Nathan Crowe... Anti-Everything

23% Unemployment

2012-02-02T05:44:00.001-08:00

Good times. Shadow stats compounds unemployment by the standards that use to be used before officials on both sides of the aisle began tweeking them for political gain.
Shadowstats.com

Moore Hipocrisy

2012-01-26T01:43:00.000-08:00

I saw Michael Moore on TV again, complaining about wage desparity and blah blah... I started wondering how many houses that guy has. Turns out he has a multi-million dollar apartment in Manhattan and $2 million home on Michigan's Torch Lake. I'm envious. Not envious like the Occupy folks that just want to tear everyone else down out of jealousy, but envious like, I want that and want to earn it kind of envious. The kind of envy that drives a person to work harder because I like nice things.

Clearly Moore does as well. In his words, "I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it?" Yes, it is bro, too bad you seem incapable of ascribing that same philosophy to people like the Koch Bros, who have millions of supporters and employ hundreds of thousands of people so that they can hopefully one day achieve their own American Dream. They aren't so different, they both provide a product that people want and are willing to pay for. Both create jobs through their products.

The difference is in philosophy. The Koch Bros believe everyone should earn their way and work for their dreams and are willing to facilitate that by giving someone a job. In return for helping them make more money for Koch Industries, the Koch's share it with their employees. Moore, on the other hand, believes that money should be taken from the rich and given to the poor. He is very vocal about this and he donates a little to charity, but he doesn't pay the higher taxes he says should exist. As an American, you can volunteer to pay more as an individual in taxes. There's a slogan in the military that comes to mind, 'Lead By Example'. Instead of talking the talk, walk the walk.

If you're for taking from the rich to redistribute to the poor by force of taxation like Moore is, instead of redistributing wealth to employees in trade for work for mutual benefit like the Koch's, why would you buy those two houses? I mean, for arguments sake, let's use Moore's own rationale here. If he can afford a multi-million dollar apartment AND a $2 million mansion, if he instead had 1 regular house and redistributed the rest of his earnings to those in need, how many mouths could that feed? We're talkin' some where over $3-4 million dollars not including upkeep and utilities. Those are big numbers, shouldn't he feel ashamed that he's buying big expensive houses and driving expensive cars instead of helping his fellow man in need? If you do the math, $3-4 million would feed 827-1095 for 1 year at $10 a day. That seems logical according to his particular philosophy.

And if he's allowed to have those houses because he earned that money, why aren't people who are rich but right-leaning that employ people?

If Occupy folks were serious about their demands, they wouldn't just rally outside Koch or Murdoch's place, they'd protest Moore too for being anti-Union and not redistributing his wealth. Don't get me wrong, I would enjoy my wealth if I had it, and plan to when I get it. I have no intention of sharing. I don't begrudge Moore for being rich, only for being a hippocrite. If you can't even live by your own standards, how exactly can you expect others to do so?

Wage Slavery

2012-01-12T09:52:00.001-08:00

Got into an interesting conversation last night in regards to wage slavery. Clearly there are two points of view on what constitutes 'wage slavery'. There is the anti-capitalist view of wage slavery that believe businesses force people to work to make a living instead of... I guess just giving you a living? Which, even after a hour of conversation, she couldn't explain it to me clearly. I looked it up and got a bunch of references to Karl Marx and Unions, which Lennin called the 'training college for Communism'. The entire concept just seemed petty and childish.

I'm not saying it's not wrong, clearly forcing someone into an artificial debt to make it seem like they have to continue to work for you to pay off that debt to get cheap labor is wrong, but how often does that happen in America? I mean, honestly. That represents... what... 1% of instances in the US, and usually only happens to folks who are either illegal or don't speak English well enough to get help. I mean, if anything, if this is someone's definition of wage slavery, then they should be for speaking the native language for the safety of the workers and against allowing illegals to work to spare them from that sort of situation.

My impression of wage slavery is very different. To me, logically, wage slavery implies someone who is enslaved to their job, just as the one above does. But, to me, it seems to me that tax payers are the wage slaves in America. You have about half of the country paying taxes to prop up the other half. That in itself is wage slavery. It becomes wage slavery when the government raises taxes, expands or creates new benefits and those that actually pay the taxes have to work longer and longer hours in order to maintain their quality of life while paying the increasingly crushing weight of taxation on their shoulders.

I mean, do we or do we not hear constantly how our lives are busier than ever? Why is that? Well, if you're working, it's likely that your property taxes went up so you have to put in a few extra hours to make up the difference so you don't uproot your family. Then, they raise the tax on gas, cigarettes, alcohol and create several new taxes on sugar, soda, tanning, and other forms of 'sin'. In response, your wife has to get a part-time job to make up the difference in costs to maintain your current lifestyle. Then, they institute a mandatory health insurance which essentially amounts to a tax that drives up both your health costs and/or charges you a fee if you can't afford health insurance because all your other taxes have gone up. To meet the new costs, your wife finds a full-time job instead of part-time job. Then, the state sales taxes and auto fees and license fees go up, and you have to get a part time job to pay for it. Then the extend welfare and unemployment qualifications and benefits and your wife has to get a part-time job... meanwhile, half the country is sitting at home playing Playstation on your dime and you have no right to argue.

You have no right to your own money, or your own work. You have no right to spend your time with your family or decide how your money is spent. Your only right is to work. Day in and day out, to work. Never ending work so others can sit on your shoulders and call you a 1-percentor because you're trying desperately to improve your situation in life and at every turn, you are rewarded with more work, less time and less of your own money. Never ending work to pay for a bunch of greedy, selfish, glutunous bums can sit in a park, shit on cop cars, rape women, asault people, film porn in public, destroy private property and tell you that they are the model of virtue you should aspire to be. Work until your life is spent, wasted and they parasitically move on to their new hosts.

That's wage slavery to me.

Going Galt

2011-11-30T15:55:00.001-08:00

It's a very romantic notion to anyone who's read Atlas Shrugged and has an ounce of personal responsibility. Going Galt. In the book, major capitalists start going on strike. In doing so, they go to a removed, very hard-to-find location in Colorado and start their own pure capitalist economy using their own currency... which is really just gold.

Having just revisited the story following the release of the first movie, I have to say I got drawn into it a bit as well. The first time I read it, I didn't really get the whole Galt's Gulch thing because, you know... young and stupid. I couldn't imagine living without hardcore shows... to demonstrate how shallow I was.

Speaking of which, there was a club my band at the time (Confide) played, the Galaxy, where a bum lived out back under the concrete deck. He wasn't always there, but when he was, I'd go down the street and buy him some orange chicken (even though I was vegan at the time) and talk with him. He had very different views about life than I did, and I just wanted to understand them. He hated taxes and thought of them as theft and had chosen to live in abject poverty instead of paying them. At the time, I didn't get the big deal and we'd talk continouisly about because I just didn't get it.

Then, I read Atlas Shrugged, and it was so completely over my head... but it did something to me. It changed me. After reading it, I was no longer in the same frame of mind as my friends and band mates. For example, Confide had a song called 'The Dollar' which basically pointed a finger at people who were 'dictated by the dollar'. But, I began to see those people as honest and the people I was around as the moochers and parasites. It messed me up because I didn't fully understand it at the time. It's hard for a teenager to go from thinking your friends and the people you surround yourself with are the best thing in the world to seeing their complete lack of contribution to society... even harder to realize your own lack of contribution.

That was the only way I could rationalize it at the time, although I know now that it has nothing to do with societal contribution and everything to do with personal responsibility and achievement. I wasn't in that frame of mind when I was younger. I was one of those ass-hats that believed the needs of society were more important than an individual's (so long as it agreed with what I wanted), and that everything should belong to everyone... except my stuff. I thought capitalism was wrong, except for my capital. I was confused like every other teen my age.

Now that I'm in the real world, I get it. I get what the Galaxy bum was saying. I understand the difference between functional, reasonable taxes and preying on the tax payers... by corrupt politicians, businesses, churches and unions... etc... I get it. I revisted the book and having spent the last several years into survival and preparedness, the concept of 'Going Galt' is really appealing.

There's several ways to define 'Going Galt', I'm sure it'll be different for everyone, but to me it's withdrawing from the system as much as you can. In terms of taxes, you would get a low-income job that requires no intelligence to do and live below the income tax line. By doing so, none of the moochers can live off of or benefit from your efforts. The government cannot continue to rob you of hours of your life you spending working harder and working longer to try to improve your own life. You contribute the bare minimum. This frees up your time to do the things you love; like for me: playing video games and recording music.

If you want to take it a step further, you can take up foraging, gardening, farming, fishing, hunting, etc... to keep from paying into taxes that support things you don't. You move to a place that allows you the most autonomy and flexibility. In many small towns, you can even buy fresh vegetables and meat from locals and pay no taxes on your purchase when you get to know the right people. And you can even avoid some sales taxes by buying on Amazon or other online sources (except in Illinois).

It's very simple to explain, but incredibly hard to do. And quite frankly, I don't think I could really do it... at least not yet. I'd need a plan. Or to just move to a very small town and find a way to contribute I suppose. Tell them that joke I know.

I just decided to see if anyone else was mulling it over, maybe meet some people who think the same... surprisingly... or maybe not so... I came across lots of people thinking the same thing.

http://rightwingnews.com/culture/businessmen-who-are-actually-going-john-galt-their-stories/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/going-galt-hedge-broker-shuts-down-firm-with-chilling-letter-about-the-market/
http://washingtonindependent.com/32772/battling-obama-by-going-galt
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/going_galt_americas_wealth_pro.html
http://www.amazon.com/Going-Galt-Surviving-Economic-Armageddon/dp/1456413295

I mean, there was a crap load of people talking about it, asking about it, etc... And clearly, they are overly right-leaning which bums me out in a small way, but I don't think any of them will really do it. Most of the big talkers, myself included, will not be Going Galt anytime soon. Although, the tiny-house community and minimalist movement seem to have a lot of Galt in them whether they realize it or not.

I think truly Going Galt is accomplishable with a good plan, but I'm still a few years out from getting to a point that I will have done what I want and be content to bow out. I just need to finish up some stuff first, then maybe I'll try it. Maybe not, but it's an interesting thought exercise trying to figure out how to do it; the where's, the why's, the how's... Just mulling.

THe BSofA and The People's Cube

2011-11-15T15:54:00.000-08:00

I love The People's Cube, I've been reading the site for years. I love his book Shakedown Socialism, it's the first time I've bought a book twice so I can get a signed copy. And Brian Sack is brilliant. He always has the funniest shirts. He's the one that interested me to the LMAO shirt with Mao's face. Hilarious. And he's got a new show now on GBTV, and it's actually really funny.

Almost couldn't tell the difference between this and Sesame Street.

Best Albums From Beginning to End

2011-11-04T13:06:00.000-07:00

I read this article on Cracked and it got me thinking about Nirvana - Nevermind. What a great album. But, then it occured to me, in the world of iTunes and mp3s... do people still listen to and appreciate an album all the way through? I mean, there's something about being able to just put in an album and let it play that is really awesome. I'm not talking a playlist, which obviously has it's place, I'm talking albums. In the order the creating artist put it in to have the best impact.

So, I decided to drop a list of my favorite albums, in no particular ranking or order, to listen to in their entirety from beginning to end.

The Dillinger Escape Plan - Calculating Infinity

Talk about capturing chaos. This was such a brilliant, technical piece of work. I remember a friend in Sedalia, MO suggesting I check it out so I bought this album. I put it in and sat in the Hastings parking lot totally lost until the CD ended. It was like a blitzkrieg on my senses. Timing, polyrythems, adrenaline, energy... I didn't even know you could do some of the things they did on instruments.

Beastie Boys - Check Your Head

Not a very popular album, but something about the overall tone made me love it. I even had a girlfriend who was a huge Beastie Boys fan and hated this album. To this day, I don't know why I like it so much. I just total love songs 'Gratitude', 'Professor Booty' and 'So What'cha Want'. I can't explain it.

White Zombie - Astro-Creep:2000 - Songs of Love, Destruction and Other Synthetic Delusions of the Electric Head

I like White Zombies first album, but I didn't think it was anything to write home about. But this one, I remember my buddy let me borrow his CD and I sat in my room that night and listened to it probably 6 or 7 times, over-and-over, in my headphones. I picked up something new each time I heard it. It was just so methodical. I loved it so much, I end up buying this absolutely massive poster... which was unfortunately destroyed during a move while I was in the service or I'd still be sporting it... that was the size of a twin bed. It's almost ironic that he now directs horror movies because something about listening to the album from front to back was like a sonic horror film. I would always imagine some horrible scene or storyline that ebbed and flowed with the album.

Pantera - Far Beyond Driven

This is when they were definately on top of their game. I think a lot of people would say that they liked Vulgar Display of Power better because it was when they were on the top of their game, and it would go on the mandatory list of albums to give an alien to understand metal in it's purest form, but for me, Far Beyond Driven had a better beginning to end experience. Vulgar definately had some of the best single tracks, but in terms of whole album experience, I use to love throwing in Driven and playing Sim City on Super Nintendo.

Earth Crisis - Gomarrah's Season Ends

This is the album that really got me into the hardcore/metalcore scene. It introduced me to straightedge and veganism, which is a big deal when you're looking for a way to differentiate yourself in highschool. When all the 'cool kids' were drinking underage and doing what everyone else did, I decided to rail completely against the entire concept of conformity... by conforming to a different style. Sort of ironic, and obviously I woke up eventually and realized how hypocritical and preachy I was, but at that point in time, it gave me something to latch onto that was all mine.

Torn Apart - Ten Songs For Bleeding Hearts

I remember the first time I heard these guys. I had bought their first CD, "Nothing is Permanent" and was sitting at the bar when a guy walked up and was like, 'Oh, you like them?' I was like, 'Don't know, we'll see. Never heard them before.' He just smiled and said, 'well, if you like crazy music, you'll 'em.' Turns out, he was the guitarist. And he was right. They completely rocked.

