Honestly, I go nuts when I'm not working. I'm so deep in debt, the minute I finish, or at least get up from one project, I actively look for something else to do that may be a moneymaker. Or invent something that might be a moneymaker. No big bestseller thing, just something that sells all the time.
So I worked Thanksgiving and I'll probably work on Christmas. I'm also working on Sunday, which I usually get off. And writing a little informational book in the meanwhile. And waiting to get the proof of another little book I've just finished. Then I've got a couple more little books planned after that. Non-fiction. Not even political.
I'd love to have New Year's Eve off, but only if some channel is running all those old Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers movies. Especially love when they do "The Continental," and "Dancing Cheek to Cheek."
Had the opportunity to listen to a Johnny Carson show through headphones a little while ago. That band was really fantastic, it really was, though at the time, I didn't have any sound equipment that could capture how good it was. Now I can't stop thinking about Johnny Carson. I really miss him.
To get to my house, you have to drive through a cornfield a little ways. So I'm driving through this cornfield, and the old song, "Love Is Blue," came on the radio. I was still in high school when that came out. Maybe. About that time.
Anyway, I burst into tears.
Tonight very late on a movie channel, I caught the last 10 minutes of a promo film made about the making of "2010," the sequel to "2001." The sequel came out in the mid-1980s. This little movie-about-the-movie had interviews with Roy Scheider -- famous for "Jaws," but my favorite of his is "All That Jazz." They interviewed John Lithgow, when he was just a slip of a lad. And Helen Mirren -- she was so beautiful.
And was struck with this terrible sorrow -- when they made that movie, they thought America would still be here in 2010.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
"Obey" as in "Dopey"
A congressman named David R. Obey (D-Wisconsin), the name pronounced like "Dopey", has made an interesting proposal. He wants a "war tax" because, he said, national security interests are getting in the way of pushing socialized medicine and probably another half-dozen other socialist measures he supports.
He should be named "Jackass."
Let's take a vote:
How many in favor of preventing another 9/11 attack?
How many want socialized medicine?
The bill Rep. Jackass is promoting calls for raising $900 billion to pay for the War in Afghanistan, which Jackass and his cohorts estimate to cost $1 million per year per soldier. Any documentation to back that up?
The national defense budget is about 12% - 14% of the entire US budget. By contrast, Medicare, Medicaid and all the other socialist crap consumes right now about 70% of the US budget, and socialized medicine will only expand that.
But, hey, look at it this way: We're gonna need plenty of health care when al-Qaeda and those of their kind are allowed to do whatever they damn please in terms of hijacking planes, blowing up buildings, planting car bombs, poisoning subway systems and commuter trains, shooting up military posts, and whatever else they may be planning. There would be plenty of jobs in the health care industry for any survivors.
Rep. Jackass is apparently dumber than a box of rocks. If there's no damn nation, Rep. Jackass, there's no need to provide socialized medicine for it, is there? Ever consider that? Or is your head so far up your....
Under which moss-covered rocks is the Democrat party finding these idiots? Really, it boggles the mind.
I always used to like northern Wisconsin. Now I'd think twice about going there. You never know what kind of lamebrains might be on the highway.
And you know what? If Obey is so fearless about the terrorist threat to the USA, why not transport all those guys at Guantanamo to northern Wisconsin, Rep. Jackass's district, and put them up in public housing? No need for maximum security or any special security at all, right? They represent no threat or danger to the USA or private citizens, right? Let's ignore history and just let them roam free, take advantage of Rep. Jackass's socialized medicine scheme and all the other entitlements Rep. Jackass wants to force upon the nation.
These people just get dumber and dumber. It's absolutely stunning. Makes you wonder how the USA has survived this long, doesn't it?
He should be named "Jackass."
Let's take a vote:
How many in favor of preventing another 9/11 attack?
How many want socialized medicine?
The bill Rep. Jackass is promoting calls for raising $900 billion to pay for the War in Afghanistan, which Jackass and his cohorts estimate to cost $1 million per year per soldier. Any documentation to back that up?
The national defense budget is about 12% - 14% of the entire US budget. By contrast, Medicare, Medicaid and all the other socialist crap consumes right now about 70% of the US budget, and socialized medicine will only expand that.
But, hey, look at it this way: We're gonna need plenty of health care when al-Qaeda and those of their kind are allowed to do whatever they damn please in terms of hijacking planes, blowing up buildings, planting car bombs, poisoning subway systems and commuter trains, shooting up military posts, and whatever else they may be planning. There would be plenty of jobs in the health care industry for any survivors.
Rep. Jackass is apparently dumber than a box of rocks. If there's no damn nation, Rep. Jackass, there's no need to provide socialized medicine for it, is there? Ever consider that? Or is your head so far up your....
Under which moss-covered rocks is the Democrat party finding these idiots? Really, it boggles the mind.
I always used to like northern Wisconsin. Now I'd think twice about going there. You never know what kind of lamebrains might be on the highway.
And you know what? If Obey is so fearless about the terrorist threat to the USA, why not transport all those guys at Guantanamo to northern Wisconsin, Rep. Jackass's district, and put them up in public housing? No need for maximum security or any special security at all, right? They represent no threat or danger to the USA or private citizens, right? Let's ignore history and just let them roam free, take advantage of Rep. Jackass's socialized medicine scheme and all the other entitlements Rep. Jackass wants to force upon the nation.
These people just get dumber and dumber. It's absolutely stunning. Makes you wonder how the USA has survived this long, doesn't it?
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Clilmate change travesty
Apparently a big batch of emails that passed between various bigwigs in the Climate Change movement have been released. Many of the scientists and researchers sending-receiving the emails, if not most of them, are involved in the IPCC, the global organization that has set itself up as the final authority on this b.s. The emails seem to indicate that these so-called scientists have been scrambling of late to sustain their silly claims that "The Sky Is Falling!" in the face of geologic realities.
They seem to discuss the importance of all staying on the same page about climate change, and the emails suggest that there has been some dummying up of the numbers behind their dire claims of melting polar ice caps, rising ocean levels, etc. etc. etc. It seems that some of them also tried to manipulate the peer-review process, whereby one researcher's work is read and criticized by other researchers. Well, if all your peers know each other, and all agree to perpetrate the hoax of Global Warming and other nonsense, then you pretty much end up with some bizarre kind of conspiracy among scientists to deliberately mislead the public.
Gee, I wonder why someone would do something like that.
One scientist wrote that trying to defend Global Warming when the earth is actually cooling has been a "travesty."
Yeah. The whole damn thing has always been a travesty. I mean, Global Warming. Since the globe isn't warming, they rename it Climate Change. Like Pazzo Pelosi suggesting congress rename the socialized medicine government option "One Hot Taco" or something like that so more people would like it. But in both cases, the issues have more than just marketing problems.
And hey, ya know, change happens hour-to-hour in terms of the weather. At least it does in the Chicago area. And as far as climate goes, it seems these "scientists" were taking a rather short-range view of the subject instead of standing back and looking at the whole picture long-term.
Oh, they've been extemely busy projecting long-term futuristic scenarios of the earth turning into a popsicle and/or self-incinerating, they just never looked at data from far enough back to recognize that the earth is constantly changing, always has been, always will. Doesn't mean it's going to freeze or burn up. Doesn't mean that it won't, though, either. But I doubt there's much the human race can do about it.
What it does mean is that these so-called climate scientists will probably go the way of phrenologists and alchemists. And the quicker the better for my money.
Of course, that doesn't mean congress won't try to pass the crap-and-tax energy bill. No, see, congress likes fraudulent public movements that generate lots of hype, as long as congress can figure out some way to raise taxes over it. Climate change is a big one. Doesn't matter if it's true, only if they can create a panic about it, convince people it's some kind of urgent issue and absolutely requires some ridiculous level of funding. How about $920 kajillion? Think that'll do it? I'm sure Pelosi and Reid will get right on it, and the Comrade will fly around the country giving speeches about it.
It's all just an excuse to try to take control over peoples' lives, eliminate individual liberty. Climate change has never been much more than that, though some people, like Al Gore, have figured out how to make a pretty good living off of it.
They seem to discuss the importance of all staying on the same page about climate change, and the emails suggest that there has been some dummying up of the numbers behind their dire claims of melting polar ice caps, rising ocean levels, etc. etc. etc. It seems that some of them also tried to manipulate the peer-review process, whereby one researcher's work is read and criticized by other researchers. Well, if all your peers know each other, and all agree to perpetrate the hoax of Global Warming and other nonsense, then you pretty much end up with some bizarre kind of conspiracy among scientists to deliberately mislead the public.
Gee, I wonder why someone would do something like that.
One scientist wrote that trying to defend Global Warming when the earth is actually cooling has been a "travesty."
Yeah. The whole damn thing has always been a travesty. I mean, Global Warming. Since the globe isn't warming, they rename it Climate Change. Like Pazzo Pelosi suggesting congress rename the socialized medicine government option "One Hot Taco" or something like that so more people would like it. But in both cases, the issues have more than just marketing problems.
And hey, ya know, change happens hour-to-hour in terms of the weather. At least it does in the Chicago area. And as far as climate goes, it seems these "scientists" were taking a rather short-range view of the subject instead of standing back and looking at the whole picture long-term.
Oh, they've been extemely busy projecting long-term futuristic scenarios of the earth turning into a popsicle and/or self-incinerating, they just never looked at data from far enough back to recognize that the earth is constantly changing, always has been, always will. Doesn't mean it's going to freeze or burn up. Doesn't mean that it won't, though, either. But I doubt there's much the human race can do about it.
What it does mean is that these so-called climate scientists will probably go the way of phrenologists and alchemists. And the quicker the better for my money.
Of course, that doesn't mean congress won't try to pass the crap-and-tax energy bill. No, see, congress likes fraudulent public movements that generate lots of hype, as long as congress can figure out some way to raise taxes over it. Climate change is a big one. Doesn't matter if it's true, only if they can create a panic about it, convince people it's some kind of urgent issue and absolutely requires some ridiculous level of funding. How about $920 kajillion? Think that'll do it? I'm sure Pelosi and Reid will get right on it, and the Comrade will fly around the country giving speeches about it.
It's all just an excuse to try to take control over peoples' lives, eliminate individual liberty. Climate change has never been much more than that, though some people, like Al Gore, have figured out how to make a pretty good living off of it.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The socialized medicine new math
Just wanted to point out one little fact about the senate's socialized medicine bill.
It carries a price tag of $849 billion -- and that's using kinda fuzzy figures, like it relies on cutting about $500 billion from Medicare (which probably won't happen) and other economic fundamentals that equate to building a 100-storey highrise on a sandy beach.
Anyway, so it costs $849 billion that Harry Reid and Baucus will admit to.
But the CBO says it will save the USA $167 billion over ten years. Whoopee!!!!!
I wonder if the CBO has factored in the inflation this kind of spending will cause -- in medical demand as well as in dollars -- the unhappy repercussions of the collapse of the private insurance industry, and a permanent unemployment rate of maybe something like 20%.
Hot dang! Kinda like one of those deals where you buy a machine for $5,000.00, and it will save you $37.50 in labor costs over the first year of installation -- or actually the fifth year of installation, if we stick to the timeline of the senate socialized medicine bill. How's that for return-on-investment? Who wouldn't want a stake in something like that?
I don't know... Does this make any sense? Spend $849 billion, get $167 billion in return. Somehow, that fails to impress. It's a real deal ONLY if you ignore the cost.
You can tell those jokers in congress don't know anything about economics. Or about math, either, for that matter.
And this doesn't even touch on things like the shortage of health care professionals that will result in unacceptable wait-times for service, rationed care -- especially to seniors (stick 'em on an ice floe and shove 'em off to sea) -- the serious loss of medical research and development that may prove to be catastrophic over time, and other likely effects of socialized medicine. "Likely" because this is exactly what has happened in every other nation on earth that has socialized medicine.
