right of living citizens, Texas once again has attempted to do its duty
of protecting the integrity of that right.
The new law would require poll
workers to examine those arriving at the polls who appeared to be dead to
assess signs of life. Such persons would be asked to breath onto a mirror to
determine if they were actually breathing.
So as I was sitting here pondering what really has my goat I am drawing a blank generally. After spending a great weekend with by beautiful, sweet wife I am having a difficult time getting really bugged about anything. So browsing through FoxNews.com I see "The entire Jon Stewart Interview" So I watch that, and... Yeah, that did it...
pro-abortion crowd is all a-tizzy over the crazy idea that rape should actually
have a specific meaning.It seems that
the term “Rape” has thus far existed in a morass of wonderful ambiguity.Until now those beacons of feminine equality
have enjoyed unfettered discretion in regard to what they wanted the word to
mean on any given day.You see the word
rape at one time in antiquity meant a man forcing himself upon a woman or girl.Well that you see, was really just too
restrictive.It was really just too
un-ambiguous. So, over time the word has conveniently and wonderfully become
quite pliable and useful for most any agenda.
I have a proposal. To all of you “Save the
earth-ers;” To all of you global warming, Tree hugging, Spotted Owl and Caribou
saving, windmill lovin enviro-nuts. I have a very simple proposal: Put up or
Shut up. Just that – show me a VIABLE magic fairy dust alternative to our
abundant and inexpensive natural resources of oil and natural gas. You have
treated us for decades now to your constant and incessant nonsensical blather
about everything not-oil, and yet what have you produced that can VIABLY
replace it? You have squeezed out bajillions of state and federal dollars
for your myriad schemes and virtually all of them have proved to be
majestically expensive failures. Many of these happy thoughts powered
“alternative energy schemes have ultimately proved more environmentally
devastating than the evil oil that they were supposed to be saving us