Guns N' Roses - Appetite for Destruction

In the same way the Nevermind broke into the angst of a generation, Apetite for Destruction did the same for it's time frame. Even as a kid I was enticed by the raw emotion of the album. G'N'R and Motley Crue were bad boys and in some way, listening to their music made me feel rebellious.

Depswa - Two Angels and a Dream

A friend gave me this CD and just said, 'It's good.' He was right. What a phenominal vocalist. It's unfortunate that these guys didn't get to do more because this was such a great album. I love the lyrical content and the way the album just sort of rides. Great for sing-a-longs.

Hatebreed - Satisfaction is the Death of Desire

I listened to this CD all the way from Chicago to St Louis. It's short and to the point, but I never seem to get tired of it. Everytime I hear it, it's this great 30 minute blast of intensity. Fast, heavy and it really opened me up to how many variations of stomp riffs you can do with a metal song.

Tool - Aenima

I don't care much for the singer's lame politics, but this album's epic length songs and they way they bled into each other gave you this strange sense of a loss of time. It had this weird tone to it that was part melancholy, part ominous forshadowing, party beauty. It was really fantistically done and I still place it in my list of great albums. Another friend of mine puts, '10,000 Days' on the list of albums that he can't put in unless he plans to listen to from beginning to end. I like it, but I never got into it like I did 'Aenima'.

Alice in Chains - Dirt

I was introduced to this after 'Nevermind' and it was such a great accompaniment. It was clearly it's own thing, it's own tone and Alice in Chains is a brilliant band, and this album really gave you a fun ride from beginning to end. I had a hard time choosing between 'Dirt' and 'Jar of Flies'. Flies was creepier and makes great Halloween music, but Dirt was overall a better journey.

Neurosis - Through Silver in Blood

Speaking of creepy. This album was epic in length and was like a psychadelic trip through the mind of mind of HP Lovecraft while he looked out the window of a spacecraft. It was disturbing with 3 vocalists... 2 of which sound almost identical... and the way they interweave each other over droning guitar and far out sampling. On October 31st, I would suggest putting this in, and driving down a lonely, quiet, rural road and park in the middle of no where.

Prong - Rude Awakening

This album was a big diversion from their previous stuff. I wasn't a big fan of Prong before this album. But this album came off and had this very bleeding edge sensibility to it, like someone that was attempting to incorporate Techno... but with absolutely no Techno or sampling at all. It was a really strange, but happily fantastic. I just love the way they captured the groove and tempo of techno and combined it with solid hard rockin rythems.

Weezer - (The Blue Album)

This album was just a solid rock album. It wasn't heavy, but wasn't light. They took this overdriven guitar and made it melodical with really catchy hooks and pleasant rythems. It was a neat dichotomy, and really well done. I remember getting off the school bus, finding a sweater and me and my friend started tearing it apart while walking back home singing 'Undone - The Sweater Song'... until a little girl came up screaming, 'That's my sweater!' Felt bad. Oops.

AC/DC - Back in Black

I know this may seem unbelievable, but I actually did not know who AC/DC was until I was in high school. I recognize the songs, but I never knew who they were. One day, I was sharing a room with my now step-brother when my dad and now step-mom were just dating and found this tape on his nightstand. I put it in my Walkman for the hour ride back home (they lived an hour apart) and it blew my socks off. It was the quickest hour ride I'd ever spent. I was really getting into metal at the time, but this was just pure rock'n'roll. It was just so solid, you couldn't help but like it.

Cypress Hill - Black Sunday

Not every album that hit me was a rock or metal album. I remember the first time I heard this in grade school. It was not your typical pop rap or ghetto rap. There was this dark, murky under belly that they exposed, bringing a purposeful morose feel to the already dark topics of life in the ghetto. It felt more appropriate than say, NWA or Public Enemy which had these sort of... non-emotional grooves. Cypress Hill put appropriately dark music behind their dark topics.

Sunny Day Real Estate - The Rising Tide

This was a chance purchase. I read their name on the thank you list of another, much heavier band, bought this and on the drive home from Vintage Vinyl was in a complete sense of awe. I had totally expected another carbon copy metalcore band, was ready for some heavy screaming and stomp riffs, and instead I was greeted by a mournful, visceral experience by a singer that for the longest time I thought was a eunuch. His voice was so unnaturally high and beautiful and soulful, there was no way he was a dude. I've finally accepted that I could be wrong, but the album is still incredibly powerful.

Pro-Pain - Make War Not Love

Kick ass. Just straight up kick ass. It just starts off awesome, has great screaming hooks which I didn't know were possible until this CD, and ends awesome. And the vocals are so gnarly, I don't know how the guy has a voice left.

Korn - Life is Peachy

While their first album was on the bleeding edge of the NuMetal revoltion that sort of surfaced following Rage Against the Machines debut, this one definately had more adrenaline. The first CD was the metalhead's equivalent to a Dr Dre, cruisin' down the strip, slow-ride CD... but this one was definately made for the purposes of harnessing teenage angst.

Motley Crue - Shout at the Devil

For it's time, this was so amazingly heavy but somehow still accesible. And c'mon, Tommy Lee? The spinning, lifting drum solo. Untouchable. Not only was he a solid drummer, but in his day, there was no one that could touch him when it came to showmanship. These guys weren't as bluesy as G'N'R, they were just about straight forward heavy metal.

Sevendust - Seasons

This album was like a series of hooks connected to each other. It was just catchy all the way through. It's hard to really know where it begins and ends. You can just hit repeat and let it roll over and over and it just doesn't get tired.

Killswitch Engage - The End of Heartache

This was the first album with their new singer Howard Jones and there was a lot of worry that he wouldn't live up to expectations. I loved Jesse on vox, but Howard Jones is easily amazing. Just completely fantastic. They jump from melodic riffs to stomp riffs to thrash rifts with ease. And they make it sound so fluid. Howard's range with both his singing and screaming really raised the bar with what to expect from metalcore singers.

Metallica - (The Black Album)

This was a very nonstandard album for them at the time. You could almost see it coming with '...And Justice For All' (which I would also add to the alien introduction to metal collection), but it made metal so accessible and catchy. I know it chased alot of their fans away, but I completely loved it. I like to drop it in conjunction to 'AC/DC - Back in Black' and jam them back-to-back.

Sick of it All - Scratch the Surface

These guys have been around forever it seems like. And seriously, do they ever stop touring? Ever? Seriously, forever on tour. They never stop. They are friggin' machines. And this album caught me just right. It's adrenaline-fueled, fast, and finishes too soon. Like the first time you have sex.

Living Sacrifice - The Hammering Process

It's hard to say that this is a deviation for them, but before this album, they just struck me as a standard metal band. But, when this came out, I think I left it in my car for a few months and just let it play. The first singing vocals caught me off guard but they fit so well. I have a hard time listening to any of their other stuff now and believing it's them.

Papa Roach - lovehatetragedy

I don't think this album did very well, although I'm not sure why. Every song was like a tear-drenched monologue by a drunk guy at the end of the bar. You just felt heartache and misery flowing into your eardrums. If ever there was a break up CD made for metalheads, it was this one.

Slayer - Reign in Blood

Like getting kicked right in the dick. Pure metal and the first stomp riff I ever heard, although they weren't called that when they wrote it. This one falls squarely on the alien list of understanding what metal is, and parents hated it with a passion when it came out, so you know it's good. Dark imagery, thrashing speeds, angry yelling... just what every lost and confused teenage boy needs.

Stone Temple Pilots - Purple

The follow up to 'Core', which was great, this album had more of a macabre feel to it. It was very subtle, but it snared me after my first listen. 'Core' did too, but it felt more juvenile, less methodical in it's delivery. 'Purple' felt more controlled, more thought out, more deliberate... Like they were trying to creep you out without letting know they were trying to creep you out.

Visions of Disorder - Imprint

This is what I imagine it must be like to be bipolar. Back and forth, soft and loud, crooning and screaming. And the drumming? Interesting choices. That's all I can say. Sure as hell ain't nothin' like it I've ever heard. Dude must hate cymbals. Unique. Fun ride.

Deftones - White Pony

This is a very polished album compared to 'Adrenaline', but their approach to melody and the eerie feeling of their quiet portions meshed well. I have a friend who thinks this is their worst CD, but I couldn't disagree more. They captured something with it that just made the entire album blend and flow so smoothly, it was hard to turn off.

Meshuggah - Nothing

Meshuggah is everything their name implies. Pure insanity. It's easily the heaviest band around, maybe ever. The way they write their rythems is brilliant. It's repetitive, with just the smallest variation in teh most nuanced places so if you're listening, it becomes a mental process just to pin down the rythm. I imagine that most be what it's like to be a socio-path. Repetitive thoughts with just slight variations, enough to cause you to think them again and again, each time with a slight variation. It helps that they designed this album to be a total concept, full listen through album. It's practically one song.

Coal Chamber - Dark Days

I remember the first time I heard Coal Chamber at the first OzFest. They were neat, but I just kind of wrote them off as another gimic. But, their third and final album was amazing. I don't think it got noticed though because they had lost a large group of their fans following, 'Chamber Music' which I didn't think was bad either, just more gothic. But 'Dark Days', wow. They took AC/DC drum grooves, mixed them with gothic imagery, metal guitar chops and great screaming
vocal hooks.

Cradle of Filth - Cruelty and the Beast

This CD was my first experience with Cradle of Filth and it was such a radical departure from anything I had heard at that point that I couldn't help but get drawn in. It was my first experience with a concept album as well that told a story or focused on a singular topic the entire way through.

House of Pain - Same As It Ever Was

I loved their first CD, but this one had a sort of sindular sound with the bass that tied the music together and made it all feel the same instead of feeling like a collection of seperated songs. I really liked the beats on this too. It was just a great album to throw on and pwn some n00bs too on Halo 2.

Quicksand - Slip

The sound of this album and the music was really nifty and even now doesn't get old. But, it definately has a summer feel to it... although I don't know why. It's not like the Beach Boys of Jimmy Buffet or anything, there's just something about the way their guitars and vox work together that make me think of summer. Like, I think about cruzzin' Highway 101 with this turned up.

Sugartooth - (self-titled)

From the start with 'Sold My Fortune'; which is just a great track, to the 'Sound of Her Laughter', the album has some great hooks and has a great sort of up and down pacing. It's the type of album where people into pop or hard rock and compromise and listen to. Sort of like Depswa or Sevendust... the vox and grooves are good enough to pull in people who don't like hard rock, but the guitar work is creative enough that anyone into hard rock will also enjoy it.

All Out War - For Those Who Were Crucified

This album has one sentiment: Pissed. In the same way Slayer or Hatebreed or Darkest Hour sound the same every single song with little variation but it never gets old, All Out War is the same. They found a sound and they stick rigidely to it. The album start heavy and ends heavy with heavy all between. It's a solid wall of sound. And did I mention pissed? It's a solid wall of pissed.

Biohazard - State of the World Address

From the kick off, this is just a sweet ass album. It just made me feel like I had some grasp of what was happening in the streets and ghettos and feel genuinely bad about it, unlike rap artists who glorified their plight. 'It's the state of the world address mother fucker!'

Slipknot - Slipknot

This was just such a new idea... and I love their later albums as well, but this one came out of left field. I remember seeing a 2-song demo tape in my friend's car prior to leaving for Basic Training, so on graduation I picked it up and listened to it on the bus all the way to my Tech School at Goodfellow. I had the first version of the album and it was during 'Purity' that I saw a black shape in the road in the middle of the desert that... me being a dumb mid-western hick... thought was a kitten, until we got closer and I saw it was a gigantic tarantula. The had to swap the song out on later prints, for 'Me Inside' which was also good.

Black Sabbath - Paranoid

This was pretty much a staple in our office during Afghanistan when we did all the planning for the first few weeks of the war following 9/11. I know that album wasn't intended to be a war anthem, but it just sort of became our go to album. Everytime I hear it now, it brings me back to 26 hour workdays and sleeping on the floor in a sideroom waiting for flight crews to get back.

Honorable Mention:

Special Defect - Sol Niger Within

This is just a crazy album. You lose track of time when it's on because it's just so friggin' crazy.

The Beetles - Abbey Road

This is a great album. I'm not a die-hard Beetles fan, but the story behind them and this album is great... and the album was so unique, especially for them.

Pink Floyd - The Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall

Again, I'm not huge into Pink Floyd, but when you think about the time that this album came out and what they did, it's really amazingly unique.

Occupy a Rape

2011-11-03T15:55:00.001-07:00

Irony: Anti-Capitalists copyrighting their name

They are contradicting their own message of anti-capitalism by turning the Occupy movement into a funcitoning business, and now they are dealing with the freeloader issues that we have to. Maybe they'll realize that this is how we feel about them. The longer they stay out there, the more they seem to run into the same problems they inflict on us and have to face them.

I was trying to understand these people and give them a chance to change my initial impressions of them, but at this point, I've stopped caring. They were worthless before, but now I thank them. I hope they stay out there forever. So long as all the worthless people are in one place, the rest of us are free to work and put forward the effort to improve our lives.

It's strange how as these Occupy folks claim to be on the side of peace while burning down Oakland, raping women in multiple cities, destroying businesses, destroying public spaces, screaming anti-semetic rants, finding support from the Marxists and Nazis and assaulting anyone with a camera. I see them comparing themsevles to the Civil Rights movement, but I don't recall the Civil Rights movement being the aggressor. They didn't hurl water bottles and rocks at police and then fall to the ground and scream 'brutality!' if a cop looked at them. They were persucted while these dumb ass kids are instigating all the violence. They are raising the bar to the point where most of us will be left with no options like that mercedes driver in Oakland who had to choose between being dragged out of car and beaten to death or running over the protestors attacking his car.