And no one will have an America to go to anymore for "real" care -- or for freedom from instrusive and predatory government, either. That's the very worst of it.
Why not just line us all up against a wall and shoot us? Hey, think of all the money you'd save!!
And you know what? The very moment you adopt the "we" assumption -- as in "we" spend too much for health care -- you're buying into the socialist's irrationality and bad logic. It's only "we" if we allow the government to force us into some big ugly, faceless pool where we become no more than numbers on a ledger sheet. Otherwise, it's "you" or "me" as individuals spend whatever we want on health care. That is, we get to keep our own choices and freedom in the matter.
Which scenario do you prefer?
It carries a price tag of $849 billion -- and that's using kinda fuzzy figures, like it relies on cutting about $500 billion from Medicare (which probably won't happen) and other economic fundamentals that equate to building a 100-storey highrise on a sandy beach.
Anyway, so it costs $849 billion that Harry Reid and Baucus will admit to.
But the CBO says it will save the USA $167 billion over ten years. Whoopee!!!!!
I wonder if the CBO has factored in the inflation this kind of spending will cause -- in medical demand as well as in dollars -- the unhappy repercussions of the collapse of the private insurance industry, and a permanent unemployment rate of maybe something like 20%.
Hot dang! Kinda like one of those deals where you buy a machine for $5,000.00, and it will save you $37.50 in labor costs over the first year of installation -- or actually the fifth year of installation, if we stick to the timeline of the senate socialized medicine bill. How's that for return-on-investment? Who wouldn't want a stake in something like that?
I don't know... Does this make any sense? Spend $849 billion, get $167 billion in return. Somehow, that fails to impress. It's a real deal ONLY if you ignore the cost.
You can tell those jokers in congress don't know anything about economics. Or about math, either, for that matter.
And this doesn't even touch on things like the shortage of health care professionals that will result in unacceptable wait-times for service, rationed care -- especially to seniors (stick 'em on an ice floe and shove 'em off to sea) -- the serious loss of medical research and development that may prove to be catastrophic over time, and other likely effects of socialized medicine. "Likely" because this is exactly what has happened in every other nation on earth that has socialized medicine.
And no one will have an America to go to anymore for "real" care -- or for freedom from instrusive and predatory government, either. That's the very worst of it.
Why not just line us all up against a wall and shoot us? Hey, think of all the money you'd save!!
And you know what? The very moment you adopt the "we" assumption -- as in "we" spend too much for health care -- you're buying into the socialist's irrationality and bad logic. It's only "we" if we allow the government to force us into some big ugly, faceless pool where we become no more than numbers on a ledger sheet. Otherwise, it's "you" or "me" as individuals spend whatever we want on health care. That is, we get to keep our own choices and freedom in the matter.
Which scenario do you prefer?
R.I.P. USA - It was terrific while it lasted
Well, the US Senate has even come in below my estimate. They voted -- along strict party lines -- to debate socialized medicine.
Oh, and I've got an anecdote for for Mary Landrieu and for the countless other political whores it applies to. You know who you are.
Playwright George Bernard Shaw was at a party one evening. He was saying that people will do anything for money. A grand lady objected, saying she wouldn't.
GBS asked her, "Would you sleep with me for a million pounds?"
Flustered, she said, "Well, for that much, I might consider it."
He said, "Would you sleep with me for 10 shillings?"
"Certainly not!" she said. "What do you take me for?"
GBS: "We've already established what you are. We're only fixing the price."
So the US Congress now is just a bunch of dumb sluts chasing cash. Blindly. Stupidly. Selling out the nation for.... What was it? $100 million. A lot of them will and have abandoned any pretense of principle for a lot less.
Here's another way to look at it:
Since the USA was established, or actually before it was quite established, something like 658,995 soliders have given their lives for it -- and that's only combat deaths.
These guys undoubtedly believed they were fighting for freedom, to ensure that their kids would have a better life, to defend America as "The Beacon on the Hill," the light of liberty for the world.
The joke's on those guys. What they really fought for was so that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the Comrade could buy off willing voters and simply stff-arm the rest in a disgusting scramble to grab power and seize control of the life of every US citizen.
It's sickening. It's unworthy of any American. It's the end of the nation, and it doesn't leave the rest of the world with much hope, either.
Oh, and I've got an anecdote for for Mary Landrieu and for the countless other political whores it applies to. You know who you are.
Playwright George Bernard Shaw was at a party one evening. He was saying that people will do anything for money. A grand lady objected, saying she wouldn't.
GBS asked her, "Would you sleep with me for a million pounds?"
Flustered, she said, "Well, for that much, I might consider it."
He said, "Would you sleep with me for 10 shillings?"
"Certainly not!" she said. "What do you take me for?"
GBS: "We've already established what you are. We're only fixing the price."
So the US Congress now is just a bunch of dumb sluts chasing cash. Blindly. Stupidly. Selling out the nation for.... What was it? $100 million. A lot of them will and have abandoned any pretense of principle for a lot less.
Here's another way to look at it:
Since the USA was established, or actually before it was quite established, something like 658,995 soliders have given their lives for it -- and that's only combat deaths.
These guys undoubtedly believed they were fighting for freedom, to ensure that their kids would have a better life, to defend America as "The Beacon on the Hill," the light of liberty for the world.
The joke's on those guys. What they really fought for was so that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the Comrade could buy off willing voters and simply stff-arm the rest in a disgusting scramble to grab power and seize control of the life of every US citizen.
It's sickening. It's unworthy of any American. It's the end of the nation, and it doesn't leave the rest of the world with much hope, either.
And there are things that are worse than death -- like living in a socialist-communist dictatorship, the Comrade's vision of Utopia.
The dead are the lucky ones. They don't have to witness the hogs stampeding to the trough, abandoning any shred of intelligence and humanity. They died thinking something good would come of it.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Has everyone lost their minds?
Well. I actually was trying to NOT watch the news on Friday. It's too upsetting. It's just one disaster after another. I ended up taking notes and I'll probably still leave a few things out.
1. Has it occurred to anyone else that an acquittal for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, or whatever his name is -- the brains behind 9/11 -- might not be as bad as it might seem at first glance? After all, if the prosecutors have to drop the charges because, as a WAR CRIMINAL, he wasn't read his rights, he could just walk out of that New York City courtroom a free man.
They ought to just let him walk out of there. Let's see if he makes it to the sidewalk without somebody accidentally beating him into bloody mush.
Better yet, get him a police escort. How many of New York's Finest were incinerated in those towers?
I mean, look on the bright side.
2. The Senate has offered Mary Landrieu, US Senator from Louisiana, a $100 million bribe to vote in favor of socialized medicine.
Didn't I tell you that bill would be packed with pork to get those suckers to vote for it? And Landrieu just may be stupid enough to accept it. Don't know if she's committed herself one way or the other.
The bonehead from Nebraska has apparently caved under pressure. These people have no spines, you know, and quite obviously, no principles or ethics, either.
So, go ahead, Senator Landrieu, vote "yes," collect your $100 million, and five or ten years from now, you will be facing a fate similar to Khalid Sheik Mohammed. She may not even have to wait that long. I was thinking when the provisions of that bill go into effect five years from now (when the Comrade will be a lame duck if he gets re-elected at all), but the taxes come first, don't they? Five or six long years of everyone seeing their paychecks vanish before their very eyes -- and it will be all your fault, Ms. Landrieu. Don't think we'll forget. Not a chance.
Consider that the senate bill is, according to the Wall Street Journal, one of the worst piece-of-crap legislative proposals that's ever been cobbled together, and that it will destroy the nation -- take away all of our distinctly American freedoms, turn us all into genuine slaves of the state, and bankrupt the country.
But you get your little $100 million. Enjoy it, wench.
It would be nice if Bobby Jindal would talk some sense into the senator, but I don't know if that's going to happen. If she's stupid enough to even consider voting yes, she probably has remarkably little capacity for rational thought. It's been pointed out before that you can't teach a pig to sing.
3. Have you noticed? They're already putting the rationing in place with all the changes in the "guidelines" for even self-examination for breast cancer, and for reducing the recommended frequency for PAP smears for cervical cancer.
Right now, you can still get the mammograms and PAP smears -- because you're paying for it yourself. But just wait until we get socialized medicine.
You know, there's a case in the U.K., a fairly recent one, of a young woman who got cervical cancer at age of about 20 years or so.... In the U.K., they won't pay for PAP smears for women under 23 or so. I think she might even be dead by now. The case was famous because she was trying to sue somebody over that -- for the lunkheaded stupidity that ruined her life. Seems to be characteristic of most governments.
4. Then there's the that senate socialized medicine bill just in general. I couldn't even listen to the news about it on TV. Do people really and truly have cement for brains?
"I know," said the Merry Marxists, "Let's double the cost of health care, lock people up if they refuse to pay it, cut care and access to care in half, and tell the people that we're doing them a big favor! We can get the mainstream media to back us up. They're so hot to stand in the warmth of our magnificence, they'll buy anything!"
My God, and a large percentage of the population in this country is so damn stupid they believe it. They honestly and truly think that somehow they're going to get something for nothing. They pretty much deserve the obvious consequences -- but all the rest of us will be paying for it, too. Or go to jail.
I wouldn't mind going to jail at this point. What do they say? "Three hots and a cot." That may be preferable to what's coming in a ruined nation.
5. Harping on this old string -- If you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, you're pretty much screwed.
So go ahead, anihilate free enterprise and private wealth. Then who's going to pay for all this?
HAS NO ONE ELSE EVEN CONSIDERED THAT ANGLE?
I will have the joy of standing on the curb laughing my ass off: "Told you so!!" Somehow, though, I'd rather keep my freedoms.
It simply blows my mind that the congress is being run by such absolute blockheads. How the hell did these idiots ever get elected?
1. Has it occurred to anyone else that an acquittal for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, or whatever his name is -- the brains behind 9/11 -- might not be as bad as it might seem at first glance? After all, if the prosecutors have to drop the charges because, as a WAR CRIMINAL, he wasn't read his rights, he could just walk out of that New York City courtroom a free man.
They ought to just let him walk out of there. Let's see if he makes it to the sidewalk without somebody accidentally beating him into bloody mush.
Better yet, get him a police escort. How many of New York's Finest were incinerated in those towers?
I mean, look on the bright side.
2. The Senate has offered Mary Landrieu, US Senator from Louisiana, a $100 million bribe to vote in favor of socialized medicine.
Didn't I tell you that bill would be packed with pork to get those suckers to vote for it? And Landrieu just may be stupid enough to accept it. Don't know if she's committed herself one way or the other.
The bonehead from Nebraska has apparently caved under pressure. These people have no spines, you know, and quite obviously, no principles or ethics, either.
So, go ahead, Senator Landrieu, vote "yes," collect your $100 million, and five or ten years from now, you will be facing a fate similar to Khalid Sheik Mohammed. She may not even have to wait that long. I was thinking when the provisions of that bill go into effect five years from now (when the Comrade will be a lame duck if he gets re-elected at all), but the taxes come first, don't they? Five or six long years of everyone seeing their paychecks vanish before their very eyes -- and it will be all your fault, Ms. Landrieu. Don't think we'll forget. Not a chance.
Consider that the senate bill is, according to the Wall Street Journal, one of the worst piece-of-crap legislative proposals that's ever been cobbled together, and that it will destroy the nation -- take away all of our distinctly American freedoms, turn us all into genuine slaves of the state, and bankrupt the country.
But you get your little $100 million. Enjoy it, wench.
It would be nice if Bobby Jindal would talk some sense into the senator, but I don't know if that's going to happen. If she's stupid enough to even consider voting yes, she probably has remarkably little capacity for rational thought. It's been pointed out before that you can't teach a pig to sing.
3. Have you noticed? They're already putting the rationing in place with all the changes in the "guidelines" for even self-examination for breast cancer, and for reducing the recommended frequency for PAP smears for cervical cancer.
Right now, you can still get the mammograms and PAP smears -- because you're paying for it yourself. But just wait until we get socialized medicine.
You know, there's a case in the U.K., a fairly recent one, of a young woman who got cervical cancer at age of about 20 years or so.... In the U.K., they won't pay for PAP smears for women under 23 or so. I think she might even be dead by now. The case was famous because she was trying to sue somebody over that -- for the lunkheaded stupidity that ruined her life. Seems to be characteristic of most governments.
4. Then there's the that senate socialized medicine bill just in general. I couldn't even listen to the news about it on TV. Do people really and truly have cement for brains?
"I know," said the Merry Marxists, "Let's double the cost of health care, lock people up if they refuse to pay it, cut care and access to care in half, and tell the people that we're doing them a big favor! We can get the mainstream media to back us up. They're so hot to stand in the warmth of our magnificence, they'll buy anything!"
My God, and a large percentage of the population in this country is so damn stupid they believe it. They honestly and truly think that somehow they're going to get something for nothing. They pretty much deserve the obvious consequences -- but all the rest of us will be paying for it, too. Or go to jail.
I wouldn't mind going to jail at this point. What do they say? "Three hots and a cot." That may be preferable to what's coming in a ruined nation.
5. Harping on this old string -- If you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, you're pretty much screwed.
So go ahead, anihilate free enterprise and private wealth. Then who's going to pay for all this?
HAS NO ONE ELSE EVEN CONSIDERED THAT ANGLE?
I will have the joy of standing on the curb laughing my ass off: "Told you so!!" Somehow, though, I'd rather keep my freedoms.
It simply blows my mind that the congress is being run by such absolute blockheads. How the hell did these idiots ever get elected?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Oh boy, has the senate got a deal for you!
Just heard a few details about the Senate socialized medicine bill.
Guess what? Surprise! Surprise! It has a "government option."
Hey, Senator Snowe from Maine... Looks like you've been had!! Ha-ha!! That was a good one, huh? Maybe you should be more careful about the way you vote. Pretend that your vote means something next time, OK?
And the bill only costs about $100 billion MORE than the House bill -- if you can imagine that. That's that crack government fiscal responsibility thing at work.
You know what? For the $800+ billion it's supposed to cost, they could give every American family $10,000+ and tell us to buy our own insurance. Or better yet, just let us keep the money -- no income tax -- and we'll all get a policy we want.
But n-o-o-o-o... In fact, guess who gets to pay for this drek? Betcha got that one right.
Socialized Medicine deductions from your paychecks -- higher than they are now. Medicare funds cut dramatically -- but the seniors will get a nice check for $500.00 to make up for it. $500.00 won't cover that heart valve replacement, but what the heck? You can be sure we're getting rationing along with this piece of crap, too, so let the rationing begin -- by denying seniors health care.
And so many more goodies jammed into this bill. You just wouldn't believe it. And it's even longer page-wise than the House bill. Better in every conceivable way!
Taxes on medical devices. Taxes on plastic surgery. And I'm sure I'm leaving a whole lot out. After all, nobody's had a chance to read the whole thing yet. Only about four or five Democrat senators who were locked inside that little room in the Capitol building along wth Ram Emanual -- them and the accountants from the CBO -- those are the only people who've even seen the whole damn thing! Yes, it's true! It's the Comrade's new transparency policy in operation!
Isn't it wonderful? Do you like this?
If so, please leave me a message here. I've got some real estate available you might also be interested in.
Guess what? Surprise! Surprise! It has a "government option."
Hey, Senator Snowe from Maine... Looks like you've been had!! Ha-ha!! That was a good one, huh? Maybe you should be more careful about the way you vote. Pretend that your vote means something next time, OK?
And the bill only costs about $100 billion MORE than the House bill -- if you can imagine that. That's that crack government fiscal responsibility thing at work.
You know what? For the $800+ billion it's supposed to cost, they could give every American family $10,000+ and tell us to buy our own insurance. Or better yet, just let us keep the money -- no income tax -- and we'll all get a policy we want.
But n-o-o-o-o... In fact, guess who gets to pay for this drek? Betcha got that one right.
Socialized Medicine deductions from your paychecks -- higher than they are now. Medicare funds cut dramatically -- but the seniors will get a nice check for $500.00 to make up for it. $500.00 won't cover that heart valve replacement, but what the heck? You can be sure we're getting rationing along with this piece of crap, too, so let the rationing begin -- by denying seniors health care.
And so many more goodies jammed into this bill. You just wouldn't believe it. And it's even longer page-wise than the House bill. Better in every conceivable way!
Taxes on medical devices. Taxes on plastic surgery. And I'm sure I'm leaving a whole lot out. After all, nobody's had a chance to read the whole thing yet. Only about four or five Democrat senators who were locked inside that little room in the Capitol building along wth Ram Emanual -- them and the accountants from the CBO -- those are the only people who've even seen the whole damn thing! Yes, it's true! It's the Comrade's new transparency policy in operation!
Isn't it wonderful? Do you like this?
If so, please leave me a message here. I've got some real estate available you might also be interested in.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
They'll move in next door and marry your daughter
So, Dick(head) Durbin, US Senator from Illinois, has graciously offered to host the terrorists from Guantanamo Bay here in Illinois. Apparently there's a vacant maximum security prison in Thomson, on the Mississippi River, that the state wants the feds to buy.
Busiest airport in the nation, tallest building left standing... Sounds like a good place to harbor islamic terrorists. I'm sure all their friends will be anxious to come and visit regularly.
You know, there's another fairly new and really kinda "hyper-max" security prison in Illinois. It's called Tams. It's so secure, the prisoners are kept in such fortified conditions, that some of the prisoners locked up were transferred out, having gone nuts there. That might be a good place to put the Guantanamo people. And Tams is in southern Illinois.... In fact, it may even be in Durbin's home district. Why don't they put the islamic terrorists down there in Durbin's neighborhood?
Never heard of Thomson before, where the prison-in-question is located, but I looked it up on the map, and actually I probably drove through it a couple of times. It's on the Mississippi River Road -- a scenic drive type of deal. I do recall driving through Savanna, a few miles north of Thomson and on the same road. It was autumn. The highway was lined by trees, branches arching over the road, leaves all brilliant red, yellow, and orange. It was strikingly beautiful. Like, that must have been 20 years ago and I never forgot it.
Lots of people in Illinois are not too crazy about housing creeps who have no respect for human life and who have masses of ruthless buddies who share that frame of mind. The local Fox News affiliate interviewed Durbin about this. One reporter asked him, "Why not let the voters have a referendum on it?"
Durbin looked like he was going to burst out laughing. "No. I don't think so."
After all, it's not like people in Illinois have any damn thing to say about their own lives and property. Why would anyone think to ask them what they want?
Reminds me of an incident a long, long time ago.... some debate on TV about something. I believe it was Lowell Weikert, who represented Connecticut in some capacity. Someone noted to Weikert that his constituents were dead set against some measure or another. Weikert looked up bemused, kind of scoffing, and assured everyone, "The voters don't know what they want."
Kinda like Durbin's attitude. He's so condescending. So patronizing. So getting sent packing in the next election -- however, unfortunately, he has a six-year term as a senator, so his departure can't come soon enough.
Chicago also lost another trade show. The city, once the major convention center in the nation, has shed at least a dozen trade shows over the last few years. The reason? The unions. Too hard to get set up, costs way too much.
When I worked at an ad agency, we had several clients at one show at McCormick Place. I was in the Loop office when my boss called me and asked if I could bring down some yardsticks -- they were printed with the name of one of our clients and were a giveaway for people who stopped by the booth.
So I got in a cab with this very awkward and heavy box of yardsticks. Got to McCormick Place and was standing at a velvet rope in the lobby, waiting for my boss to meet me as promised, when two big union guys came up and asked me what the hell I thought I was doing with a box full of yardsticks. That was when my boss arrived and he took care of it somehow. Do believe he had to pay the union to carry the box, though.
You ask for an extension cord at McCormick Place, and it takes two union guys to carry it to you, and then another one has to plug it in.
Working for another company that participated in shows at McCormick Place. We were talking to a guy who was designing the booth. My boss suggested setting up TV sets around the booth for some kind of display. You're advised to take the TVs down and lock them up every night, though. But the booth designer warned against the idea. He said another client of his lost about a half-dozen TV sets from "secure storage" in the course of one show.
So businesses are tired of it? Or compelled to be practical during an economic depression? And the union whines about "We made concessions....."
Either it's too little too late, or you didn't go far enough, pal.
Anyway, that's Chicago and Illinois. I seriously think I may move out. I'm just so tired of it.
Another interesting note on a completely different but recurring topic:
Senator Judd Gregg from New Hampshire or someplace, the guy who agreed to serve in the White House, then changed his mind and went back to the Senate.... Anyway, he's a pretty solid guy on the numbers, and he estimates the House socialized medicine bill will cost $3 trillion when you cut out all the phony crap hype around it, and through all the hiding and disguising of costs.
Again, I must ask: Why the hell is congress doing this to us? What is their problem? Nobody wants socialized medicine. The nation can't afford it. What the hell is the point?
Think I may have mentioned it before, but in the run-up to the American Revolution, the colonials might have been more cooperative and the revolution might even have been postponed for a time, had not the British rammed through one crappy piece of tax legislation after another. It got to the point the British probably didn't even need the money, they just wanted to prove they were still in charge.
Well, here's some news: They weren't in charge. It was all a delusion of grandeur for them, nothing more.
Busiest airport in the nation, tallest building left standing... Sounds like a good place to harbor islamic terrorists. I'm sure all their friends will be anxious to come and visit regularly.
You know, there's another fairly new and really kinda "hyper-max" security prison in Illinois. It's called Tams. It's so secure, the prisoners are kept in such fortified conditions, that some of the prisoners locked up were transferred out, having gone nuts there. That might be a good place to put the Guantanamo people. And Tams is in southern Illinois.... In fact, it may even be in Durbin's home district. Why don't they put the islamic terrorists down there in Durbin's neighborhood?
Never heard of Thomson before, where the prison-in-question is located, but I looked it up on the map, and actually I probably drove through it a couple of times. It's on the Mississippi River Road -- a scenic drive type of deal. I do recall driving through Savanna, a few miles north of Thomson and on the same road. It was autumn. The highway was lined by trees, branches arching over the road, leaves all brilliant red, yellow, and orange. It was strikingly beautiful. Like, that must have been 20 years ago and I never forgot it.
Lots of people in Illinois are not too crazy about housing creeps who have no respect for human life and who have masses of ruthless buddies who share that frame of mind. The local Fox News affiliate interviewed Durbin about this. One reporter asked him, "Why not let the voters have a referendum on it?"
Durbin looked like he was going to burst out laughing. "No. I don't think so."
After all, it's not like people in Illinois have any damn thing to say about their own lives and property. Why would anyone think to ask them what they want?
Reminds me of an incident a long, long time ago.... some debate on TV about something. I believe it was Lowell Weikert, who represented Connecticut in some capacity. Someone noted to Weikert that his constituents were dead set against some measure or another. Weikert looked up bemused, kind of scoffing, and assured everyone, "The voters don't know what they want."
Kinda like Durbin's attitude. He's so condescending. So patronizing. So getting sent packing in the next election -- however, unfortunately, he has a six-year term as a senator, so his departure can't come soon enough.
Chicago also lost another trade show. The city, once the major convention center in the nation, has shed at least a dozen trade shows over the last few years. The reason? The unions. Too hard to get set up, costs way too much.
When I worked at an ad agency, we had several clients at one show at McCormick Place. I was in the Loop office when my boss called me and asked if I could bring down some yardsticks -- they were printed with the name of one of our clients and were a giveaway for people who stopped by the booth.