The more I see from these cannibals in action and listen to their words, the happier I am I got into preparedness a few years ago and created an exit plan, because they seem hell bent on making sure things get so bad I have to use it. I refuse to accept or live under their parasitic totalitarian concept of society. They are not going to make me their serf and live off my labor.

The problem with their entire scheme is that they think people like me that produce money, and own the capital and property will just continue accept the open prejudice and exploitation and continue to be productive so they can continue to leech off me. I have zero problem quitting my job, selling my properties and taking a job as a gas station attendent or night time shelf stocker in Grand Forks, North Dakota. I will still be happier with my life than these monsters roaming Wall Street, Boston and Oakland and pretending to be for freedom. God knows it'd be easier than what I'm doing now. My cats would love that I'm home so much more.

The reason I don't mind is because I know I can do it over again once these people have destroyed themselves. I'm not afraid of starting over. These people are afraid to even stand on their own two feet without someone to use as a crutch. They need me and people like me in order to make everything they want happen because someone has to produce. But, I'm not going to help them shackle me. It's just not gonna happen.

I think the best lessons on the ones where you fall on your face and have to pick yourself up. I've learned the most from my failures... and I have A LOT of them. I'm REALLY GOOD at failing. I fail a lot. It's sort of my forte. But I also achieve alot. Because I learn from my epic list of failures. I just hope they learn as much from their coming failure. But, if not, hey... you can't win'em all.

So... how 'bout them Blues?

Occupy Yourself

2011-10-21T08:02:00.001-07:00

I hope these people are doing something to keep themselves healthy. That many people in one place for that long is a breeding ground for bacteria. And now with rats showing up because of food sitting out and spoiling, uncollected trash barrels. I disagree with basically everything I've heard come out of these protests... with the possible exception of women going topless... which is awesome, but I hope they are being intelligent about their sanitary situation.

Occupy STL

2011-10-15T10:47:00.000-07:00

So, I packed up garbage bags, latex gloves and hospital masks (smell precaution, I sprayed a bit of Axe on the inside the mask in case these people stank really bad) and went up to the Occupy STL. To put it mildly, it was a joke. It was basically 20-30 people camping in the city, complaining about Capitalism in their brand new tents and nicely mass produced signs. There was no trash to pick up really because, with so few people, it's almost hard to make a real mess. It was very sad.

It looked like someone tried to throw a party, only to find out they weren't as popular as they thought they were.

What's more sad, is the news was really building it up making it sound like a big thing. But, I think the reality is, most of their paid employees/protesters were pulled from Madison and sent to New York to buff numbers. It's almost comical to hear them complain about lack of employment when they are getting paid to protest. Set aside that they could create their own business and their own employment, that's clearly too practical for these people.

So, why did I go up there? I went to clean up their mess. I figured if they are going to litter or dump trash at banks as a statement and sign of protest, then I will go clean it up without complaint, without signs, without message. I think the act of cleaning up their mess will be clear: I do not accept your premise, your message or purpose. I will clean up your physical mess the same as I will clean up your economic mess. This is my country and I choose to take care of it, not destroy it.

I suppose that makes me a Kulak.

In many ways, they remind me of children who want a toy while they are at the store. Their parents say no, and they start throwing a fit. They don't realize their parents are there to buy groceries so they can live, they don't care that their parents are busting their ass to take care of them and spend all those hours working to make their life better. They want their toy.

I didn't want to engage in counter-protest or cause a scene, I figured the best form of passive resistance was to simply clean up after them. Clean up the city the way I'll clean up the economy. Thankfully, there wasn't much to clean. I imagine that has to do with what happened in New York.

I'm glad about that, because while they think they did it to continue their right to protest, what it really did is teach them there are consequences for their actions. I imagine that now, they will try to keep their protest areas somewhat clean in order to continue to protest. They've unwillingly learned the first step of responsibility, the personal step.

So, I walked around the city and kind of soaked in the admiration I have for the effort and determination it takes to build such a thing. The man hours of laying concrete, pipes, bricks for buildings... the innovations that came from... the mind of a capable and able thinking human being and what it can accomplish when it chooses to work. The irony that they chose this setting to occupy and protest work. And then, irony of all ironies, I see this about 100 yards from the protesters location.

The green one on the end is a Free Employment Guide. It's full. But notice the 99% sticker on the other end. I think it says everything I need to know about this movement and those people. They had enough energy to deface property, but not to grab a free resource to find employment. This told me that they are clearly not men and women of ability, but that of the moocher class.

I can understand why their creed is From Each According to Their Ability, to Each According to Their Need now; they have no ability beyond that of living at the expense of others, because they will always be the people of need. But, thankfully in St Louis, that's only about 20-30 people. My head count was 27, but I didn't go into their tents. I probably could have under the stipulation that it was public property and we had to share everything and spread the wealth around, but I chose to respect their tent privacy and treat it as personal property.

Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-11T05:35:00.000-07:00

I have been listening to people complain at this Occupy Wall Street stuff. People are saying it's like the Tea Party... which, it's not and I won't go into the differences like arrests, littering, violence... ect... that define the main differences between the two. There was one guy saying the reason he was sleeping for days on end on Wall Street was because his job had been outsourced. You might think, he must be a factory worker or industrial worker. Perhaps a miner or some other blue collar worker.

No. He's a web designer. Let that sink in.

The reasoning for Occupying Wall Street for this particular man was that his job had been outsourced. Instead of looking for a new job, he is camping on Wall Street. I did a generic web designer search and found tons of jobs in that field. On craigslist, there are tons of listings for new small business owners looking for web designer to help them create a page on the internet. How lazy do you have to be to sit on Wall Street under the premise that someone should hire you instead of someone in India that can do the exact same thing for less?

People who want to be paid like a CEO but don't have the work skills a drive-through cashier say that they can't find work because it's all being outsourced. The answer seems so blatantly simple to me that I almost feel ashamed to be related to the same species as these people. When your job is shut down, you go where the work is. In this case, the job is so mobile he didn't even have to move. All he had to do was put forth the effort.

Instead, he found it more reasonible to complain about his plight instead of fix it. Because excuses apparently put bread on the table in today's world, and effort and productivty puts you in the crosshairs of government taxation.

It got me wondering where he must've learned such a lazy demeanor. Looking at the people on Wall Street complaining about the college loans that they have to pay back... that they took out... I would have to assume college. So, what is the purpose of college? I mean, I go to college, but I have been wondering what the purpose is. It's clearly not education since I've walked into 90% of my classes knowing the material. When I requested to just test out of the classes so I didn't waste my time or theirs, they said that was not a possibility. If education is the purpose of college, I've had a total of only 4 classes that qualify.

The rest, seems to me, to be indoctrination. Some of it subtle, like a power point class (bear in mind, I have been employed as a person who works on powerpoint since 1999, so the class was a pointless waste of my time and money) where we had to build powerpoints about global warming. Some of it, not so subtle, like my American History class, in which the teacher taught history from the point of view of Howard Zinn, a communist, and openly praised Karl Marx and denounced the free-market.

It's almost comical the hypocrisy of teacher's unions protesting student loans and Wall Street greed when they are the ones driving up their pay and the cost of tuition, and not allowing students to test out of subjects to save them money. But no, they have to get their dollars from us, and when they write books no one will read, the teachers simply assign the book to their class and force them to buy it. They convince you that you need school, then force you to pay outrages fees and rates for it, then boycott the banks for giving you the money to go, then raise their rates requiring more students to get larger loans. It's so completely corrupt.

So, what has this web designer gotten from his college education? What has he learned? What has he been sold? Apparently, an institution that declares that it teaches students to think 'outside the box' and freely... has shown him not only what to think, but how. And how he thinks is the manner of a victim, incapable of doing for himself the simplest task of finding employment in one of the easiest and most mobile career paths. Because college trains workers, not entrepreneurs. It trains people who take commands, not create demand.

The answer is so clear and simple, that I have no expectation he will ever see it:

Take responsibility for yourself. Fix your world. When your job is outsourced, outsource your talents. The internet is pure freedom and potential, the single greatest tool ever created by man behind the tool of currency, and your entire job works from inside of it. Anyone can easily create their own career inside the internet, all it requires is your time. Instead of whining about how nothing is your fault and that your plight; something easily fixed, is everyone else's fault, Do Something Productive For Yourself.

James Cameron and the Avatar Theme Park

2011-09-29T04:23:00.000-07:00

So, I came across this and found it mildly ironic. Why? I will avoid spoilers for anyone that hasn't seen it... although I find that hard to believe.

First, consider the messages in Avatar: anti-corporatism, anti-development & anti-capitalist. If you don't like it angled that way, then say pro-localism, eco-sensitive & empathetic. Regardless of how you say it, James Cameron is about to show us just how against corporatism & how much he cares about the environment by working with one of the largest corporate entities in the world and developing 12 acres of park land, creating jobs and generating a potential in millions in profits via a major capitalist venture.

Best Bill Ever

2011-09-24T03:51:00.001-07:00

H.R. 2587

Here is the entire bill:

'To prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance.'

That's it. Rep. Tim Scott is AWESOME.

No one can say that this bill is unclear, too long or claim that they didn't have time to read it.

Not Much To Write About

2011-08-18T07:14:00.000-07:00

The world is coming apart at the seams and our country is being driven into a wall of rocks, pretty much like I said it would. So, there isn't much for me to write about. Some people are going crazy saying, 'I told you so,' but that doesn't really solve anything, so I don't want to do that.

I've pretty much cut the ties on my survival boat and start triage-ing. If you took life serious a few years ago and started getting your ducks in a row and getting prepared, great. I hope we can be beneficial to each other in what's coming. If you're just now realizing how bad things are about to get, welcome, let's talk. We can help each other get through the worst, but I won't be giving anyone a free ride... I can only give you ideas. It's on you to take responsibility for yourself. If you're still caught in the ridiculous concept that everyone can have everything if we all are forced to share... 'shared sacrifice'... sorry, at this point, there is no more waiting around on you. You've made your bed, now you get to lie in it.

This isn't to say I'm planning to shun anyone; I'll help a few people if I can, but I've only planned for myself and my family at this point because that's all I could manage. Helping others will put them at risk... no offense, but that's not gonna happen. If I have to choose between a stranger and my family... well... I think the answer is pretty obvious. It's terrible, but every tragedy has victims and if you've decided to let the government take care of you, provide you health care, pay your wage, provide you shelter, provide you food, then you've obviously decided to be among them. The government is now your owner. Enjoy Oceania.

Sorry. At this point, I have to make sure me and mine are taken care of. Best of luck.

Transformers 3

2011-07-11T01:36:00.001-07:00

So, I saw the movie last week at the Drive-In and I had to immediately text my friend Denzil about how awesome it was. I'm not a huge Michael Bay fan for the most part, and it's mostly only because of the spinning camera/overbearing soundtrack stuff he does... sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes it's just god damn annoying. Transformers 2 suffered from that I think. But, I did like the first Transformers and the second one was passable only because of the fight scenes and Megan Fox's porn-tastic poses. But this 3rd installment is just absolutely awesome. I can't get it out of my head. Even the soundtrack is great.

In trying to pin down what the hell I like so much about it, I realized that there is a very Libertarian feel to the movie that I haven't seen in Hollywood since Iron Man 2 when Tony Stark goes John Galt on a Congressman for trying to confiscate his property. It was like a mushroom stamp on the forehead of Hollywood's pre-generated proto-types and they didn't even realize it. I especially loved that Tony Stark's defense about being such a successful Capitalist was because his competition sucked so bad; something he reinforced with videos that showed, even with government help, Hammer couldn't do anything right. Ayn Rand's essay, 'Notes on the History of American Free Enterprise' comes to mind.

Transformers 3 is very much a monologue about self-reliance and doing what's right even when it seems like everything is against you and everyone is making terrible decisions out of fear. It heralds to the fear we felt after 9/11 that lead to instituting things like the Patriot Act. It heralds to Benjamen's Franklin's quote, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." So, after considering it, it's really no wonder it struck a note with me.

It was a commentary that in times of need, the government is just as fallible and just as likely to leave us on our own as anyone because it's made of people who will act in what they think their own best interests are. And people who are in power and afraid to lose it, and there is a character that represents this in the movie beautifully. He knows what he's doing is wrong, but he thinks his best interest is to forfeit his liberty for the promise of security at the hands of the Decepticons.

The movie is great, I plan on watching it again, but this time in 3D. I wish Optimus Prime was the Libertarian candidate in 2012.

Resignation Consultants

2011-06-26T03:25:00.001-07:00

Che by Reason.TV

2011-06-19T03:54:00.000-07:00

All could be elected to the deuschebag hall of fame.

Egyptian Freedom

2011-06-13T01:36:00.000-07:00

I talked about that crazy Egyptian guy talking about selling people like groceries... apparently, now he's catching flack for it and here's his defense (source: the Blaze):

Egyptian Cleric Clarifies His Human 'Groceries' Comment... By Justifying Taking 'Sex Slaves'

A couple weeks ago we showed you the shocking video of an Egyptian Muslim cleric advocating jihad and saying financial problems could be solved by selling captives “like groceries.” Now, that same cleric is back, and he’s supposedly claiming his words were taken out of context. But the way he’s defending himself is curious, especially when you consider it involves him justifying buying “sex slaves.”

The website Translating Jihad, which first published the earlier video, explains that in the follow-up video (which consists of a 20-minute phone interview), Egyptian Shaykh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni contends “that his words in that clip were taken out of context–he was talking within the larger topic of offensive jihad.” Additionally, the site says, he explains “the meaning of offensive jihad, and establishe[s] through sources in the Qur’an and sayings of Muhammad that both offensive jihad and the taking of spoils of war, namely slaves and ‘sex-slaves,’ are legitimate under Islam.”