So I got in a cab with this very awkward and heavy box of yardsticks. Got to McCormick Place and was standing at a velvet rope in the lobby, waiting for my boss to meet me as promised, when two big union guys came up and asked me what the hell I thought I was doing with a box full of yardsticks. That was when my boss arrived and he took care of it somehow. Do believe he had to pay the union to carry the box, though.
You ask for an extension cord at McCormick Place, and it takes two union guys to carry it to you, and then another one has to plug it in.
Working for another company that participated in shows at McCormick Place. We were talking to a guy who was designing the booth. My boss suggested setting up TV sets around the booth for some kind of display. You're advised to take the TVs down and lock them up every night, though. But the booth designer warned against the idea. He said another client of his lost about a half-dozen TV sets from "secure storage" in the course of one show.
So businesses are tired of it? Or compelled to be practical during an economic depression? And the union whines about "We made concessions....."
Either it's too little too late, or you didn't go far enough, pal.
Anyway, that's Chicago and Illinois. I seriously think I may move out. I'm just so tired of it.
Another interesting note on a completely different but recurring topic:
Senator Judd Gregg from New Hampshire or someplace, the guy who agreed to serve in the White House, then changed his mind and went back to the Senate.... Anyway, he's a pretty solid guy on the numbers, and he estimates the House socialized medicine bill will cost $3 trillion when you cut out all the phony crap hype around it, and through all the hiding and disguising of costs.
Again, I must ask: Why the hell is congress doing this to us? What is their problem? Nobody wants socialized medicine. The nation can't afford it. What the hell is the point?
Think I may have mentioned it before, but in the run-up to the American Revolution, the colonials might have been more cooperative and the revolution might even have been postponed for a time, had not the British rammed through one crappy piece of tax legislation after another. It got to the point the British probably didn't even need the money, they just wanted to prove they were still in charge.
Well, here's some news: They weren't in charge. It was all a delusion of grandeur for them, nothing more.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Five rules of economics
I didn't write the following. I got it in an email. If anyone knows who the writer is, let me know, either to credit them or to take it down if they wish.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read. This is one paragraph that should be in every book in every school room in every city in every state in our great Union ... Our educators should make alesson plan on this one statement and instill these words in the minds of all students.
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation..
5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Justice
FYI, I work evenings and usually listen to the radio while I'm working. Listen to Hannity most evenings and Mark Levin. The other night, Hannity was doing a "man on the street" type of interview with a lady who seemed very reasonable at first. She seemed to believe in a little socialism, but was getting a bit apprehensive about the current congress seizing control of every aspect of the US economy and its citizens.
Hannity kept picking on her, asking her if she believed the statement -- "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability."
She said she kinda agreed, yeah. Well, Karl Marx said that. So Hannity informs this lady that she's probably a marxist underneath it all.
She said something like "It isn't fair that some people are rich while others go hungry. The rich should be willing to share. It's only fair." She likened "justice" to "equality," but was really describing "egalitarianism," which is a different thing.
One of the first blogs I wrote here was about this subject, only I don't think I called it "Justice."
The lady on the Hannity show indicated that to her, Justice means that everyone has comparable incomes, comparable homes and other creature comforts. She singled out Mayor Bloomberg, saying he had millions of dollars that he shouldn't be allowed to have. He should give his extra money to others who have less than they need.
You know what? That's not Justice. That's not fair. Like, I would love to have Bloomberg's money, unfortunately, I failed to dedicate my entire life, risk my and my family's security, and work 22 hours a day for several decades building a media company. Shucks, guess I overlooked that.
So perhaps it's fair that Bloomberg has millions of dollars and I do not. That seems more like Justice to me than writing my congresspeople and insisting that they seize Bloomberg's money and give it to me because I need it more than he does. I mean, there is such a thing as "earning" it. I haven't earned it. Bloomberg did.
Additionally, because Bloomberg earned it, I haven't got any right to tell him what to do with it. It's his money, not mine.
And this all comes from this really silly idea the socialists have that there is only one pile of "wealth" in the world, divided up unevenly between the rich and the poor.
No, that's not how it works. Bloomberg did not get his money by picking pockets and snatching handbags. He created something new, produced something that hadn't been there before, and something that people were willing to pay him for voluntarily. The only role the government played in that was in recognizing Bloomberg's property rights, and protecting his right to develop his business and products as he saw fit.
Bloomberg probably borrowed money from other people, or sold them pieces of his company (shares of stock), but then those investors got more back than they put in.
It's a phrase that was contrived in the USA: to "make money." That is, to create it out of nothing but an idea. And it's more than money -- money is just a yardstick to measure value. What Bloomberg created was a new source of value -- something that other people are willing to pay for.
There's truly unlimited potential for creating value. When you grow broccoli, you create value -- for those who are willing to pay for it. When you clean a house and get paid for it, you create value. When you write a book or learn how to play the guitar well enough so other will pay you for it, you create value. It's amazing. It's about as close to magic as we can get on earth.
Socialists don't understand any of this. They don't understand creation, production, innovation, or the whole concept of market value -- the unforced willingness of others to pay you for what you do. To their way of thinking, there's only one potato in the world and only ever will be one potato in the world, though it may be owned by different people at different times. Socialists want to take that one potato and slice it into tiny pieces, ensuring that everyone (or at least their friends and fellow-travelers) gets a piece.
They don't understand that you can grow any number of potatos. In fact, every individual can grow just the number of potatos they want -- so long as nobody prevents them from doing so or steals their crop. Socialists just can't grasp that idea of human growth and development. In the US, this is all under their noses every day, and they believe it's evil and immoral. However, it is OK for them to appropriate and redistribute the potato someone else has grown. And they want to make sure that no one grows too many potatos too quickly. That wouldn't be "fair." Worse, they couldn't control it.
From another rightist -- Glenn Beck. He had a show on the other day with all black people in the audience. Kinda like a town hall. They were mostly conservatives, but with a couple liberals here and there.
Don't recall if it was Glenn Beck or someone else who talked about two brothers, one ambitious and productive, the other preferring to sleep on the couch all day. Beck said when you begin to "redistribute" the wealth the ambitious brother creates, handing it out to the non-productive brother, you end up destroying both of them. The result is that the ambitious brother gives up. Why should he work if he can't keep what he makes? And the non-productive brother has no reason to ever get up off the couch.
That's what's so inherently destructive about socialism, or "redistribution" or whatever you want to call it. It kills human aspiration, creativity, and growth. It sets arbitrary limits about what anyone can do or have. It establishes a centralized authority that makes those decisions, rather than allowing individuals to make their own decisions.
And no matter what name you give to socialism or redistribution, it certainly isn't Justice.
Hannity kept picking on her, asking her if she believed the statement -- "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability."
She said she kinda agreed, yeah. Well, Karl Marx said that. So Hannity informs this lady that she's probably a marxist underneath it all.
She said something like "It isn't fair that some people are rich while others go hungry. The rich should be willing to share. It's only fair." She likened "justice" to "equality," but was really describing "egalitarianism," which is a different thing.
One of the first blogs I wrote here was about this subject, only I don't think I called it "Justice."
The lady on the Hannity show indicated that to her, Justice means that everyone has comparable incomes, comparable homes and other creature comforts. She singled out Mayor Bloomberg, saying he had millions of dollars that he shouldn't be allowed to have. He should give his extra money to others who have less than they need.
You know what? That's not Justice. That's not fair. Like, I would love to have Bloomberg's money, unfortunately, I failed to dedicate my entire life, risk my and my family's security, and work 22 hours a day for several decades building a media company. Shucks, guess I overlooked that.
So perhaps it's fair that Bloomberg has millions of dollars and I do not. That seems more like Justice to me than writing my congresspeople and insisting that they seize Bloomberg's money and give it to me because I need it more than he does. I mean, there is such a thing as "earning" it. I haven't earned it. Bloomberg did.
Additionally, because Bloomberg earned it, I haven't got any right to tell him what to do with it. It's his money, not mine.
And this all comes from this really silly idea the socialists have that there is only one pile of "wealth" in the world, divided up unevenly between the rich and the poor.
No, that's not how it works. Bloomberg did not get his money by picking pockets and snatching handbags. He created something new, produced something that hadn't been there before, and something that people were willing to pay him for voluntarily. The only role the government played in that was in recognizing Bloomberg's property rights, and protecting his right to develop his business and products as he saw fit.
Bloomberg probably borrowed money from other people, or sold them pieces of his company (shares of stock), but then those investors got more back than they put in.
It's a phrase that was contrived in the USA: to "make money." That is, to create it out of nothing but an idea. And it's more than money -- money is just a yardstick to measure value. What Bloomberg created was a new source of value -- something that other people are willing to pay for.
There's truly unlimited potential for creating value. When you grow broccoli, you create value -- for those who are willing to pay for it. When you clean a house and get paid for it, you create value. When you write a book or learn how to play the guitar well enough so other will pay you for it, you create value. It's amazing. It's about as close to magic as we can get on earth.
Socialists don't understand any of this. They don't understand creation, production, innovation, or the whole concept of market value -- the unforced willingness of others to pay you for what you do. To their way of thinking, there's only one potato in the world and only ever will be one potato in the world, though it may be owned by different people at different times. Socialists want to take that one potato and slice it into tiny pieces, ensuring that everyone (or at least their friends and fellow-travelers) gets a piece.
They don't understand that you can grow any number of potatos. In fact, every individual can grow just the number of potatos they want -- so long as nobody prevents them from doing so or steals their crop. Socialists just can't grasp that idea of human growth and development. In the US, this is all under their noses every day, and they believe it's evil and immoral. However, it is OK for them to appropriate and redistribute the potato someone else has grown. And they want to make sure that no one grows too many potatos too quickly. That wouldn't be "fair." Worse, they couldn't control it.
From another rightist -- Glenn Beck. He had a show on the other day with all black people in the audience. Kinda like a town hall. They were mostly conservatives, but with a couple liberals here and there.
Don't recall if it was Glenn Beck or someone else who talked about two brothers, one ambitious and productive, the other preferring to sleep on the couch all day. Beck said when you begin to "redistribute" the wealth the ambitious brother creates, handing it out to the non-productive brother, you end up destroying both of them. The result is that the ambitious brother gives up. Why should he work if he can't keep what he makes? And the non-productive brother has no reason to ever get up off the couch.
That's what's so inherently destructive about socialism, or "redistribution" or whatever you want to call it. It kills human aspiration, creativity, and growth. It sets arbitrary limits about what anyone can do or have. It establishes a centralized authority that makes those decisions, rather than allowing individuals to make their own decisions.
And no matter what name you give to socialism or redistribution, it certainly isn't Justice.
Friday, November 13, 2009
When ideology overcomes common sense
Just listening to Rudy Giuliani on Neil Cavuto. Giuliani is upset about the fed's recent decision to try the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks as criminals in a court in New York City. Giuliani notes that those committing the attacks regarded themselves as soldiers in the jihad against the US -- their words, their war -- and the US treats them like shoplifters and grants them all the rights and legal protections of US citizenship. The alternative is to try them by military tribunal.
If I were a New Yorker, I think I'd take my vacation to Disneyworld or someplace while the trial is on. And drive there -- don't get in any airplanes.
One of the problems of treating islamic terrorists like criminals -- particularly in finding some other place but Guantanamo to incarcerate them -- is that they have a lot of ruthless friends who may come in the night and burn down the jail and everything and everyone else around it. It's an invitation to loonies like Major Hasan to do their worst, kill and/or blow up as many people as possible. The feds are naming the venue, making it accessible.
It's stupid. Sort of like reading POWs their "rights" before picking them up off the battlefields in Afghanistan. It's an insult to human intelligence. It's typical of this administration.