That’s certainly an odd way to clarify your remarks. In addition, the transcript (and video) show that al-Huwayni assures his audience not to worry, since the Koran and Allah only allow the women of infidels (not other Muslims) to be converted into slaves:

Do you understand what I’m saying? Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars–there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

Would the infidels include Christians, Jews, Israelis, Americans, and the West in general?

You can read the full transcript over at Translating Jihad.

Wisconsin/Egyptian Update

2011-06-07T01:15:00.000-07:00

This is per a video that's surfaced recently of an Egyptian cleric speaking to the crowds in Egypt.

"We are in the era of jihad. The era of jihad has come over us, and jihad in the path of Allah is a pleasure. It is a real pleasure. The companions (of the Prophet) used to compete to (perform jihad). The poverty that we’re in—is it not due to our abandonment of jihad? But if we could conduct one, two, or three jihadist operations every year, many people throughout the earth would become Muslims. And whoever rejected this da’wa, or stood in our way, we would fight against him and take him prisoner, and confiscate his wealth, his children, and his women—all of this means money. Every mujahid who returned from jihad, his pockets would be full. He would return with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women, and 3 or 4 children. Multiply each head by 300 dirhams, or 300 dinar, and you have a good amount of profit. If he were to go to the West and work on a commercial deal, he would not make that much money. Whenever things became difficult (financially), he could take the head (i.e. the prisoner) and sell it, and ease his (financial) crisis. He would sell it like groceries. Of those who are–(cuts off)"

- Salafi Shaykh Abi-Ishaq al-Huwayni

Uh... yeah... I'm curious to see how the liberals and progressives will spin this, because essentially, this is an admission by the Islamic factions who have gained control in Egypt to their true motives. That means all the dumbass liberals and progressives here in the US supporting them are supporting human rights violations of the worst kind.

They're supporting people who openly exclaim that the best way to solve any problems is to initiate violence (war mongering?), enslave for free labor (where are the unions?) and then sell and exchange people for money (civil rights?)... women and children!?! To quote the protesting Union thugs and teachers in Wisconsin when they were talking about bringing the 'democratic' revolution coming from Egypt to Madison:

"What does democracy look like? This is what democracy looks like!"

Does it? It looks like a Muslim KKK to me. Way to go Tom Morello!

2 Unrelated Issues

2011-05-03T06:17:00.000-07:00

I've been quiet recently because I forced myself to stop watching the news again. Sometimes, I just need to take a break and enjoy things, however, it was sort of hard to avoid it this week thanks to everyone talking about Bin Laden getting capped in the face. So, I flipped on the news in my car (I don't watch TV) yesterday to hear what happened because that's pretty big news and heard another news story about levees being blown in Missouri to save the town of Cairo, IL. Individually, they are two seemingly unrelated stories, but together they told me one thing:

It's election season.

Here's why: First, with Bin Laden, this is good news. I treat as just that, good news. Obviously, I think it would've been better to take him alive, but dead in the water is a great runner up. On an obscure and unimportant note, chanting 'USA!' is a bit confusing to me because it's not really accurate. USA didn't kill Bin Laden, the Navy Seals did. Mr. Miller down the street had nothing to do with it. It seems to me like it'd be more appropriate to chant 'Navy Seals' or 'Rot in Hell' or 'In the Face' or something like that. But, I'm also not one of those people that associates myself with the accomplishments of the teams I like. If the St. Louis Cardinals win a game, I don't say, 'We Won!' because I played no part in the win. I say, 'They Won!' because it's more accurate. Knowing this, my entire point is probably moot; which is why I prefaced it as unimportant.

But let's say you're a 'we're all one team' kinda person and you want to chant. Don't let anyone tell you that you should feel bad about chanting. Ultimately, it isn't hurting anyone and if it somehow improves the comradely with your fellow Americans, by all means, chant away. The people who think chanting is bad are the same people at your company that will complain if they get a Christmas bonus of $1,000 and say, 'Why was it only $1,000. They could've paid us $2,000'. Yeah, or they could've paid nothing mongoloid. Stop being a whiny bitch.

These people will come up with any number of reasons that we shouldn't be happy about this man's death. Cunts like Michael Moore for example. I could go into some, but there's really no point because they're just complaining to hear their own voice or because they feel they represent some holier-than-thou or I'm-smarter-than-you syndicate of intellectuals that look down their up turned noses at us little people. So, for those people, here's a summation of my particular predication of your obstinate perspective: Get fucked. Their narrow mindedness won't allow them to differentiate between rooting for someone's death or showing support for the victim's of that Bin Laden, so it's a knock on their close-mindedness and failure to see beyond their self-imposed blinders.

I'm not glad Bin Laden's dead because of malice, I'm glad he's dead because this is a man that twisted and perverted a beautiful religion to his own ends to achieve a status of power on the backs of others. I'm glad he's dead because this is a man that openly plotted and carried out plans that destroyed lives and families while apparently living in the comforts of a suburban neighborhood not all that different from my own in Pakistan while pretending to be a leader of men that prowled the country side, living in caves and sharing the hardships of his mislead followers.

I'm glad he's dead because his death showed him as the coward he was, a man that would not stand up to his professed enemies when confronted, but instead attempted to push his wife in between them like a little girl hiding behind her dad. I'm glad he's dead because, while I know the families who lost loved ones from around the world in the World Trade Center can never get the people back that they love, I hope it brings them some small amount of solace and piece of mind. I hope it allows them to at least feel that justice has been served.

Will it encourage response attacks? Probably, but they are ready were, so it doesn't change anything. These people just look for excuses, I mean they killed a cartoonist and threatened South Park for drawing Mohammad. They're just bullies from another country and for the US to back down when we're in the midst of this anti-bully kick in schools, seems like we're setting a bad example for the kids. Adding the death of Bin Laden to their stack of reasons doesn't really change the fact that they are and always will be attacking us.

If we do nothing at all, they would still attack us. Really, the death of Bin Laden doesn't change much in the big picture, and while some people will say violence isn't the answer, refraining from violence isn't the answer either. I guess technically it is, it's just a very stupid answer... unless you like getting beat down, then it's a great answer. I personally, am not a fan of getting beat-down. I'm a fan of THE beat-down as a spectator sport only, not receiving one.

I know people don't like to hear this, but sometimes there are no right answers. Not everything in our world can be wrapped up in a little bow. Sometimes, nothing you do will resolve a situation just sort of complete annihilation, which includes lots and lots of violence. But, no matter how big of a hippy you may be, you cannot argue that genocide; while gruesome and inhumane, is a permanent answer. Not the answer anyone but a sociopath would resort to, but an answer all the same.

All kidding aside, when people say that violence is never the answer I just kind of laugh because realistically, it's almost always the answer, just not one we like to promote. But name one war or arrest or marriage dispute that didn't end violently. There are not many. Course, I guess it sort of depends on the question. If the question is how do you take revenge on the people who killed thousands of innocent civilians, I would put forward that the answer will include violence. And while they would willingly commit genocide on us, we will never do that to them. Because of that, we will be permanently fighting them, which includes violence. People who think that if we pack up and leave the middle east they'll magically stop attacking us are morons. What incited 9/11?

They just hate us. Get use to it. You can't be friends with everyone, and if you try to be, you'll end up with no friends at all.

Violence may beget violence, but lack of violence also begets violence as evidenced by 9/11, the Madrid Bombings and every other unsolicited terrorist attack. As a species, we're violent. Some may hide behind religion, or political ideas as justification for their actions; or they may hide among us like Jeffrey Dauhmer, but there will always be violent people in our midst. Sometimes the only tool for negotiation people will accept is violence. We can choose to confront it and realize that violence is an inevitable part of our existence or play footsy with the idea that one day we'll all live on lily pads with flowers in our hair in some sort of existential utopia of peace and fellowship.

Which do you think is more likely?

And really, let's be honest, we love revenge stories. If we didn't, The Punisher wouldn't be as popular as he is. All the peace loving beatnicks also love Avatar, and they didn't take their planet back from that oh-so evil corporation with hugs and kisses. They kicked their ass. Why do we love revenge? Because we love violence.

We can pretend to hate it, but we all love violence or think violently on some level. It's part of being human. If you believe in God, then you have to believe that he gave us violence for a reason. If you don't believe in violence, then you have to believe that violence is as natural to us as our breathing thanks to evolution. But, no matter what you believe, you cannot change the basic nature of man.

Some of the best movies, books, games and plays involve heavy levels of violence and the reason we consider them the best is because it draws out of us an emotional level of awe or appreciation. Romeo didn't play Tybalt in a game of checkers to avenge Mercutio, he gores him with a damn sword. Mankind's basic nature is just as much a killer as it is a nurturer. Some people lean more to one of these than another, but how they use it makes all the difference.

By the way, Nerd Alert: I learned that from Star Trek - 'The Enemy Within'.

And, for all the shit I give Obama about his piss poor decision making and his abject failure as a president (please be one term, please be one term...), this is something he did right. So, on this one thing, I back him 100%. It was a good decision. Now, his motives, I question that.

However, after digesting the info, I began to see a few things wrong with the situation as a whole. Like, what happened to the stance by Obama and Holder about the Miranda rights to combatants on the battlefield? And the right to be brought to America for a 'fair' trial? They made a huge stink about it in the first year of his presidency, forced the situation to bring detainees to New York for prosecution, etc... then, a few years later, their is an elite hit squad who reports only to the president and he gives them a kill order for the FBI's most wanted? Disconnect.

Or how about the whole torture thing that they were making noise about? It was those same methods that lead them to Bin Laden and now all his supporters that rallied behind getting rid of torture are rallying behind him for his decision to off Bin Laden like a bunch of zombies. how about closing Guantanamo? Or how about the pirate situation that took him 3 days to decide to take a shot? Or the 3 months it took to make a decision on Afghanistan?

Basically, what I'm saying is there is a clear track record here that this one decision completely contradicts in his style as a president. So, any non-obama-ite-zombie would logically have to ask themselves why he would suddenly make a decision that goes against his foreign combatant policy, his torture policy, his deliberation policy for wartime scenarios and his general stance against war? I know people who like him will get defensive, but consider it for a second. If you're honest with yourself, you'll realize that there is something out of step.

Then, I remembered he was a Chicago politician. Put that variable in play and you realize that he's campaigning. Every vote he can win based on a the death of Bin Laden and steal from a Republican opponent based on something in Human Resource Management called a Recency Error (inaccuracy or flaw in performance appraisal caused by the evaluators reliance on the most recent occurrences) is a reason to change his stance temporarily to move toward the center for the election purposes, and then move back to the extreme far left if he wins another 4 years to destroy our economy. Basically, it seems to me that he's hoping that coming down hard in a few instances now with terrorism will win him some votes from those he wasn't likely to win before. In short, he seems to be working under the premise that Americans are dumb and have a short memory span and that killing Bin Laden will make up for previous fumbles.

Second, place that story in conjunction with the town of Cairo, Illinois. Pop, 2,996. The decision to blow the levees and flood the farm fields and home residents of 100 or so families in Missouri to attempt to save the residents of Cairo begs questions. Many people are asking why Cairo didn't build more levees and why they are choosing to destroy this productive farm land of the people who did have the incentive to build the proper levees to protect themselves. It's sort of like forcing the ants to give up their winter's worth of food storage to give to the grasshoppers who danced and played all summer.

The answer seems like more of a question of statistics. 60.4% of the residents of Cairo are black in a solidly blue state versus an almost 100% white group of farmers in a red state. You have 2,996 likely votes for 2012 versus 100 or so votes. If there are a few people that he can win over with federal assistance from that extra few trillion in stimulus they never used, then by all means, take the food from the ants. I mean, never let a good crisis go to waste after all. It's in the name of winning the election after all.

Add to that, that he can then turn around and offer federal add to 'save' the farmers he just damned and appear as their savior AND that the cost of food will go up without those farms allowing the government to collect more tax revenue, in particular from farmers in Illinois where taxes are higher... I'm just saying. It's complex and pretty devious really, as well as being incredibly well thought. It's everything you would expect from a James Bond super villain, except it's from our government. The terrorists don't need to blow us up, we're destroying ourselves well enough, thank you very much.

Quote

2011-04-08T07:34:00.001-07:00

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred... You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

~ William J. H. Boetcker

Something To Think About

2011-04-01T03:54:00.000-07:00

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object." - Thomas Jefferson

I find it somewhat entertaining that this is so relevant now and that in his time, you could interchange the words Liberal, Republican and Democrat because they all meant the same thing: a person who believes in themselves and the people around them doing the right thing, not the government or dependence on the government. Amazing how over the last 200+ years they've been twisted into becoming the polar opposite of what they originally were.

Even more amazing to think about is that despite the name games Progressive types will play to temporarily trick people into thinking they are something they're not, how every generation of free-thinking people always find their way back to what's right and just start a new group to represent them and their push for freedom. The John Birch Society, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, the Tea Party. Every time, they create a group, over time it gets taken over and subverted, they just start another new group.

And what's also predictable is the response. Each time the group starts anew, the hate tactics and propaganda machines of those in power attempting to maneuver people into this idea that we need leadership or ownership instead of the ability to educate and empower ourselves, first smear the fledgling groups with whatever controversial subject is most prominent to that generation. Like right now, they are trying their damdest to smear the Tea Party as racist despite some of the most prominent leaders of the party being black themselves. When that fails and the groups gain momentum based on their ideas, the opposition attempts to join and assimilate the group or emulate their same ideas and spin their own outcomes to their own ends. While not immediately fruitful, over long periods of time, they eventually win out and change the definition of what that group believes, but by that point, the next generation have already started new groups and moved beyond it.

In the end, like Jefferson said, you have Individualists and State-ists, in varying degrees. The advantage that State-ists have over Individualists is organization. Individualists don't tend to organize groups of people, and when they do, they don't do it well because... well, they're individuals. The advantage that Individualists have is that every single time State-ists fail (which is 100% of the time), they don't fail with them because they didn't depend on the state to begin with.

It's sort of like rich people who play the stock market and middle class people who just save their money. Rich people, because they have more money, when things are good will make A LOT more than the average person gambling on stocks. In bad times, they will also lose a whole lot more. Where as, the average person who just picks a direction and works towards their own retirement, taking care of themselves... it won't matter if Social Security isn't there or the stock market is good or bad.

Ultimate Doom: Earth Polar Shift

2011-03-26T03:13:00.000-07:00

The Earth Polar Shift is a rare unknown, like the female body is to geeks. Supposedly, it only happens every 250, 000 to 800 million years depending on what we're talking about here. With the sun. Not... you know... nerd sex. Although, I suppose the time tables are pretty close.

If we're talking a complete Pole Reversal; which is technically a completely separate theory from Pole Shift, where north and south pretend they're on Wife Swap and trade positions, then people (and by people, I mean well-known and published scientists, one even supported by Einstein) say it may happen every 250,000-300,000 years. Sadly, it's been about 780,000 years since the last swap, putting us hugely overdue. Like my water bill.

So what can we expect with a Pole Reversal? Actual answer: no one knows. It's never happened in an observable fashion before. Smart people think it may include things like wandering poles (which will completely F migrating animals), multiple north and south poles (which will completely F migrating animals), or even things like Aurora Borealis lights over tropical regions (which will completely F migrating animals?). I see migrating animals getting laid a lot, and me not so much. I'm a bit jealous. Refer to nerd sex time table reference from earlier.

Other side effects may including the ripping apart of continents as the turn of the Earth adjusts to the the new polar mediums which would in turn cause Tsunamis, Volcanic Eruptions, Earthquakes, surges in extreme weather activity like Tornadoes and Hurricanes, 'cats and dogs living together', a weakening of Earth's magnetic shield, the Earth stops rotating, losing the Moon, the extinction of 90% of life on Earth and other more extreme stuff.

More extreme? Yeah dude, I didn't stutter. We're talking Biblical End of the World shit right now. Savvy?

Their proof? The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) currently underway. The SAA is a near Earth region where the magnetic field is at it's weakest. Which is good if you're the sun because you've been trying to get up in Gaea for a minute, but the prude bitch keeps saying 'stop, no and don't'. What Ra doesn't know is Gaea is a crazy psychotic, much to the dismay of greentards everywhere who think if you're nice to her, she'll take care of you. You are misinformed. She will destroy you. She is bipolar and homicidal. For example, here's a joke I overheard her telling Tim at the company Christmas party:

Gaea: Knock, knock.
Tim: Who's there?
Gaea: The complete genocidal annihilation of all of mankind.
Tim: ... um... the complete genocidal annihilation of all of mankind, who?
Gaea: Exactly.

If you still don't think Gaea is a sociopath, check out this utterly unrelated topic that is still fucking terrifying as it involves moths feeding on the pain and sorrow (tears) of other animals with naturally grown harpoons. Science assholes call them proboscis to trick you into thinking it's not a home-made harpoon of misery. But don't believe them! Nature is feeding on tears of agony! You cannot stand there and tell me God is love or nature is peaceful when they make crap like that. Unless by peaceful, you mean sinister. I could list examples all day of the horrific things Gaea finds particularly funny and amusing that absolutely terrifying, but that's not really relevant.

The good news is, most smart people think that a pole reversal should take about a thousand years and shouldn't be some sudden, drastic Earth shattering event. But, spiders shouldn't be able to kill people. Cars shouldn't emit pollution. Children shouldn't steal my mail. Kittens shouldn't be able to cure cancer. There's a lot of things that shouldn't happen, but do. Having a smart person in a lab coat tell me that something shouldn't happen isn't very reassuring. After all, they just hand them out whenever it seems like a good selling point. And besides, it was smart people that ran Enron if I remember right. And it was smart people who built the Titanic, a boat that shouldn't sink. My advice, don't trust smart people. Or anyone who is under 25 that thinks they know how the world works. It's worked out well for me.

Now let's talk about something every stripper knows a bit about, the Pole Shift. Pole Shift has more to do with uneven distribution of continents than anything else. If you think about a top, it makes sense. A top that's heavy on one side won't spin very well, which would make it a terrible dreidel for Hanukkah. But, because the Earth isn't spinning on a table top; it's spinning in zero gravity space in the magnetic pull of the Sun and other celestial bodies, it would tilt and spin and rotate until it found a new happy balance with the weight likely near whatever became the equator. When I say weight, I'm referring to the continents. Think plate tectonics with a fast forward button. Then think of burning death from lava, giant continent splitting fissures, waves taller than the Sears Tower (known as Megatsunamis) and Barbara Streisand naked and you get an idea of the horrors that will be unleashed when Gaea decides to adjust her bra. It's basically, worst conditions imaginable.

So let's go back to the top idea. The earth is spinning in zero gravity and right now land mass is fairly evenly distributed with our continents being the heaviest mass and thrown to the outside of the spin. One idea suggests that the Antarctica Ice Sheet expands to the point where it become massive enough to screw up the spin and throw it into above stated topsy turvy carnival ride of doom and burning death. With fire.

Another theory says it's not just the Antarctic sheet, but both sheets which would force their mass to the outside of the spin. This would force continents to slip on their plates to adjust until Earth found a settling spot it liked. Not sure how that one ends up, but Hapgood in his book, 'The death and the dying of the horrible, horrible pain death burning of mankind and your neighbor' told a convincing tale that Einstein was like, 'fo sho' about and wrote a foreword for.

Another idea about Polar Shift is that the polar wanderings cause the spin to change and follow the new pole directions. This would cause a bit of water turbulence I referred to early as a mega tsunami. That's like a tsunami, but really, really, really bad. In fact, the extent of the made it actually sound worse than a Megatsunami... if that's possible... so like a Hypermegatsunami of drowning... I guess. In addition, assuming we survive the snow globe shake, Luna, Gaea's much hotter, much sexier younger sister with a tighter body is responsible for the tides and if the direction of the spin changes, the tides change. And... well, who knows what the hell that would do because we can't even figure out where the continents would be at that point. That only thing that's pretty sure about this scenario is you won't be alive to find out.

But, like any good Samaritan knows, the best time to kick someone is while they're down, and when the Pole Shift comes, she's bringin' all her buddies.

Solar Polar Shift
Jupiter Alignment
Loss of Magnetic Field
Loss of Moon
Loss of Tides
Super Volcano
Verneshot
Superquakes
Hypercanes
MegaTsunami

Totally Called That

2011-03-26T00:08:00.000-07:00

Remember how two weeks ago, the Administration and Congress were all like, 'bwaaaa... look. Factories are making more. uuuh... Economy is recovering. uhhhh,' and I was like, 'hey dude, who exactly is buying their stuff? I thought we were all unemployed?' In fact, for anyone too lazy to click links, here's exactly what I said:

"...let me ask the obvious question first, how can production be up if buying is down? Logically speaking, it can't be. What's happening here is private companies are attempting to do what the government tried to do two years ago and fake everyone out. When the government passed the omnibus bill to 'create jobs', all the jobs it created had an expiration date. For example, I drove around the country last summer and there was tons of road construction. But road construction will come to an end eventually and when it does, those workers will again be out of work. Additionally, the omnibus was like applying for a credit card and then maxing it out because all of that money will have to be paid back to the FED at some point and the interest will be devastating.

Private companies are now trying to do the same thing. They are building more vehicles and making more products than people are buying. They are hiring and hoping that these inevitably short term jobs will convince people things are getting better and encourage them to begin buying again. I doubt it'll work..."

Well, I'm not gonna say I called it... but I did. US Factory Orders Drop Unexpectedly. 'Unexpectedly?' How can you say unexpectedly? Common sense dude. If I make a bunch of shit that people don't want or can't afford to buy, guess what!? They don't friggin' buy it!

A different one that I haven't talked about on this blog is the situation in Egypt. Well, I did talk about it, but it was in a separate context:

"...Mr. Morello was one of those people who related it to the 'peaceful' protests in Egypt...you know, the ones where hundreds of men beat and raped Laura Logan while screaming 'Jew!' and are screaming in Tahrir Square for racial genocide and the destruction of Israel... that peaceful protest... and read a letter about the beauty of democracy..."

But mostly, I've just sort of mocked it in casual conversation because everyone was like, 'oh... it's democracy, and, we should support it and bleh...' No dude. It's not democracy. It's chaotic violence where women are being raped and tortured. They are preaching genocide and the annihilation of every man, woman and child in Israel. There's nothing beautiful about that Mr. Morello. And where is Natalie Portman on this? Anyone who thought that was gonna work out well has been watching way too many episodes of Care Bears. Violence + Young Stupid Kids With No Life Experience = Easy Target For Professional Manipulators.

Enter the Muslim Brotherhood, the instigators that lead the rally to start with. The group that said they weren't interested in getting power, only freedom. Then you got all the people who stupidly wrote them off like Jimmy Carter, Obama, Tom Morello, The American News Media... and let's be honest, if Jimmy Carter says they're cool... run. Other than the sitting president, Jimmy Carter has the absolute worst judge of character on who he gauges as trustworthy, ever.

But, while everyone was talking over tea and crumpets about how great it was that inexperienced teenagers were throwing a temper tantrum, there wasn't a whole lot of 'hey, who's calling the shots here?' going on. And then the New York Times drops this little bomb on us. Oh, you mean the kids don't know what the hell is happening or what they're doing? Wow... who'd've thunk. The only thing more obvious than kids being stupid is babies being stupid. And don't get confused, babies are stupid. Extremely. If you set one out in the rain, it's not even smart enough to find shelter. It just lays there and cries. Lame.

Although, I have to admit it would be cool if 5 kids and dog managed to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from taking power and the last thing they say is, 'And we would've gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you kids!'

Ultimate Doom: Solar Polar Shift

2011-03-24T02:45:00.000-07:00

So, I thought I'd take a break from Economic Destruction we are currently facing and lighten things up a bit with a 'Choose Your Own Armageddon' Adventure for a few blogs and point out a series of disasters that are in the midst of occurring currently, we cannot change or influence in any way, and we have no hope of possibly surviving. Oh, and good morning!

This is the first of many posts to come, and as I go along, I'll start linking them together so when you reach the bottom, you can connect to the next potential cataclysmic disaster event that would result from the one you just read.

Solar Polar Shift - This is exactly what it sounds like, the Sun reverses it's poles. Not in some freaky, galactic sex change operation; north just becomes south and visa versa. It happens ever every 11-12 years. The last time it happened was 2001. It's a fairly normal actually and not in itself an Extinction Level Event because... well, hey, we're all still here. The last one was in 2001. What else happened in 2001?

Microsoft did two things right by releasing XP (their far superior system to anything they've ever released included Windows 7) and the XBox. You know something is F'd up when Microsoft is doing good things. During the next Solar Polar Shift, I fully expect Microsoft to discover a cure for AIDS. I will accept nothing less Bill, do you hear me? Are you paying attention!? Dammit! Go to room!

The Patriot Act became law and enslaved us to a over oppressive government hell-bent on protecting us the only way it knew how, with a sandpaper dildo of privacy violation. Apparently, the only way to protect us was to sodomize us in an epic gang bang by shoving their 'authority' (their pet name for their collective members) into every orifice of our body and thus, ensuring no one else could do it. It's sort of like raping a woman constantly to make sure no 'seedy' criminal types can rape her. If it doesn't make sense, that's because it doesn't and I blame it on the Sun.

We had a cooler than normal winter followed by a drought in the summer, causing the media to change the language of 'Global Warming' (which it had previously changed from 'Global Cooling') to 'Climate Change' because they really couldn't figure out what was going on, but knew that they had to spend someone's money to fix it. Besides, if they didn't sell it to us, how would Al Gore afford his house payments? Consequently, while everyone was loudly debating 'WTF is happening Gene?' 'I don't know Harry, must be Il Nino.' 'Or Global Warming' 'Or George Bush' 'I agree, Bush is the problem here' 'Down with King Bush!' 'Fascist! You are a fascist Bush! I hate you and hope you die of asshole cancer you son of a bitch!' 'Bush destroyed life on Mars!', everyone generally ignored NASA's solar scientists who say, 'Naw dude, chill, it's just the Sun changes it's poles, it'll tame in a year or so.'

Their proof? Nothing serious, just that all the planets were warming simultaneously. That all the polar ice caps were melting, not just ours. So unless global warming is so bad, and humans are polluting so much that are carbon footprint is ruining Pluto's day, it seems like a pretty amazing coincidence. Not to mention, they've found that it wasn't carbon that was responsible for the additional heat in our atmosphere, but water. That damned evil water. It giveth life, it takes it away... in flesh scorching, oven baking temperatures.

The Sun released the biggest Solar Flare ever recorded and blasted a hot load of sexual radiation gravy all over Earth's face. The last time it did that was in 1989 (11-12 years) and it shut down the Canadian power grid... which basically means Quebec, Montreal and Toronto lost power cause no one else there uses lights there. Canada consists of Beaver Trappers, Lumberjacks and Seal Clubbers. All of which drink heavily, are manly and awesome, and aren't afraid of the dark. Including their women. I saw a Canadian Lumberjack once drink a beer while punching a grizzly in the face and dry humping a moose. People think Canadians are peaceful, but they are wrong.

Dead wrong.

This is the real reasons Canadians don't go to war in places like the Middle East. Their arch nemesis, the grizzly, is not there and so there is no purpose or incentive to bring their axe-wielding violent natures to the Middle East. However, in 2001, a couple of jack legs flew planes into our towers, so we (the US) had more than enough reason to go over their punch them in the face for a few years. With brass knuckles on. People are always knocking Canada for it's non-presence there, but if they were serious, all they would have to do is drop a few thousand grizzlies into Afghanistan and Canadians would come out of the wood work, without being asked and start working on those bears with pipes and blow torches. And that's the absolute truth!