Giuliani calls it "ideology overcoming common sense." He asks, "Would you try the people who bombed Pearl Harbor in a court in Hawaii?" Yeah. That sounds like a fair assessment.
I do hope that Mayor Bloomberg is recruiting and training additional Bomb Squad personnel and that he'll be roping off the streets around the federal courthouse in New York. Walking through a metal detector won't be quite adequate when dealing with people who regularly employ things like plastic explosives and who have exhibited absolutely no respect for human life.
This is all part of the fictional world-view of the Comrade and his Merry Marxists. What the Comrade doesn't seem to grasp -- or maybe he does -- is that this is a lie created with the sole intent of destroying the USA and other, similar successful free-world nations. It's not a valid ideology based upon reality with the goal of the success of the human race. It's twisted logic devised to use our system of justice and guarantees of freedom to ruin us and the rest of the world.
But, as I said, maybe the Comrade truly does understand this. Perhaps his aim is to wreck the USA and anihilate our individual liberties. I haven't seen anything come out of the White House that would contradict this negative interpretation. Rather, everything the Comrade has done, every policy and legislative proposal he supports looks to be designed to destroy the USA, to undercut its political and economic foundation and internal structure with the purpose of collapsing the whole nation.
Does anyone still support this guy? If so, why?
Maybe the Comrade and his Merry Marxists (his handpicked staff, his loony supporters in congress) should go on trial beside the islamic terrorist. They all seem to be working toward the same end. And I do mean "end."
If I were a New Yorker, I think I'd take my vacation to Disneyworld or someplace while the trial is on. And drive there -- don't get in any airplanes.
One of the problems of treating islamic terrorists like criminals -- particularly in finding some other place but Guantanamo to incarcerate them -- is that they have a lot of ruthless friends who may come in the night and burn down the jail and everything and everyone else around it. It's an invitation to loonies like Major Hasan to do their worst, kill and/or blow up as many people as possible. The feds are naming the venue, making it accessible.
It's stupid. Sort of like reading POWs their "rights" before picking them up off the battlefields in Afghanistan. It's an insult to human intelligence. It's typical of this administration.
Giuliani calls it "ideology overcoming common sense." He asks, "Would you try the people who bombed Pearl Harbor in a court in Hawaii?" Yeah. That sounds like a fair assessment.
I do hope that Mayor Bloomberg is recruiting and training additional Bomb Squad personnel and that he'll be roping off the streets around the federal courthouse in New York. Walking through a metal detector won't be quite adequate when dealing with people who regularly employ things like plastic explosives and who have exhibited absolutely no respect for human life.
This is all part of the fictional world-view of the Comrade and his Merry Marxists. What the Comrade doesn't seem to grasp -- or maybe he does -- is that this is a lie created with the sole intent of destroying the USA and other, similar successful free-world nations. It's not a valid ideology based upon reality with the goal of the success of the human race. It's twisted logic devised to use our system of justice and guarantees of freedom to ruin us and the rest of the world.
But, as I said, maybe the Comrade truly does understand this. Perhaps his aim is to wreck the USA and anihilate our individual liberties. I haven't seen anything come out of the White House that would contradict this negative interpretation. Rather, everything the Comrade has done, every policy and legislative proposal he supports looks to be designed to destroy the USA, to undercut its political and economic foundation and internal structure with the purpose of collapsing the whole nation.
Does anyone still support this guy? If so, why?
Maybe the Comrade and his Merry Marxists (his handpicked staff, his loony supporters in congress) should go on trial beside the islamic terrorist. They all seem to be working toward the same end. And I do mean "end."
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Thank you, Vets
Well, today is Veterans' Day. And yesterday was the memorial for the soldiers killed at Fort Hood by the islamic-terrorist-disguised-as-a-US-soldier. Apparently Hasan, the lunatic mass murderer, exhibited signs of his craziness, hatred for the US, and allegiance to insane international terrorism, but it would have been politically incorrect for anyone to point out that he was suggesting that Osama bn Ladn was Mohammed reincarnate and was beckoning him from the distant fastnesses of Pakistan to join the jihad.
What I don't understand is, why did Hasan join the Army? Why did he stay in the Army?
His brother said he joined the Army right after high school. The Army paid for his education, and Hasan is a psychiatrist -- pretty expensive education. Or maybe he just wanted to hide in school as long as possible rather than do any kind of work for his benefactor. I know that if the Army gives you that kind of education, you have to agree to serve a certain number of years as pay-back. Hasan is now 39 years old. Wonder how much longer he had to go to earn his education. I'm sure if he'd gone to his superiors and said, "Look, if you don't let me go, I'm going to kill a bunch of people," they probably would have let him out.
I only mention this because some butthead lunatic called Awlaki issued a statement whining about how very difficult it is emotionally for islamic terrorists to serve in the US military.
Well, yeah. I think that may be on purpose. Of course, I could be wrong. And I'm sure loyal US soldiers would be welcomed into al-Qaeda, given a hugely expensive education -- that is, a real education, not just 10 minutes in how to strap on a fishing vest loaded with plastic explosive -- and allowed to serve entirely out of the line of fire, even in wartime.
Why is the USA not allowed to defend itself?
You know, way back in the 1970s I was on a CTA bus in Chicago, riding home from work or something. I was in a seat by myself, reading, as usual. A couple guys shared a seat a couple rows ahead of me. I don't know where they were from. They both looked a little drunk. They were singing this weird music, clearly middle eastern, but I couldn't say what language or anything like that and have no idea what their religion was.
Anyhow, so these guys are singing this very weird and unlovely music, and singing pretty loudly. The bus was about half-full. No one said anything to them. I mean, we also have to listen to rap music (well, if you consider rap to be music) issuing from boom boxes at 110 decibels, so what the heck?
One of these guys looked around. The other guy said something like, "We're bothering everyone."
Guy Number One replied, "Yeah. They don't like it, but they're Americans, so they put up with it."
When do we stop putting up with it? Why do other people feel justified in making all kinds of unreasonable demands upon us? And why do we let them?
Similarly, on the domestic front, was listening to Bill O'Reilly tonight with Dennis Miller. I love Dennis Miller. I think O'Reilly probably likes Dennis because Dennis uses so many big words. Anyway... O'Reilly told Miller that a tax revolt is brewing. "The folks can't take much more," O'Reilly said.
Earlier, O'Reilly tried to goad John Stossel into leading a tax revolt. Stossel said he didn't think a revolt would happen.
I think it will. As a matter of fact, I think Pelosi, Reid, and the Comrade will be getting off light if all that happens is a tax revolt. Maybe that's why the Comrade is so friendly to Chavez, Ortega, and islamic terrorists. He's jockeying for a place of safe harbor for when the Capitol is over-run by rampaging, unemployed taxpayers.
Or are Americans supposed to be less likely to "snap" than islamic-terrorists-hiding-in-the-US-Army?
By the way, wanna buy a house? Rather than just let the bank foreclose, I'm trying to sell. The one thing in my favor is, I'll let it go cheap. (Ha-ha, Lake County tax assessor, take that! I'll bring down property values for the whole damn neighborhood! Then try building your highways to nowhere.) Talking to a real estate agent today, hopefully. Sick of paying the taxes on it, can't afford the necessary maintenance because of the taxes on it -- three times more than the principle I pay monthly -- sick of staying up all night trying to figure out where to get money to pay the bills and buy groceries.
Thanks, Pazzo, Harry & the Comrade. And if you think I can afford to buy insurance, you three are so very disconnected from reality it ain't even funny. Yet, somehow, I would still prefer freedom to the bullshit freebies you-all promise. Rather be dead than lose my freedom. You just can't understand that, can you? And if you don't understand that, the USA is just one big puzzle, isn't it?
Again in the 1970s, July 4, 1976 to be exact, the Bicentennial, I cried during the fireworks. Just couldn't imagine so many people dying for this. For me.
Thanks again, Vets. We owe you one.
What I don't understand is, why did Hasan join the Army? Why did he stay in the Army?
His brother said he joined the Army right after high school. The Army paid for his education, and Hasan is a psychiatrist -- pretty expensive education. Or maybe he just wanted to hide in school as long as possible rather than do any kind of work for his benefactor. I know that if the Army gives you that kind of education, you have to agree to serve a certain number of years as pay-back. Hasan is now 39 years old. Wonder how much longer he had to go to earn his education. I'm sure if he'd gone to his superiors and said, "Look, if you don't let me go, I'm going to kill a bunch of people," they probably would have let him out.
I only mention this because some butthead lunatic called Awlaki issued a statement whining about how very difficult it is emotionally for islamic terrorists to serve in the US military.
Well, yeah. I think that may be on purpose. Of course, I could be wrong. And I'm sure loyal US soldiers would be welcomed into al-Qaeda, given a hugely expensive education -- that is, a real education, not just 10 minutes in how to strap on a fishing vest loaded with plastic explosive -- and allowed to serve entirely out of the line of fire, even in wartime.
Why is the USA not allowed to defend itself?
You know, way back in the 1970s I was on a CTA bus in Chicago, riding home from work or something. I was in a seat by myself, reading, as usual. A couple guys shared a seat a couple rows ahead of me. I don't know where they were from. They both looked a little drunk. They were singing this weird music, clearly middle eastern, but I couldn't say what language or anything like that and have no idea what their religion was.
Anyhow, so these guys are singing this very weird and unlovely music, and singing pretty loudly. The bus was about half-full. No one said anything to them. I mean, we also have to listen to rap music (well, if you consider rap to be music) issuing from boom boxes at 110 decibels, so what the heck?
One of these guys looked around. The other guy said something like, "We're bothering everyone."
Guy Number One replied, "Yeah. They don't like it, but they're Americans, so they put up with it."
When do we stop putting up with it? Why do other people feel justified in making all kinds of unreasonable demands upon us? And why do we let them?
Similarly, on the domestic front, was listening to Bill O'Reilly tonight with Dennis Miller. I love Dennis Miller. I think O'Reilly probably likes Dennis because Dennis uses so many big words. Anyway... O'Reilly told Miller that a tax revolt is brewing. "The folks can't take much more," O'Reilly said.
Earlier, O'Reilly tried to goad John Stossel into leading a tax revolt. Stossel said he didn't think a revolt would happen.
I think it will. As a matter of fact, I think Pelosi, Reid, and the Comrade will be getting off light if all that happens is a tax revolt. Maybe that's why the Comrade is so friendly to Chavez, Ortega, and islamic terrorists. He's jockeying for a place of safe harbor for when the Capitol is over-run by rampaging, unemployed taxpayers.
Or are Americans supposed to be less likely to "snap" than islamic-terrorists-hiding-in-the-US-Army?
By the way, wanna buy a house? Rather than just let the bank foreclose, I'm trying to sell. The one thing in my favor is, I'll let it go cheap. (Ha-ha, Lake County tax assessor, take that! I'll bring down property values for the whole damn neighborhood! Then try building your highways to nowhere.) Talking to a real estate agent today, hopefully. Sick of paying the taxes on it, can't afford the necessary maintenance because of the taxes on it -- three times more than the principle I pay monthly -- sick of staying up all night trying to figure out where to get money to pay the bills and buy groceries.
Thanks, Pazzo, Harry & the Comrade. And if you think I can afford to buy insurance, you three are so very disconnected from reality it ain't even funny. Yet, somehow, I would still prefer freedom to the bullshit freebies you-all promise. Rather be dead than lose my freedom. You just can't understand that, can you? And if you don't understand that, the USA is just one big puzzle, isn't it?
Again in the 1970s, July 4, 1976 to be exact, the Bicentennial, I cried during the fireworks. Just couldn't imagine so many people dying for this. For me.
Thanks again, Vets. We owe you one.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
What a difference a year makes
Occurs to me that it's a year since the Comrade was elected. Of course, he didn't take office until Jan. 20, but this time last year I was -- even then -- reeling in disbelief, worried about what the hell was going to happen to the country. So what has happened? Let's review.