So what does a Solar Polar Shift do? Will, imagine a woman on her period. She's irritably, highly emotional and leaking. The chances that you'll end up on the receiving end of a verbal castigation are at about 99.99%. God help you if she's in menopause. That's the sun. Once every 11 or 12 years, it becomes cranky and starts screaming cosmic radiation in our face for not putting the toilet seat down when we're done in the bathroom, leaking solar flares and just being generally unpleasant to have dinner with. The difference is that; while they are both the givers of life and usually the light of it on most days, one will give you every cancer imaginable and then destroy your electrical grid sending you to the stone age for medical help on it's bad days and one will simply annoy the ever-living shit out of you.

And speaking of electrical grids, I called Ameren IP, Sprint, Verizon and ATT about theirs. Here's the general gist I got: 'Pffft... hahaha... seriously? You're worried about some magical X-Rays from outer space!? That'll never happen kid!' 'But... it already has happened, several times and wrecked several grids. And I'm not a kid, I'm 30.' 'You are just such a kidder.' 'No, I'm not kidding.' 'Nothing to worry about little man, nothing to fear. Carry on!'. So, after getting the, 'nothing to see here, move along' speech, I dug into our power grid, internet grid, telephone grid and radio broadcasting grid... basically everything we use to stay in touch with everyone. Here's what I found:

The power grid was built in the 50s, and generally has never been updated (with a few exceptions), only repaired. At any one time, there are only a hand full a transformers available for repairs to blown units. A direct solar flare has the capability of blowing... all of them. So, they have 12 or 15 on hand and several thousand... potentially million... to replace. That's what I call 'bad'. But wait, there's more. Not only do we not have many transformers on hand, they're also not made in the US any longer. Detroit was put out of business by the UAW and any factory jobs we over-payed Union employees to do for sub-par products has been outsourced to a magical far away land where employees can be underpaid and exploited for the same sub-par products... and are happy about it.

Who makes them? China!!!! And who makes the actual generator units that create electricity at our power plants themselves? China!* And who supplies our money to be able to by products from China? China! And who will we not be able to contact because all our radio relay towers, cell phone towers and aged internet and power grids will be annihilated? China! And who has the final say on whether we get the money or the units to repair our own infrastructure? China! Yay for subversive global domination! The fact that Hollywood just changed the entire premise of the remake of Red Dawn from the Chinese taking over the United States to the North Koreans (hahahahaha!) says that we are already bowing to them. (On a side note, I was going to see the remake, but now after several release postponements to make certain entities happy... I have the feeling it's going to be total crap.)

So, if the lights go out here as a result of a solar flare, count to 10 and you should here the first windows breaking as looters come out and start their predictable rampage. If there is one thing that's predictable about Americans, it's our criminal tendencies. We will use any excuse to take advantage of people, and that's unfortunate. LA Riots? Katrina? Haiti? Even the Japanese Earthquake/Tsunami/Nuclear Meltdown... you could count on American criminals to create false charity sites to steal money while people were dying.

We have a few options to fix this, most of which are not good enough (insert 'green' technology here, which is just too little... and don't tell me it's not the size that counts, we all know it does), too expensive (which means updating or replacing to a so-called 'smartgrid' [that would allow the government to control your thermostat] on the salary of a bankrupted economy) or just plain terrifying (ie - HiPER [Surely nothing can go wrong by creating a small sun on Earth], JAXA [shooting giant mile wide sun lasers at ourselves {didn't we see that movie?}], AVE [5 mile tall tornadoes, inside a building, next to a nuclear power plant. Chances it escapes the tunnel, destroys the power plant and throws nuclear waste 100 miles in all directions? 50%]).

Your best bet is to start investing in personal power, off-grid. The problem is that most people don't stay in one place long enough to justify the expense of building a personal power system. I'd suggest Tiny Houses, but Americans still aren't out of their 'keeping up with the Jone's' fad yet... although, we are on our way. Thankfully. Course, it could be that we're all just unemployed.

But, if power costs continue to rise, you may find yourself thinking about it anyway so here's some food for thought: No more power bill. That's right, you would no longer be at the mercy of the power company. It puts more control over your life in your hands. That's what you're paying for, control over your life. It's not a bad gig. Actually, in many places, the power company has to pay you for any extra power you generate beyond what you use. Although, if more and more people adopt self-powering homes into their lifestyle, that would change. The best part is when the rest of the world goes dark, you and drunk Canadian Beaver Trappers won't care. And in the event of a solar flare, you have the ability to construct a Faraday cage around your personal power unit to ensure your steaks stay cold in the fridge, cause let's face it, we can't send milk and midol to the sun to make the sun not be such a bitch either.

So, while not completely life-ending, it has the potential to be world as we know it-ending. Personally, I think of the Solar Polar Shift as an appetizer. We just have to hope that it doesn't get worse than that because, like compounding interest, the more variables you stack, the less likely any of us will survive to live a horrible life of pain and heartache, searching barren landscapes for gasoline and fighting off gangs of roving cannibals. And that's the good projection. It really only gets worse from here. Like as of 2012, the due date for our next Solar Polar Shift.

"Choose the form of your Destruction!" -Gozer

Earth Polar Shift
Jupiter Alignment
Loss of Magnetic Field

*Interesting side note, suppose you have a foreign country that currently has a billion people, many of which it is training to be hackers, that makes all the generators for power plants in America. Now, pretend that America's entire electrical grid is on the internet. Now, pretend that a group of students were able to hack into that power grid and change the timing variation on the power generator, which if left unchecked would slowly over-cycle itself into failure, causing us to have to buy a new generator. Now pretend America is bankrupt and in order to buy generators from this country, it would have to also borrow money from this country. Now pretend the country is China.

Now, I'm not saying that China, a country with the largest number of hackers in the world, has a government telling those hackers to hack our power grid in order to slowly cycle our power generators into collapse, forcing us to take loans from them to buy generators from them, further indebting us to them... except I am.

My Best Chicken Little Impersonation

2011-03-18T02:21:00.000-07:00

Good morning. The sky is falling. No, seriously.

Here's some contradicting ideas: Inflation the highest since 2008 and Economic Resurgence in Jobs.

The first story from CNBC should be no surprise, I talked about how we no longer monitor the M3 correctly here, and their new measurements bring into focus things like the cost of energy and food that the M3 tracked but the central bank is no longer monitoring. Essentially, everything is costing more which means people are buying less because they don't have as much disposable income.

The second story runs contradictory to that stating that production is up, hiring is up and unemployment claims are down and that means the economy is getting better.

But is it? I mean, let me ask the obvious question first, how can production be up if buying is down? Logically speaking, it can't be. What's happening here is private companies are attempting to do what the government tried to do two years ago and fake everyone out. When the government passed the omnibus bill to 'create jobs', all the jobs it created had an expiration date. For example, I drove around the country last summer and there was tons of road construction. But road construction will come to an end eventually and when it does, those workers will again be out of work. Additionally, the omnibus was like applying for a credit card and then maxing it out because all of that money will have to be paid back to the FED at some point and the interest will be devastating.

Private companies are now trying to do the same thing. They are building more vehicles and making more products than people are buying. They are hiring and hoping that these inevitably short term jobs will convince people things are getting better and encourage them to begin buying again. I doubt it'll work, but they have one chip in their favor that the government doesn't, Economies of Scale. The more you make of something, the cheaper it becomes. Over production will drop the costs of the goods they are making, which in any other economy would encourage people to buy more.

But for the same Economies of Scale reasons, the more you make of something, the cheaper it becomes, the cost of goods will experience inflation because of the amount of money being printed will devalue it, making it worth less. That means it'll take more of those increasingly worthless dollars to buy the decreasingly valued goods. In effect, the cost will go up and down at the same time. I wish I could say that it means the prices would ultimately stay the same, but inflation is outpacing overproduction, so costs will still go up, just more slowly.

Additionally, I've also already talked here about why we should see decreasing numbers of claims for unemployment and the numbers seem to go down. But, it's also a farce. They just pretend that after a little while of being out of work, that these people no longer count in the numbers. You've been unemployed two years? Cool, we don't need to count you in unemployment anymore. Boom! Winning!

Despite what you may have heard, things aren't getting better. In fact, they are about to get a whole lot worse. I can summarize this with one number; $1.8 Trillion, and a list of articles. $1.8 Trillion is what we need to cut from our annual spending in order to get under below our means. I came to $1.4 Trillion when I ran the numbers to get to the point where we can tread water, $1.8 Trillion gets us below.

House Votes to Ban NPR Funding
Is this necessary? Probably not, but you're talking roughly $430 million annually between NPR and all their subsidiaries. Let's pretend it doesn't get reallocated for some other stupid project and actually goes to pay off the national debt.

GOP Contenders Split on Military Cuts
I've never heard of Republicans being split on the idea of cutting military spending. Other than Ron Paul, Republicans are always for defense spending. The fact that this is even for debate with hard right politicians should tell you just how bad things really are. Defense spending is 4.7% of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). The GDP in 2010 was $14.66 Trillion. That makes Defense spending $689 billion a year. I personally don't think there is any way they would truly make cuts, but let's suppose they cut .5%, which would mean $73.3 billion, for our purposes here. Let's also pretend this goes to pay off our debt.

FDIC is Suing former WaMu execs
FDIC is attempting to get money back for WaMu being run by Brawndo drinkers. In fact, in total, they are suing 158 Brawndites for a collective total of about $2 billion. Since they are government, let's just assume they win, but let's also assume that the money doesn't disappear into private coffers and get funneled to lobbyists and actually gets dedicated to the national debt.

Cutting Planned Parenthood
There is a move to cut Planned Parenthood right now as well, which if that happens would be roughly $317 million a year. Toss that into the debt pay pot.

Sell off Federal Lands
One sign that things are bad for someone is when they start selling off things they own to make their bill payments. The push to sell off federal land reminds me of people who start selling video games, CDs, movies or their TV to pay their electric bill. They over price it at being worth $1 billion dollars, but let's say through private companies, investors and state purchases they get it. That's $1 billion to pay off debt.

Now, the likely hood of all this passing is basically non-existent because the Senate is still controlled by the Democrats who will vote against all of it because of the party politics involved. And even if they pass it, Obama isn't likely to sign any of it. But let's pretend they do and all these 'Draconian' measures are taken. Pretend they pass all these spending cuts, it only adds up to $3.747 Billion... which is .2% of the cuts needed to get our heads above water and within our spending limits. Not 2%, point two percent.

Think about that. Set aside whether you agree morally or politically with what's being suggested up there whether it's your stance on abortion, your stance of privatization, your stance of bank lending practices and NPR and think about that. The reason I say set it aside is because, it doesn't matter. None of that matters because we can't pay for it.

I can believe I need a new car all day long, but the day I can't pay for it, it's getting repo'd. It doesn't matter that I need the car to get to work to pay my other bills. It doesn't matter that if I get fired I can't feed myself. If I can't afford it, I can't do it. That's the wall we're about to run into, and no amount of accounting tricks and unemployment manipulation or overproduction will fix that. What's worse is they see the wall and instead of mashing the brakes to the floor, they are slamming on the accelerator and driving at the wall head on. At some point, you have to pay the bill.

Rand Paul, Senator newcomer and son of Ron Paul, is asking for $200 Billion in cuts, which is better but not much because it's still only 1.1% of the cuts we need to make. Here's something else to think about. If people are fighting this hard over .2% of potential cuts to the budget, what happens when we are forced by our loaners to actually cut the full $1.8 Trillion?

I mean, anyone who thinks that we aren't on a path for some heavy violence in the next few years as this reaches it's crescendo is living in the dark. You've got those who are fighting for what they've been promised today and those who are fighting to have something left for their kids tomorrow. You can see it coming to a head in Union fights across the country right now over what amounts to pennies and the violence it's encouraging.

Lawlessness is on the rise, even celebrated, and more is coming as the situation here deteriorates. Sadly, Americans have shown that unlike the Japanese, we are more like the Europeans, prone to violence when times get tough. If Big Brother decides to take away our allowance, chances are good that spoiled Americans will have a temper tantrum of Civil War proportions. The end is very fucking nigh.

So... after that bit of doomsaying, here's a recipe for Ajvar, which is delicious. You can make this and jar it for the end of the world as we know it. Yay hunny!

Japan to Push American Inflation

2011-03-16T03:36:00.000-07:00

I have friends in Japan, so this is not a slam on Japan, just something that will happen. Just like the situation with Japan temporarily drove gas prices down... which are now on the rise again... Japan will need it's money now for recovery efforts following this disaster. There are a few ways to recoup financial assets, but the quickest way to get their own cash back is to cash in their US Treasury Bonds. I haven't heard anyone talking about this yet, but it seems obvious to me.

Japan's central bank, like most countries' central banks, keep US Treasury Bonds in the same manner Fort Knox keeps gold. They basically loaned us a crapload of money (while we simultaneously send them foreign aid... them and 150 other countries... figure that out) and we gave them an IOU. So instead of earning new money, which is unpredictable in a good economy much less our current one, they have someone who already owes them money sitting out there. The most logical thing for them to do is get their money back now.

What that means for us is less money in our economy. There are two ways the US can pay out this debt, and one is more likely than the other with the current administration. Again, this isn't a partisan slam, this is just what's likely based on the history of their actions, so don't get pissy. There is no money left in government coffers, you may have noticed some highly publicized debates on this issue lately in states and in the House.

It's on record that about half of the 'stimulus' money they printed hasn't been used, and there have been no announcements for it's use which means some financial committee or entity is holding it for something. I've put out there that I think it will be used to fund elections in swing districts in 2012, taking a page from FDR's playbook. With Japan more than likely about to cash in their bonds, it may come out of this money.

But, I don't think that's likely. The track record for the Senate and current Administration can be summed as 'do whatever it takes to win' and with 2012 elections coming up and the division between the Tea Party Agenda and the Progressive Agenda being fought at every level right now, I just don't think it's likely that the Democratic Party would hand over their savings found they got by rickrolling us.

The only other option then, is printing more money. If they encourage the FED to print more money, which shouldn't be hard because it's all profit for the FED based on interest rates and and creation earnings (a piece of paper and ink becomes a $100 dollar bill from thin air, then they charge interest to whoever borrows it), it'll drive American inflation. If American inflation goes up, global inflation will go up because everyone is dependent on the cost of the American dollar. If global inflation goes up, there's a high probability that other countries, in order to pay their debts, programs and entitlements, will cash in their bonds.

You see the problem.

As our currency devalues and becomes worth less, this will pave the way for something called Hyper-Inflation, which is bad. What's worse is, as people cash out of the dollar, it'll compound the calls for a new base currency. If that happens, then we'll have a shitload of money out there that nobody wants.

This is what I love/hate about economics. As I get into it, I find that there's no room for political agendas. It's pure action/reaction. The disaster in Japan is horrible, I am worried about people I know there, and I won't blame them for cashing in their bonds because I would do the same thing if someone owed me money and my basement flooded. But it will be terrible for our economy and by relation the global economy. Suck.

Drill, Baby... Wait, That's Really Stupid

2011-03-12T01:26:00.001-08:00

Obama is now parroting McCain's campaign slogan of 'drill, baby, drill' saying that he's prepared to tap the oil reserves if the situation warrants it because, he says, it'll help ease the cost of gas. There's just one problem with that... two actually... it's the same problem that existed when McCain and Palin were talking about increased drilling... you drill oil, not gas. The second is, that isn't his choice to make. That's up to the people and businesses in this country, not the emperor. I really wish he'd get that through his ears.

You can't run oil in your car until it's been processed into gasoline at a refinery. Right now, all our refineries are operating at top capacity. In fact, we haven't built an oil refinery in this country since the 70s. It's a problem of numbers, our population goes up, but we produce the same amount of gas. It's the exact reverse of Economies of Scale where the more of something there is, the cheaper it gets. As more people have to split the same supply of resources, demand goes up which raises the cost. Supply, demand.

Complicate that now with the increasing world population... specifically China where more people are getting cars. It becomes a marginally compounding problem.

However, right now, the cost is being driven up by speculation; fear that there will be a shortage in the oil supply because of Mideast turmoil while the demand will not be decreasing. This artificially increases demand by artificially projecting increased rarity, allowing oil producing countries to artificially inflate the cost per barrel.

If you don't think it's artificial, explain the sudden drop in price-per-barrel with the Japanese Earthquake. The answer is simple, Japan is the 3rd largest importer or oil. The fear that they will not be buying gas since all their cars and boats were destroyed made investors yank money out of the market. Thus, a 200+ point drop in the market. In turn, to keep people buying oil stocks, oil producers dropped the price per barrel. Of course, unknown to most wall street types, the opposite is actually true; the humanitarian effort from around the world will use more oil/gas to find survivors and aid in the recovery effort as they clean, rebuild and foreign countries like the US ship aid around the world on trains, semis, planes and boats.

They could've kept the cost per barrel low this whole time, but that's what they pay speculators for. They artificially drive up the cost under any 'crisis' situation, and the Mideast unrest supplies the perfect cover under the premise that there could be less oil. And even if there was less oil produced, I would point out that again, our refineries are backlogged with oil previously imported that they haven't gotten to process. There's really no reason for the prices to shoot up so dramatically right now considering we still have a large back stock of unprocessed oil.

It will go back up. If you're a stocks person, buy some oil stocks to insulate yourself from the inflated costs and get some of your money back. If you have a moral argument against buying oil stocks, then buy food stocks. With the increase in gas costs, food will be more expensive to ship and when you consider the average plate of food takes about 15,000 miles to get to your plate (fish from China, lettuce from Argentina, corn from Kenya, steak from England, etc...), that's a lot of fuel to tack on to your meal costs. If you're morally against this as well, find the local gardeners that sell out of their back yards and the local butchers that raise their own livestock. Buy extra food while it's cheap now. Get some extra water. Hell... even extra toilet paper. Just... do something for yourself before it gets hard.

And be ready for a second drop in the economy. Fuel costs were a huge driver of home foreclosure in 2008. People who were barely making their payments started coming up short with high gas costs. These people are still out there and the extensions they were given through government subsistence are reaching their end. They'll be up for vote soon, and I have every expectation the House will vote against them being continued. Whether you agree with that from a financial/taxation standpoint or not because of a moral stance doesn't really matter, that's just what's gonna happen. Plan for it now instead of bitching about it later.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that there isn't an incentive for the government to curb the cost of gas. In 2008, when politicians were berating oil execs on TV and dragging them in for superficial hearings for making record profits, the government was also making record profits in tax revenues. They accused the oil tycoons and gas stations of price gauging; which they did, but Congress also raised the tax on gas during this time frame further inflating the cost. I didn't hear a single person pointing this out in the news or media.

Now, here we are with a massive budget deficit and along comes this gem of hidden tax profits to pour into new programs, pay off lobbyists and big donation sources & slide over to swing districts for the upcoming election. If the American people don't know about it, why in the hell would they ruin a good thing? It's as good as free money in Chicago politics. After all, the mantra is, "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

In saying all this, I'm not saying that we shouldn't drill. The idea that we should drill is only half the equation though. We have to include refineries and alternative energy research and development into that equation or it's wasteful. Our oil reserves aren't something we should be using as a last ditch option to fix gas costs if 'the situation warrants it', it's a resource that will provide jobs, cost savings for individual budgets and if done right, pave the way for research and development into the energy technologies of tomorrow.

We have oil off the coast of California that we are not allowed to drill for environmental reasons. But it's leaking 100 barrels a day into the ocean regardless of whether we drill or not, poisoning and killing sea life, poisoning birds and just generally... doing bad things to the environment and our food supply. Kelp and fish living in this environment getting eaten by other fish that we end up catching and setting on our dinner plates. Who are you protecting with this 'environmental' restrictions? You aren't protecting us, you aren't protecting the animals and you aren't protecting mother nature. So what are you doing?

Really, it doesn't matter what we do, it's going to be bad for the environment in this instance; however, drilling it will allow us to artificially deflate the artificially inflated prices of gas... and in California, that's huge cause their gas costs are ridiculous. If the state said, 'Ok, you can drill, but you also have to build a refinery', that would put them on a path to turn things around. Both the rigs and the refinery would create jobs, which they need badly, and generate new tax revenues for the state of California, which they also need to dig out of their fiscal debacle. But knowing California, they'll just expect the little people around the country to pay for their bail-out... then insult rich people, of which they make up the largest percentage.

And for the people who said, 'just raise the taxes on the rich', they did that. Several times. And all that happened was the rich people moved to Arizona, Nevada or Texas. Not only rich people; it's estimated that in the last 10 years 1.5 million people have decided to leave California for some place that isn't going to smother them in taxes and stupid regulations, adding to the state's fiscal woes. Business headquarters moved to places like Texas, Utah, Arizona and Wyoming (?) (the count stands at about 255 businesses leaving between 09-10).

So, if you think taxing the rich is gonna solve the problem, you're wrong. Facts show that; and logic dictates, if I'm rich, I can afford to move anywhere I get the best deal for my money. Several wealthy stocks investors have escaped the US and taken their money and business prowess (and the jobs they would've provided us here) to Estonia, Switzerland and not surprisingly, China where regulations and taxes are less likely to crush them.

Now, think like a business person for a second; if I can get the most bang for my buck in a place like Estonia or China, generate the same product I made in the states for cheaper and still sell it to Americans, does it really matter to you if that money is sunk into the pockets of American workers or foreign workers? No, it doesn't. You go where your business has the best chance of succeeding. It'd be stupid not to, and purely from an industrial business owners perspective, staying in the US is like you're trying to fail on purpose. There is no reason to stay here when the products can be produced cheaper elsewhere and the people there will be grateful you brought them a chance at improving their lives.

Ok, you can stop thinking like a business person now, I wouldn't want you contemplating some potentially successful business venture and have the government tax you for it.

In the Gulf, drilling hasn't resumed even though courts have overturned the president's executive moratorium twice on Constitutional grounds. Finding out they had to still follow that little piece of paper, they just worked through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE? That's a terrible acronym.) to make it too hard to get licensing to drill. As of yet, though they are trying, only a two companies have been able to get approval. Most rejections come under the pretense that they 'are not submitting and/or meeting the requirements'... whatever those are.

This means thousands of oil rig workers, boat pilots that transfer oil, truckers and dock workers are still without work. This means border states like Mississippi, Alabama, New Orleans, Texas and Florida are still not collecting taxes from the employees or oil businesses for that work. This means we're not getting that oil leaking into the ocean and putting it to use in our economy. And apparently, we have no choice in speeding up permission slips from big brother, even after unconstitutional court rulings. Constitution Schmonstitution.

We also have Alaska, although I think that one is turning around. Alaskans are an independent lot and they aren't likely to let people from out of their state continue to push them around if they have it within their power to bring their own costs down with their own resources. I think public opinion is moving in the direction of allowing drilling in ANWAR if for no other reason than people's pocket books can't take much more. And let's be honest, when it comes down to it, people will be for protecting nature until it affects their wallets. At that point, when nature becomes more important than the people, I think most people will turn because in the end, it's human nature to protect your own interests and your family. Just look at Wisconsin.

Then there is also the new deposit found in North Dakota, and I think that one is gonna be huge because North Dakota marches to the beat of it's own drum as it is. If they see a benefit for the people of North Dakota, or that they can attract people there, they will do it and give everyone the finger. I think if they're smart, as they expand oil drilling contracts with oil companies, they should require the building of a refinery by each company and substantial research and development facilities be built for alternative energies as well.

This does several things for North Dakota. First, let's be honest, it's not someplace a lot of people say, 'I want to move to North Dakota!' In fact, I think it's the opposite. At least, I've never heard that. I've normally just heard, 'Ugh, that place sucks.' By allowing oil companies to drill, you attract new workers which at the government level can be read as 'bigger tax base'. Second, requiring a refinery requires substantial investment on the part of the business into the state of North Dakota for the long term, because those things aren't cheap. That also equates to more jobs. Third, requiring R&D in alternative technologies gives investors a reason to stay in North Dakota by developing their status as an alternative energies hub after the oil's gone.

You're talking long term jobs and tax revenue for the government; like 100-200 years worth, long term profit incentives for the rich oil tycoons at a 1/5 of what it would cost to do in states like California and permanent jobs for citizens in the state, and for the eco-conscious types, it's a focused attempt to invest in those future technologies.

So, while this idea that drilling will bring costs down is artificial and that and the people that support it are misleading; whether it's Obama or McCain, it doesn't mean that we can't capitalize on it their misleading notions for something relevant by removing our dependence from foreign countries. That part, I can agree with. But I think for a real solution, we have to build refineries and increase the amount of gasoline we're actually producing from that oil, otherwise all we have are a bunch of barrels of oil sitting around waiting to be processed while prices sky rocket and politicians using our ignorance of the system for their own benefit.

... and Then Threats Against Businesses (By the Police??)

2011-03-12T00:01:00.000-08:00

Wow... way to get Godfather on'em. So, when protesting doesn't work, when assaulting people doesn't work, when death threats don't work, the Unions pull out the old, 'if you don't do what we want, you might just have some problems at your store' mafia trick. What exactly does it mean if the police and firefighters 'boycott' your business? Does that mean we've moved from having state police to being a police state? I mean, if the police and fire aren't serving the public interests, but instead lining their own pockets with our money through threat of force (or lack of protection from force), how's that any different than the mafia? It's by definition, corruption.

Here's the contents of an email sent to one business owner that he immediately forwarded to the press (of which all media outlets ignored except 4):

March 10, 2011

Mr. Tom Ellis, President

Marshall & Ilsley Corporation

770 N. Water Street

Milwaukee, WI 53202

SENT VIA FASCIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL

Dear Mr. Ellis:

As you undoubtedly know, Governor Walker recently proposed a “budget adjustment bill” to eviscerate public employees’ right to collectively bargain in Wisconsin. ..

As you also know, Scott Walker did not campaign on this issue when he ran for office. If he had, we are confident that you would not be listed among his largest contributors. As such, we are contacting you now to request your support.

The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.

In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table.

Wisconsin’s public employee unions serve to protect and promote equality and fairness in the workplace. We hope you will stand with us and publicly share that ideal.

In the event you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact the executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Jim Palmer, at 608.273.3840.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

James L. Palmer, Executive Director Wisconsin Professional Police Association

Mahlon Mitchell,President Professional Professional Fire Fighters

Jim Conway, President International Association of Fire Fighters Local 311

John Matthews, Execuctive Director Madison Teachers, Inc.

Keith Patt, Executive Director Green Bay Education Association

Bob Richardson, President Dane County Deputy Sheriffs Association

Dan Frei, Prersident Madison Professional Police Officers Association

If the police are no longer going to 'protect and serve' the public and our businesses, doesn't that make them government/union mercenaries? Isn't that the same argument that people have against privatized police forces?

What's happening when police and firefighters allow their politics to take precedence over their oaths? It's just one more step down the path to civil war because f the law won't protect the people, then the people are going to take the law into their own hands. If the law then tries to punish them for protecting their interests when the law wouldn't, like the British did to the colonists, people will inevitably stand up to their oppressors.

I see people advocating a new revolution on both the right and left but I don't think they realize the true implications of that course of action. On the right they want to strip everything back down to the Constitution and on the left they want to institute a new Constitution, but both are going to be disappointed with the ruin that's left from such a naive action. I really hope people start coming to their senses. This is not the way to fix our problems. It's unfortunate these people can't understand the budgetary and financial mess everyone's in... or understand they work for the public, not control them.