We're still hearing that it's all Bush's fault. Hey, you know what? The question is not "How did we get into this mess?" The question is "What are you doing about it?"
The answer? Spend astronomical sums of money that will cripple free enterprise and keep the US in hock down to the 3rd and 4th generations. Is that acceptable?
I do believe for the 2010 election, the Democrat plan is to try to re-activate the under-21 vote -- those green recruits who've never had to pay their own rent and can afford to believe in pie-in-the-sky obamanomics as long as they're still parasites living off their parents. And now they can stay on their parents' insurance policies, as dependents, until they're 27 years old.
When I was 18, my mom told me I had to start paying rent or move out. I relished the idea of independence. But that was another generation. We didn't wear helmets to ride bikes, either, ate dirt, and stayed outside until the street lights came on, or later if we could get away with it. Life was an adventure. No more. Now the idea is to shelter and protect against life and its uncertainties.... With the result that you create only more and unknowable uncertainties and your kids do not have the personal resources to deal with any of it. All they're capable of is whining to Uncle Sam for a hand-out.
Illegal aliens represents another fertile field for enlisting Democrat voters. Especially the newly-arrived, who likely don't speak much English and who aren't much familiar with US traditions. They hear Democrat war cry: "Hop aboard the gravy train!" It's a call to action that's hard to resist.
Did I leave anything out? Are you feeling more hopeful and optimistic about the USA? What about your kids? What are they going to do after you're gone? With an education consisting of chanting praises of the Comrade and listening to horror stories about "Global Warming." Likely they'll end up huddled in caves and worshiping totems.
Wasn't it Reagan who asked, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" And just think, back in those days, it took four years to dismantle the prosperity of the republic. Now it's only been one year.
So, are you better off now than you were one year ago? Better prospects? More hope? More opportunity? Is government more accessible and transparent? Are they doing what you want them to do? Or has government become the power-drunk 800-lb gorilla in the room, smashing everything up as it staggers and collapses, threatening to take you with it.
Just think about it.
- The useless government-sponsored boondoggles, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out at citizen expense, yet they continue to totter toward collapse since their clientele have no jobs and cannot pay their mortgages.
- Some of the largest capital investment firms in the nation were allowed to fail, the decision about who remained standing apparently determined by how close you are to Tim Geithner; Goldman Sachs has a leg up.
- Approximately 105 smaller banks have been closed -- and that number grows almost daily.
- Unemployment has gone from 7.2% to 10.2%.
- The federal government passed an astonishingly expensive ($787 billion) so-called Stimulus bill that has accomplished nothing perceivable, except to prop up the employment of marginal state government payrollers, making it virtually impossible for the states to cut their expenses. In fact, most will see higher ongoing expenses due to the stimulus package. They will probably have to raise taxes, since printing more currency is not an option for them.
- The House passed a useless and astonishingly expensive energy bill, now stalled in the Senate. If passed, this bill will probably end up doubling the cost of energy across the nation, and the cost of everything produced by energy (i.e. everything.)
- The House passed an actually destructive and frightening 2000-page socialized medicine bill that may compel many health care professionals to leave the field while accelerating demand for their services. And, just as Baby Boomers begin to retire in droves, they will find that the specious security blanket Medicare has provided has been pulled out from under them.
- All this garbage legislation has re-energized the political right, but their high-volume, orderly protests have fallen on deaf ears. The federal government is apparently so dead-set on seizing control of every detail of every citizen's life, they don't want to know that we'd all rather see them burning in hell.
- The Comrade in the White House seems to have sailed off into outer space somewhere, touching down to earth only to make a speech here and there to promote some new, useless, destructive and crushingly expensive socialist Five-Year Plan. Liberal media are scambling to preserve some "good" in him. His rockstar charisma begins to fail, and he doesn't seem to have any other resources to fall back on.
- Judging by recent -- almost daily -- news reports of attacks and bombings in Afghanistan, soon the war will wind down -- simply because all US soldiers will be killed through attrition, and with no support or reinforcement coming to them.
- Oh, and let's not forget that private citizens are going nuts and shooting each other, desperate to pin the blame on someone for the shambles their lives have become.
- Economic growth remains elusive, as small businesses -- the engine of economic growth -- are faced with continuing threats of monumental increases in their tax burden. Who wants to expand when any growth will be sucked up by local, state, and federal taxes and regulatory diktats?
- And, of course, there's the impending (if not predictable) bankruptcy of the USA and its impact on international markets. Pretty soon the dollar will be worth less than the paper it's printed on. This is good for the sale of exports, but also means the demise of the nation both economically and politically. What is that smell? The New World Odor?
We're still hearing that it's all Bush's fault. Hey, you know what? The question is not "How did we get into this mess?" The question is "What are you doing about it?"
The answer? Spend astronomical sums of money that will cripple free enterprise and keep the US in hock down to the 3rd and 4th generations. Is that acceptable?
I do believe for the 2010 election, the Democrat plan is to try to re-activate the under-21 vote -- those green recruits who've never had to pay their own rent and can afford to believe in pie-in-the-sky obamanomics as long as they're still parasites living off their parents. And now they can stay on their parents' insurance policies, as dependents, until they're 27 years old.
When I was 18, my mom told me I had to start paying rent or move out. I relished the idea of independence. But that was another generation. We didn't wear helmets to ride bikes, either, ate dirt, and stayed outside until the street lights came on, or later if we could get away with it. Life was an adventure. No more. Now the idea is to shelter and protect against life and its uncertainties.... With the result that you create only more and unknowable uncertainties and your kids do not have the personal resources to deal with any of it. All they're capable of is whining to Uncle Sam for a hand-out.
Illegal aliens represents another fertile field for enlisting Democrat voters. Especially the newly-arrived, who likely don't speak much English and who aren't much familiar with US traditions. They hear Democrat war cry: "Hop aboard the gravy train!" It's a call to action that's hard to resist.
Did I leave anything out? Are you feeling more hopeful and optimistic about the USA? What about your kids? What are they going to do after you're gone? With an education consisting of chanting praises of the Comrade and listening to horror stories about "Global Warming." Likely they'll end up huddled in caves and worshiping totems.
Wasn't it Reagan who asked, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" And just think, back in those days, it took four years to dismantle the prosperity of the republic. Now it's only been one year.
So, are you better off now than you were one year ago? Better prospects? More hope? More opportunity? Is government more accessible and transparent? Are they doing what you want them to do? Or has government become the power-drunk 800-lb gorilla in the room, smashing everything up as it staggers and collapses, threatening to take you with it.
Just think about it.
House toadies pass socialized medicine
CLICK HERE FOR THE ROLL CALL VOTE
or cut'n'paste: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml
-- just in case the link doesn't work.
Make your own copy and bring it with you to your Polling Place next year.
The House passed its bloated socialized medicine bill by a vote of 220 - 215. Pazzo Pelosi gloated over it for a while. I didn't watch her. I can't stand seeing her rat-like teeth anymore. I just want to slap her face and see if there is anything at all behind the plastic. (I mean, beside more plastic.)
I almost did watch, though. I was sitting there, concentrating real hard, focusing all my psychic attention on the thought of her tripping over the steps to the podium, falling down, cracking her head, and her brains falling out. I visualized it in great detail, hoping if I concentrated long enough, I could make it happen.
Earlier, as Pazzo swept majestically through someplace I tried to convey the same thought psychically, and one of her idiot bodyguards or someone actually tripped on something and almost fell down, so it thought it might work. Just have to perfect my psychic aim.
Anyway, I'd just gotten off work and was hungry, so instead of waiting for Madama Butthead to show up, I went out and got a bag of potato chips. Got to keep my priorities in order.
If they can have magic economics and socialized medicine Utopia, I guess I can project a psychic death ray.
Anyway, 220 - 215 is not a very impressive showing, considering the size of the majority in the House. Something like 39 democrats voted against it. One republican voted in favor, but he's supposed to be not much more than a place-holder, like zero, replacing some other congresscritter who's in jail right now (where most of them really belong). The bill is not going to get through the Senate, so this is all just a waste of time. However, it keeps the congresscritters busy and prevents them from making a larger mess of other industries that they also don't know anything about.
One vote that is not surprising is the "Aye" from my congressional rep, Melissa Bean. I assumed she would vote with the democrats. However, through this whole issue, Ms. Bean has shown herself to be a truly gutless, spineless and worthless legislator. Here's why:
She didn't have any town hall meetings, just teleconferences with a select few people -- no doubt cogs from the state's democrat machine, her donors, and any other person she might feel beholden to for her office. Not ordinary citizens, however. No... we don't count. I do think she had something like a "tea," invitation-only, and she refers to that as her "town hall." Maybe she really doesn't know the difference between open discourse and sycophants kissing your butt. One more reason not to extend her stay in Washington -- too easy to manipulate.
Bean was initially leaning in favor of socialized medicine, then issued a statement saying she really hadn't made up her mind. Bullshit, you know? She just didn't want to have to defend her position after seeing the strong negative reaction her cohorts in the House were getting at their town hall meetings. She didn't want to actually think hard enough to come up with any positive reason for supporting socialized medicine -- and God knows, that's a tough one, because there really are no positive reasons for supporting it. But Bean quite obviously has no guts, and clearly no conviction behind her position. She probably just asks Pelosi which button to hit or obeys directives from some clown from Cook County.
Because of that -- her refusal to take a stand and defend it -- I have absolutely no respect for Melissa Bean at all and I don't think weak-kneed addlepated powder puffs like her should even volunteer to represent other people. She hasn't got the spine for it, and clearly not the brains, either. She certainly isn't capable of representing me.
Start looking for another job, kiss-up. Maybe after the 2010 election, ol' Pazzo will invite you to S.F. and you can help her scare the crows off her vineyards or skim the scum off her pool. You really aren't wanted back in Illinois.
or cut'n'paste: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml
-- just in case the link doesn't work.
Make your own copy and bring it with you to your Polling Place next year.
The House passed its bloated socialized medicine bill by a vote of 220 - 215. Pazzo Pelosi gloated over it for a while. I didn't watch her. I can't stand seeing her rat-like teeth anymore. I just want to slap her face and see if there is anything at all behind the plastic. (I mean, beside more plastic.)
I almost did watch, though. I was sitting there, concentrating real hard, focusing all my psychic attention on the thought of her tripping over the steps to the podium, falling down, cracking her head, and her brains falling out. I visualized it in great detail, hoping if I concentrated long enough, I could make it happen.
Earlier, as Pazzo swept majestically through someplace I tried to convey the same thought psychically, and one of her idiot bodyguards or someone actually tripped on something and almost fell down, so it thought it might work. Just have to perfect my psychic aim.
Anyway, I'd just gotten off work and was hungry, so instead of waiting for Madama Butthead to show up, I went out and got a bag of potato chips. Got to keep my priorities in order.
If they can have magic economics and socialized medicine Utopia, I guess I can project a psychic death ray.
Anyway, 220 - 215 is not a very impressive showing, considering the size of the majority in the House. Something like 39 democrats voted against it. One republican voted in favor, but he's supposed to be not much more than a place-holder, like zero, replacing some other congresscritter who's in jail right now (where most of them really belong). The bill is not going to get through the Senate, so this is all just a waste of time. However, it keeps the congresscritters busy and prevents them from making a larger mess of other industries that they also don't know anything about.
One vote that is not surprising is the "Aye" from my congressional rep, Melissa Bean. I assumed she would vote with the democrats. However, through this whole issue, Ms. Bean has shown herself to be a truly gutless, spineless and worthless legislator. Here's why:
She didn't have any town hall meetings, just teleconferences with a select few people -- no doubt cogs from the state's democrat machine, her donors, and any other person she might feel beholden to for her office. Not ordinary citizens, however. No... we don't count. I do think she had something like a "tea," invitation-only, and she refers to that as her "town hall." Maybe she really doesn't know the difference between open discourse and sycophants kissing your butt. One more reason not to extend her stay in Washington -- too easy to manipulate.
Bean was initially leaning in favor of socialized medicine, then issued a statement saying she really hadn't made up her mind. Bullshit, you know? She just didn't want to have to defend her position after seeing the strong negative reaction her cohorts in the House were getting at their town hall meetings. She didn't want to actually think hard enough to come up with any positive reason for supporting socialized medicine -- and God knows, that's a tough one, because there really are no positive reasons for supporting it. But Bean quite obviously has no guts, and clearly no conviction behind her position. She probably just asks Pelosi which button to hit or obeys directives from some clown from Cook County.
Because of that -- her refusal to take a stand and defend it -- I have absolutely no respect for Melissa Bean at all and I don't think weak-kneed addlepated powder puffs like her should even volunteer to represent other people. She hasn't got the spine for it, and clearly not the brains, either. She certainly isn't capable of representing me.
Start looking for another job, kiss-up. Maybe after the 2010 election, ol' Pazzo will invite you to S.F. and you can help her scare the crows off her vineyards or skim the scum off her pool. You really aren't wanted back in Illinois.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Another day, another shooting
Well, I guess everyone has heard about the "Fort Hood Massacre" by now. Very sad. Tragic. I couldn't figure out at first how one guy with two hand guns could shoot more than 40 people in a couple of minutes and without having to reload, but there it is.
I'm glad the Army worked so hard to keep him alive, so that he can be interviewed and serve as a case study. Usually, lunatic killers go down with their victims. Often by choice. Or maybe usually by choice, or they wouldn't start shooting in the first place.
And now today, a crazy in Orlando, Fla. I don't even know what happened exactly, just that this guy was apparently fired from his job and decided to get even.
Remember a couple months ago, the nursing home killings, and that nutcase at the Holocaust Museum, and the killing of the Army recruiter in Arkansas? I think I advised then, "Get used to it." That hasn't changed. There's too much pressure building. We're all getting squeezed from every direction.
So your life starts going to hell in a handbasket. Nothing you can do to stop it. You lose your job, can't pay for the house or the car. Lenders are unforgiving and taxes and prices keep going up. It's like nickel-and-diming you to death. How are you going to put your kids through college? Where are you going to go when you lose the house?
Hmmmm, who's behind all this? Where did it all go wrong?
Everyone finds their own explanation, their own object of blame. Even the White House does this. According to them, the world was a virtual paradise until George W. Bush took office and now we may never recover. I think it's time the White House begin accepting responsibility for making things worse and start working on some real-world solutions instead of promoting its pie-in-the-sky socialist agenda, but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. They seem to spend more time "making honest errors" in counting up all those jobs the Stimulus bill "saved or created." Anyone else who did that kind of accounting would be in jail. Maybe they should consider hiring a laid-off professional who actually understands how to count. FYI, Comrade: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... You have to keep it pretty much in that order.
At any rate, I keep losing work, can barely pay my mortgage. Now I get a county property tax assessment that's pure fantasyland. Really, what the county thinks my house is worth is based on recent sales at a new "luxury" subdivision down the street. My house is 50 years old and the gutters are falling down. Only half the plumbing is copper. The furnace is 20 years old. The fair market value according to the county is easily about 25% - 30% more than I would even dream of asking for with a straight face.
I called the county and asked them if they hadn't heard about some serious reversals in the mortgage and real estate industries. "Well, of course, ma'am, but our assessments are based on home sales from 2006 - 2008."
Oh. I get it. If they go by what's happening now, they'd have to decrease assessed values and couldn't collect as much in taxes, so they do the assessments based on inflated home values from banner years. Yeah. Makes perfect sense. After all, they have to pay for the ongoing road and sewer construction being done for subdivisions that have been canceled due to market conditions. I understand. They have all those voters on the county payroll to support.
That's Lake County, Illinois, just to put the blame where it belongs. Yeah, lots of rich people up here along the lakefront, but the vast majority are just working stiffs trying to make a living. And we bought homes up here because it was way cheaper than Chicago and Cook County.
The only question is: How in the world does the county expect homeowners to pay even more in taxes?
How in the world do Pazzo Pelosi and Harry Reid and the Comrade expect people to pay even more in taxes for crappy, rationed health care, electricity, bonuses for Tim Geithner's friends at the ever-expanding Goldman Sachs, and on and on and on?
So, pick a target and come out shooting. Apparently for some people, that seems like a plan. And death to them looks like a preferable alternative than continuing the never-ending struggle against the nightmare that has become life in America.
So, once again I say, "Get used to it." If you go out in public frequently, you might want to look into some kind of body armor. Americans are instinctively unwilling to "go gently into that good night" of marxist-socialist oppression.
And a hearty "Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!" for those heroic people who were at the Capitol yesterday trying to defeat the House's socialized medicine bill. I heard that many of the concresscritters they tried to talk to disappeared... kinda like the way cockroaches scurry away when you turn on the lights.
All of my "representatives" are socialist nutjobs -- that's Dick(head) Durbin, Roland Burris, and Melissa Bean. Even if I did go to Washington, it would be a waste of time talking to them. Although I still do the occasional email just to keep up my typing skills. I don't think they pay any attention, too busy sucking up to Pazzo and the Comrade, apparently hoping for a better assignment in the parking lot or whatever.
Just can't wait for the 2010 elections.
I'm glad the Army worked so hard to keep him alive, so that he can be interviewed and serve as a case study. Usually, lunatic killers go down with their victims. Often by choice. Or maybe usually by choice, or they wouldn't start shooting in the first place.
And now today, a crazy in Orlando, Fla. I don't even know what happened exactly, just that this guy was apparently fired from his job and decided to get even.
Remember a couple months ago, the nursing home killings, and that nutcase at the Holocaust Museum, and the killing of the Army recruiter in Arkansas? I think I advised then, "Get used to it." That hasn't changed. There's too much pressure building. We're all getting squeezed from every direction.
So your life starts going to hell in a handbasket. Nothing you can do to stop it. You lose your job, can't pay for the house or the car. Lenders are unforgiving and taxes and prices keep going up. It's like nickel-and-diming you to death. How are you going to put your kids through college? Where are you going to go when you lose the house?
Hmmmm, who's behind all this? Where did it all go wrong?
Everyone finds their own explanation, their own object of blame. Even the White House does this. According to them, the world was a virtual paradise until George W. Bush took office and now we may never recover. I think it's time the White House begin accepting responsibility for making things worse and start working on some real-world solutions instead of promoting its pie-in-the-sky socialist agenda, but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. They seem to spend more time "making honest errors" in counting up all those jobs the Stimulus bill "saved or created." Anyone else who did that kind of accounting would be in jail. Maybe they should consider hiring a laid-off professional who actually understands how to count. FYI, Comrade: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... You have to keep it pretty much in that order.
At any rate, I keep losing work, can barely pay my mortgage. Now I get a county property tax assessment that's pure fantasyland. Really, what the county thinks my house is worth is based on recent sales at a new "luxury" subdivision down the street. My house is 50 years old and the gutters are falling down. Only half the plumbing is copper. The furnace is 20 years old. The fair market value according to the county is easily about 25% - 30% more than I would even dream of asking for with a straight face.
I called the county and asked them if they hadn't heard about some serious reversals in the mortgage and real estate industries. "Well, of course, ma'am, but our assessments are based on home sales from 2006 - 2008."
Oh. I get it. If they go by what's happening now, they'd have to decrease assessed values and couldn't collect as much in taxes, so they do the assessments based on inflated home values from banner years. Yeah. Makes perfect sense. After all, they have to pay for the ongoing road and sewer construction being done for subdivisions that have been canceled due to market conditions. I understand. They have all those voters on the county payroll to support.
That's Lake County, Illinois, just to put the blame where it belongs. Yeah, lots of rich people up here along the lakefront, but the vast majority are just working stiffs trying to make a living. And we bought homes up here because it was way cheaper than Chicago and Cook County.
The only question is: How in the world does the county expect homeowners to pay even more in taxes?
How in the world do Pazzo Pelosi and Harry Reid and the Comrade expect people to pay even more in taxes for crappy, rationed health care, electricity, bonuses for Tim Geithner's friends at the ever-expanding Goldman Sachs, and on and on and on?
So, pick a target and come out shooting. Apparently for some people, that seems like a plan. And death to them looks like a preferable alternative than continuing the never-ending struggle against the nightmare that has become life in America.
So, once again I say, "Get used to it." If you go out in public frequently, you might want to look into some kind of body armor. Americans are instinctively unwilling to "go gently into that good night" of marxist-socialist oppression.
And a hearty "Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!" for those heroic people who were at the Capitol yesterday trying to defeat the House's socialized medicine bill. I heard that many of the concresscritters they tried to talk to disappeared... kinda like the way cockroaches scurry away when you turn on the lights.
All of my "representatives" are socialist nutjobs -- that's Dick(head) Durbin, Roland Burris, and Melissa Bean. Even if I did go to Washington, it would be a waste of time talking to them. Although I still do the occasional email just to keep up my typing skills. I don't think they pay any attention, too busy sucking up to Pazzo and the Comrade, apparently hoping for a better assignment in the parking lot or whatever.
Just can't wait for the 2010 elections.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Can you hear us now?
So, the Comrade spent lots of time in New Jersey, and as it turns out, the race wasn't even close. The Republican, Christie, won by at least 100,000 votes last time I looked.
In Virginia, the Republican won by something like 12% or more.
In that bizarre race in New York's 23rd Congressional Dist., a guy no one ever heard of until a month ago, and who pretty much forced out the "moderate" Republican, lost the race, but only by about 4,000 votes, last time I looked. Not a bad showing, though still a loss.
But I suppose all the congresscritters on Capitol Hill were busy behind closed doors creating more expensive and unwanted legislation, so they couldn't care less about any of this.
Remember good ol' Tip O'Neil? "All politics is local." He has a point.
Harry Reid, who's actually not polling well in his home state of Nevada, now says that the Senate needs to do some more tinkering or something with the Senate version of socialized medicine, so the bill probably won't get through the Senate until after Christmas. English translation: He doesn't have the votes.
Here's another thing.... putting off legislation for the "next session" is kinda like what the Chi-Town Cubbies do every year about post-season play. But I'm sure people like the Comrade and his Merry Marxists won't let Reid totally shelve the bill. No, they're going for total humiliation.
Meanwhile, Pazzo Pelosi is calling for a vote on the House socialized medicine bill this week sometime. That's the now 2,000+ page bill that people are still reading. So soon after the slaughter of Election Day, Pazzo? She really is a couple bricks short of a load, isn't she? But go ahead, then we'll be rid of it.
I must say, I really love America. I mean, Washington can pretty much go to hell, but there's 300 million non-politicians out here who really do get it, and who aren't prepared to give it up just yet.
I love you guys!
Do you suppose now a big wave of honest government will sweep across the nation? Well, let's not get carried away.... I really can't picture Illinois cleaning up its act. Without corruption and cronyism, I don't think Illinois politicians would really know how to behave.
In Virginia, the Republican won by something like 12% or more.
In that bizarre race in New York's 23rd Congressional Dist., a guy no one ever heard of until a month ago, and who pretty much forced out the "moderate" Republican, lost the race, but only by about 4,000 votes, last time I looked. Not a bad showing, though still a loss.
But I suppose all the congresscritters on Capitol Hill were busy behind closed doors creating more expensive and unwanted legislation, so they couldn't care less about any of this.
Remember good ol' Tip O'Neil? "All politics is local." He has a point.
Harry Reid, who's actually not polling well in his home state of Nevada, now says that the Senate needs to do some more tinkering or something with the Senate version of socialized medicine, so the bill probably won't get through the Senate until after Christmas. English translation: He doesn't have the votes.
Here's another thing.... putting off legislation for the "next session" is kinda like what the Chi-Town Cubbies do every year about post-season play. But I'm sure people like the Comrade and his Merry Marxists won't let Reid totally shelve the bill. No, they're going for total humiliation.
Meanwhile, Pazzo Pelosi is calling for a vote on the House socialized medicine bill this week sometime. That's the now 2,000+ page bill that people are still reading. So soon after the slaughter of Election Day, Pazzo? She really is a couple bricks short of a load, isn't she? But go ahead, then we'll be rid of it.
I must say, I really love America. I mean, Washington can pretty much go to hell, but there's 300 million non-politicians out here who really do get it, and who aren't prepared to give it up just yet.
I love you guys!
Do you suppose now a big wave of honest government will sweep across the nation? Well, let's not get carried away.... I really can't picture Illinois cleaning up its act. Without corruption and cronyism, I don't think Illinois politicians would really know how to behave.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
If you don't have a Vietnam, create one?
I wrote a little about this about a week ago (Congress's Piggy Bank, Oct. 17, 2009), but am starting to get really worried now about the US's position in Afghanistan.
I'm not sure I understand this situation. The US sent troops to Afghanistan about eight years ago now to clear out the Taliban, who were harboring al-Qaeda camps and leaders. And it was pretty easy to clear out that band of thieves. The bigger war in Iraq pretty much took priority, but with that wrapping up now, attention returns to Afghanistan. Actually, the Comrade said during the presidential campaign that Afghanistan was the only war that really counted.
So now, after approving a "surge" strategy in March and appointing General McChrystal to implement it, the Comrade has been hemming and hawing over committing more troops for going on.... three months now?
Meanwhile, anyone else noticed that over the last month, and the last week in particular, that the Taliban and friends have stepped up the violence? Much of this may be directed at Pakistan, but if the Pakistanis force the Taliban back into Afghanistan, will the Taliban meet with any effective resistance there? I mean, if the Comrade doesn't send McChrystal the troops he believes he needs?
Meanwhile, the US sends diplomats to an allies' meeting in Eastern Europe (where the US has just backed out of a missile defense system that had been planned) to beg for troops and support in Afghanistan. Before the Comrade has decided on whether or not the US is really committed. I'm sure they'll be more than willing to deploy, when the US might back out at any moment, depending upon which side of the bed the Comrade wakes up on.
Is this making any sense to anyone? I said before, the Comrade was leaving US troops in Afghanistan for the Taliban to use for target practice. Still looks that way. And exactly what more information does the Comrade need to make a decision?
Was he hoping our allies would absolutely compel us to commit 40,000 more troops, as McChrystal has recommended? Maybe he was hoping they would pat us on the back and say, "Good ol' Unca Sam, you've done enough. Let us take over." I mean, the Europeans hosted numerous, extremely bloody terrorist attacks for 30 years and did nothing about it on their own (Munich, Rome, Lockerbie, etc.). They seem to prefer to tolerate unexpected and random bombings and hi-jackings to getting off their big fat butts and defending themselves. It wasn't until 9/11 and the US stepping up to the plate that al-Qaeda met with any kind of forceful resistance. Does the Comrade expect Europe to take the lead now? (Actually, I believe the UK has sent more men, without the Comrade's decision.)
I admit, I don't know much more about military tactics than I've learned studying the Civil War. But I can tell you one that thing happened over and over again during the Civil War with usually disastrous results.
Often the commanders had very little on-the-field intelligence. No radios or satellites or anything -- although they did try a hot air balloon once -- and messengers could be killed before reaching headquarters. Often the generals found a hill, a rooftop, or a church steeple and watched the action from there. Or they put signalmen up there and they flagged back messages.
In addition, during the Civil War, as now and at any time, most military commanders are protective of their men. They don't want to "waste" them -- and take that any way you want. They're generally careful about engaging unless they must to defend, or unless they simply have no other option but to attack. You usually lose more men when you attack than when you defend.
One recommended tactic (by Colin Powell, among others) is to attack in force, with about twice as many men as you expect the enemy has. You try to overwhelm the enemy. However, in many Civil War battles, the commander might have been uncertain of his intelligence, or simply didn't want to lose his army. He sent his people in "piece-meal." A couple regiments at a time.
Often what happened is that they were overwhelmed, slaughtered, and the commander then sent in another couple of regiments, who were overwhelmed and slaughtered. The casualties were astronomical. And little ground gained. (And I mean, astonomical: 23,000 dead and wounded at Antietam in one day. 52,000 dead and wounded at Gettysburg over three days. 12,000 at Second Manassas. 13,000 at Shiloh.)
Many Vietnam Vets claim that this is what happened in Vietnam. Though we had hundreds of thousands of troops there, there were few "pitched battles," but tons of losses from things like stepping on poisoned spikes or hits by other weapons traps, or small, bloody skirmishes that came not-quite by surprise. The Vets say if the US had gone in full-force, taken the initiative instead of putting ourselves on the defensive, we could have won. Who's to say? We weren't trying to conquer North Vietnam, only keep South Vietnam independent.
The one thing that occurs to me about this is that sending troops to Afghanistan in a piece-meal fashion is only setting up for failure. And in this case, failure means the useless death of our soldiers, maybe 20,000 at a time. It seems that the Comrade is creating another Vietnam when there is a more effective way to attack, and with an actual chance of winning -- McChrystal's strategy.
Of course, the Comrade has to deal with his rabid-left fan club, who are generally reluctant to fight for their own rights and freedoms -- they think holding hands and sharing a Coke would work just as well -- and who are, in fact, happy to hand their freedom and security over to whomever promises them a free ride -- free health care, free education, free mortgage... whatever. Maybe these voters believe deep in their hearts that al-Qaeda is willing to do just this? Maybe al-Qaeda would govern us better? Or do they believe al-Qaeda is just going to slink away? No indications of that at all. Not one. Just the opposite.
The White House seems to say that it wants to make sure Afghanistan has a stable and non-corrupt government before we commit more troops. Only, you know what? We aren't in Afghanistan to provide them a stable and non-corrupt government. We're there to kill al-Qaeda and to deny them any place of refuge.
And it seems to me that every day the Comrade delays -- and he may be waiting on the outcome of several elections in the US, too, just to see which way the political wind is blowing -- he puts US troops in more danger. It's no doubt very important for the Comrade to do numerous fund-raisers and supportive appearances for fellow Democrats in local elections, but I'd rather he was in the White House, acting like a President instead of in New Jersey, acting like a cheerleader.
'Course, that's just me.
I'm not sure I understand this situation. The US sent troops to Afghanistan about eight years ago now to clear out the Taliban, who were harboring al-Qaeda camps and leaders. And it was pretty easy to clear out that band of thieves. The bigger war in Iraq pretty much took priority, but with that wrapping up now, attention returns to Afghanistan. Actually, the Comrade said during the presidential campaign that Afghanistan was the only war that really counted.
So now, after approving a "surge" strategy in March and appointing General McChrystal to implement it, the Comrade has been hemming and hawing over committing more troops for going on.... three months now?
Meanwhile, anyone else noticed that over the last month, and the last week in particular, that the Taliban and friends have stepped up the violence? Much of this may be directed at Pakistan, but if the Pakistanis force the Taliban back into Afghanistan, will the Taliban meet with any effective resistance there? I mean, if the Comrade doesn't send McChrystal the troops he believes he needs?
Meanwhile, the US sends diplomats to an allies' meeting in Eastern Europe (where the US has just backed out of a missile defense system that had been planned) to beg for troops and support in Afghanistan. Before the Comrade has decided on whether or not the US is really committed. I'm sure they'll be more than willing to deploy, when the US might back out at any moment, depending upon which side of the bed the Comrade wakes up on.
Is this making any sense to anyone? I said before, the Comrade was leaving US troops in Afghanistan for the Taliban to use for target practice. Still looks that way. And exactly what more information does the Comrade need to make a decision?
Was he hoping our allies would absolutely compel us to commit 40,000 more troops, as McChrystal has recommended? Maybe he was hoping they would pat us on the back and say, "Good ol' Unca Sam, you've done enough. Let us take over." I mean, the Europeans hosted numerous, extremely bloody terrorist attacks for 30 years and did nothing about it on their own (Munich, Rome, Lockerbie, etc.). They seem to prefer to tolerate unexpected and random bombings and hi-jackings to getting off their big fat butts and defending themselves. It wasn't until 9/11 and the US stepping up to the plate that al-Qaeda met with any kind of forceful resistance. Does the Comrade expect Europe to take the lead now? (Actually, I believe the UK has sent more men, without the Comrade's decision.)
I admit, I don't know much more about military tactics than I've learned studying the Civil War. But I can tell you one that thing happened over and over again during the Civil War with usually disastrous results.
Often the commanders had very little on-the-field intelligence. No radios or satellites or anything -- although they did try a hot air balloon once -- and messengers could be killed before reaching headquarters. Often the generals found a hill, a rooftop, or a church steeple and watched the action from there. Or they put signalmen up there and they flagged back messages.
In addition, during the Civil War, as now and at any time, most military commanders are protective of their men. They don't want to "waste" them -- and take that any way you want. They're generally careful about engaging unless they must to defend, or unless they simply have no other option but to attack. You usually lose more men when you attack than when you defend.
One recommended tactic (by Colin Powell, among others) is to attack in force, with about twice as many men as you expect the enemy has. You try to overwhelm the enemy. However, in many Civil War battles, the commander might have been uncertain of his intelligence, or simply didn't want to lose his army. He sent his people in "piece-meal." A couple regiments at a time.
Often what happened is that they were overwhelmed, slaughtered, and the commander then sent in another couple of regiments, who were overwhelmed and slaughtered. The casualties were astronomical. And little ground gained. (And I mean, astonomical: 23,000 dead and wounded at Antietam in one day. 52,000 dead and wounded at Gettysburg over three days. 12,000 at Second Manassas. 13,000 at Shiloh.)
Many Vietnam Vets claim that this is what happened in Vietnam. Though we had hundreds of thousands of troops there, there were few "pitched battles," but tons of losses from things like stepping on poisoned spikes or hits by other weapons traps, or small, bloody skirmishes that came not-quite by surprise. The Vets say if the US had gone in full-force, taken the initiative instead of putting ourselves on the defensive, we could have won. Who's to say? We weren't trying to conquer North Vietnam, only keep South Vietnam independent.
The one thing that occurs to me about this is that sending troops to Afghanistan in a piece-meal fashion is only setting up for failure. And in this case, failure means the useless death of our soldiers, maybe 20,000 at a time. It seems that the Comrade is creating another Vietnam when there is a more effective way to attack, and with an actual chance of winning -- McChrystal's strategy.
Of course, the Comrade has to deal with his rabid-left fan club, who are generally reluctant to fight for their own rights and freedoms -- they think holding hands and sharing a Coke would work just as well -- and who are, in fact, happy to hand their freedom and security over to whomever promises them a free ride -- free health care, free education, free mortgage... whatever. Maybe these voters believe deep in their hearts that al-Qaeda is willing to do just this? Maybe al-Qaeda would govern us better? Or do they believe al-Qaeda is just going to slink away? No indications of that at all. Not one. Just the opposite.
The White House seems to say that it wants to make sure Afghanistan has a stable and non-corrupt government before we commit more troops. Only, you know what? We aren't in Afghanistan to provide them a stable and non-corrupt government. We're there to kill al-Qaeda and to deny them any place of refuge.
And it seems to me that every day the Comrade delays -- and he may be waiting on the outcome of several elections in the US, too, just to see which way the political wind is blowing -- he puts US troops in more danger. It's no doubt very important for the Comrade to do numerous fund-raisers and supportive appearances for fellow Democrats in local elections, but I'd rather he was in the White House, acting like a President instead of in New Jersey, acting like a cheerleader.
'Course, that's just me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)