First Name Calling, Then Physical Bullying, Now Death Threats

2011-03-10T08:54:00.000-08:00

This is a copy of the one of the numerous death threats being issued by the peaceful leftist protesters people are proclaiming they stand in solidarity with.

From: XXXX

Sent: Wed 3/9/2011 9:18 PM

To: Sen.Kapanke; Sen.Darling; Sen.Cowles; Sen.Ellis; Sen.Fitzgerald; Sen.Galloway; Sen.Grothman; Sen.Harsdorf; Sen.Hopper; Sen.Kedzie; Sen.Lasee; Sen.Lazich; Sen.Leibham; Sen.Moulton; Sen.Olsen

Subject: Atten: Death threat!!!! Bomb!!!!

Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes [sic] will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we’ve had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it’s going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it’s a matter of public records.

We have all planned to assult [sic]you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn’t leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so “high” on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic [sic]process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent.

This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won’t tell you all of them because that’s just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why thisis happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it’s necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We Will “get rid of” (in which I mean kill) you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel that it’s worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!

It's amazing how people can still call the Tea Party violent with a straight face.

Military Members Supporting Walker

2011-03-10T03:31:00.000-08:00

Where I work, I work with a lot of military and ex-military. The announcement on the news that Wisconsin's legislature was able to reassert collective bargaining rights back to the hands of state citizen's received a lot of support and clapping. So, knowing that I run a blog, I decided to ask a few people why they were so happy. After all, weren't they public employees? Responses ranged (I had to shorten and summarize the diatribes, so this is not exact words, thus why I don't use full quotation marks. This is my summation of a few different people I talked to):

'Well, look around man. We're all here because we swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and that's all about the rights of the citizens of this country. Collective bargaining between the government and unions cuts them out and ignores them. It's really kind of a cruel joke. I don't see how anyone in the military can side with anyone that does what these people do, not if you're upholding that contract.'

'Oh c'mon, I was a high school teacher before my officership. The teacher's Unions didn't care about me. They just cared about getting my Union dues. Don't get me wrong, they were good at getting us more money, but that doesn't make it right. And I had absolutely no choice in what they did with my dues. It pissed me off that they would pay for candidates during elections that I didn't support. And I couldn't do anything about it. I had no choices. Anyone that thinks this is about the teachers has lost their minds. This whole thing is about them keeping the their position on the top.' Who's keeping their positions at the top? 'The Union leaders.'

'Well, I don't think public employees need Unions to start with. Anytime we have a problem, we have government agencies who's entire purpose is to investigate and make sure things are right. Like, here on base, we have the IG. In the private sector, it's one thing because a business can just say, 'fuck you, do something about it, we have more lawyers than you do,' so Unions have a real purpose. But for us, Unions are just redundant and pointless.'

'Yeah, I think it's probably good. Me and my wife were talking about it last night, and we didn't see a whole lot of protesting in Idaho over this same thing. Maybe the media just isn't covering it, but she thinks it's because they're all in Wisconsin and Ohio and that it's just a small group of people trying to scare everyone into doing what they want. I don't know, but I think it's good. We gotta get our money straight, and if that means I take a pay cut, then that's what it means. I ain't here to get rich, ya know? If that were the case, I would've done something a lot different.'

'It's a public service and they suck at it anyway. Give those people a refund on your crappy teaching.'

'If you work for the public, you shouldn't be trying to get rich on their backs.'

'I'm just sick of seeing a couple people cry about not getting their way and making life harder for the rest of us. They whine more than my daughters.'

'Eh, we home school because of stuff like this.' You home school? Do you get to write that off on your taxes? 'No, at least not here in Illinois. Maybe if we move somewhere else. But I'm here because of my job for right now.' So, you're still paying for public education? And base education? 'Yeah. For now. Well, I don't know if we pay for base education. Doesn't really matter, my kids aren't going there. Stuff like this is good news for us because it's one step closer to letting us opt out completely and put that extra money into our kids.' So, you weren't happy with the base or the local schools? 'It wasn't meeting our expectations and private school is too expensive. So, we just decided to have it done right, we'd just do it ourselves.'

On the topic of that last person I talked to, I'm gonna have to look into home schooling a bit more. I've heard a little about it, especially lately because people are getting upset with what their kids are learning in school. I'm actually sort of intrigued myself and wouldn't mind doing that for my own kids if possible... if and when I have them.

Next Drop in the Recession Getting Ready

2011-03-05T02:04:00.001-08:00

Ok, I wanted to talk about noodle boy, but it's just kinda getting pushed aside. I figure I can talk about idiots anytime. I want to hang this out there. I've had this conversation with several people lately who got chipper because they thought the economy was improving finally. Every time, I was 'Debbie Downer' and pointed out a series of things in the works that would throw us into a double dip recession (it's really a depression, but no one will say that because if you admit it, then people will freak out worse than they already are). Every time, I was met with things like 'yeah, but job numbers are up' or 'but unemployment is going down'. Ostrich syndrome.

So, here is a list of things that people aren't saying that I think are important:

1. The job numbers ARE increasing. The next logical question that should be asked if you were honestly trying to get to ground truth is 'What kind of jobs are they?' No one is asking that question, which is unfortunate because the answer is not good. They are temporary jobs. Three kinds of temporary jobs actually: part-time jobs, government contract positions, and 'self-employed' work.

Businesses in order to keep themselves from going out of business, have had to cut full-time staffing and increase part-time employees. This is a double-edged sword. The businesses have to do it, otherwise they go under and everyone loses their job. I get that, tough times make for decisions. But part-time positions rarely pay the bills for the employees, which means someone like a single mother will have to get 2 or 3 part-time jobs. That person then gets double or triple counted in the numbers and gives a false sense of inflation to employment.

Government contract positions. These are all temporary. Every government contract comes with an expiration date attached to it. So, if the government wants to buffer it's numbers for a month... or a few month... or a few years... or an election cycle... they simple 'create' a substantial number of jobs with our money. They currently have half of the 'stimulus' they needed NOW NOW NOW, saved. We don't know why, but I think they are planning to spend it the next election cycle... which is just straight up janky. It's an FDR trick from the 30s, he would use tax payer dollars to create jobs in swing districts to get their vote, making every American pay for his campaign in a way whether they supported him or not, and buying the vote of the workers in that district. When are they expected to run dry? Dec 21, 2012 would be my guess. Just joking. But not really. But I am. Except I'm not.

'Self-employed'. It's not what you think. This doesn't just include small business owners. You see, the government counts you as a working American if you work 1 hour a week for someone else. So, if you are a teenager that mows your neighbors lawn for $20, you are employed and not counted in the statistics. They are able to solicit these numbers from call-in and questionnaire data they track, and then extrapolate it. A lot of people right now are just trying to get some form of money, so they are driving around collecting copper or doing odds and ends labor for cash. Because of this, when they answer the survey that they did some small jobs for money, they are counted as employed. This allows the government and media to further falsify the data, which is sort of like telling the band to keep on playing while the Titanic sinks.

So really, what you have are lot more people making a lot less money. But let me put it to you closer to home, do you know a bunch of people doing better now? I'd suspect the answer is no.

2. After a year, unemployed people are no longer counted as unemployed. They are counted as 'discouraged workers' and removed from the unemployment statistics. Does that make any sense? Now, think about a year ago. Record numbers of layoffs pushed us to 10% unemployment and magically, a year later there is a sharp decrease in unemployment numbers. Tada! Add to that, there is a base number of unemployed we assume is always out there of about 3-4% that we stopped counting in our unemployment numbers thanks to Nixon. They aren't real people after all, they're permanently unemployed. Kick rocks poor person! You don't count!

The reason they do this is... well, to manipulate the numbers. They're pretty open about that, which is sad really. They are now openly telling us that they are being dishonest but to believe them, and we keep voting for them. I think that says more about us than it does them. They refer to the unemployment we hear about all the time in the news as 'Narrow Unemployment'. Our actual unemployment is hard to know, but various economists speculate it's somewhere between 17-23% in reality.

3. The unemployment data is not entirely accurate for a slew of reasons, like the ones above. But also because since 2006, the Central Bank stopped tracking the empirical M3 money supply. Why does this matter? The M3, without boring you to death, in a nutshell, is the tracking of the M1, M2 (which you can look those up if you really want to know what they are) and "large time deposits, institutional money market funds, short-term repurchase and other larger liquid assets". But we have to set this up properly, so let's back up for a second.

In 2003, then-President Bush tried to get a handle on the housing market because he found out about that banks were giving out loans to people that probably couldn't pay them back (called sub-prime). He thought that was a bad idea. But, Bush is an idiot, so he was ignored and made fun of by comedians for being so stupid. I mean, if there's one thing comedians know, it's the banking system and what's good for it. Bush was just a stupid, stupid-head.

But idiots are stubborn and sure enough, he brought it up again under the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 in an attempt to shore up what he thought looked like a huge potential problem for the US economy if all these homes were defaulted on at the same time, and when the new Congress of 2006 took over, he was again summarily castigated as a fascist, a war monger and an idiot and ignored for thinking that giving sub-prime loans out was bad. What?! Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound! Quit trying to scare people for no reason! These people will not all default on their homes! That's completely unrealistic and it's even more implausible that they would all do it at the same time if they did! Bush is so dumb, don't listen to him. Carry on folks, nothing to see here.

With the backing of the new Congress, the Central Bank moved to stop tracking the M3. When the M3 stopped being counted, we stopped watching the large money movement by organizations like AIG and Lehman Bros publicly. Surprisingly (or not so), when that information was no longer publicly available, Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and sub-prime derivatives became a hot commodities. Before I move on, it will help to know what these two things are. I'm sorry, I know it's boring, but I swear it's relevant and worth knowing so if you see it again, you can know what's coming. Because knowing is half the battle.

The short and skinny for people not interested in economics is this: A CDS is essentially a bet that someone or a group of someone's will go bankrupt. It works like insurance in that the person betting on the defaulting bankruptcy, makes payments to an insurer of sorts, and when the bankruptcy happens, the CDS buyer gets to make a claim on the person's misfortune. So naturally, the biggest buyer of these CDSs were also the biggest loaners of sub-prime loans. You see the problem here I hope.

AIG and Lehman... and others... provided these CDS's, 'but where did they get the money to pay out on all the bad loans when they defaulted?' you should be asking right about now. They bundled and sold them as Sub-prime derivatives. On the outside, this would sound like a stupid investment. After all, who in their right mind would buy loans that would default or already defaulted loans... or even get in line for that?

Here's the evil genius of these things. They are a legit investment because people would pay on them (by paying their home loans) and if they defaulted, the US Government, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would buy them. They were essentially a win-win item for investors looking to make huge sums of money quickly because either the loaners paid on them, or the US Government bought them from them.

But Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were; and still are, over-saturated with these bad loans and paying for them. And when I say 'they' are paying for them, I mean 'we' are paying for them, because they are funded by taxes. So, to put this in perspective, every single time someone declares bankruptcy, it's bought by the Government, added to the national debt, and we get to pay for it. The debt doesn't just disappear into some magic glory hole.

Ok, so that's CDSs and Sub-prime derivatives for the average person. Now let's break it down. The bank gives out a loan they know the consumer will eventually default and go bankrupt on. Then, after doing so, they get a CDS on that loan, so when it goes bad, they can collect a claim on it. Now... why would a bank do this? The Michael Moore's of the world will say, 'it's because they are evil businessmen and women' and 'capitalist pigs' and never dig any further than this. But let's look for something a little more tangible and less 3rd grade-ish. If you believe in cause and effect, then something had to cause this.

Enter Bill Clinton and the amazing Community Reinvestment Act II. What's that? Oh, that's just a little rule that says if banks turn down sub-prime borrowers asking for a loan, they wouldn't be allowed to expand their lending capacity (ie - grow their business). Now, think for a second, let's say you are selling something and the government steps in and tells you 'look, you can't sell anymore unless you start selling to people who might not be able to pay for it.' That's just plain stupid. Now, let's say you are in the business of giving out loans. If you were forced to give out money knowing that you would not likely get it back because the person borrowing it from you doesn't make much money and has a sketchy financial history with bad credit, what's the one thing you'd want? Maybe some sort of insurance? Hey, look at that, that's exactly what the CDS was!

Now, you may be thinking, God that was stupid. You're right, it was. But it's even more stupid if you realize that this is actually the second time we've done this. Scroll up, the name was the Community Reinvestment Act II. Jimmy Carter actually instituted the first Community Reinvestment Act under the premise that 'everyone is entitled to a home'. What'? I didn't catch that in the Constitution.

After looking, turns out it's not in there. So, is everyone entitled to a home? No, we're not. Why? Because if you can't pay for it, then you should can't have it. I can't get behind that. What's wrong with getting an apartment or something you won't destroy our economy with if you can't make the payments? But, what's even more awesome, is this idea that everyone gets something for nothing from the government at our expense is now being taught as a grade school reading exercise:

*Building fluency through Practice and Performance... and straight up lying player!

When Jim-Jim set those wheels in motion, the exact same events unfolded in the 80s leading to a series of bank crashes. Then, CDS's were called Mortgage-Backed Securities. Sub-prime derivatives trading ensued and crash! Everyone after the fact was like... 'oh man, that was stupid... let's agree to never do that again'. Then, a new generation of investment bankers entered the scene and were like, 'check out how smart we are!' 'Check out our sweet cocks!' and 'Check out our great idea!' Sure enough, crash! Now we're saying, 'Oh man, that was stupid, let's never do that again.' But in 20 years, $5 says the next generation will repeat it if we don't start teaching them about it.

Small side lesson learned, do not trust the wisdom of young people. Wisdom is something learned by experience, not from text-books. Makes me wonder why everyone is so happy to see all these young people wreaking havoc on everything right now. It was young people that brought us all these maladies that afflict us through their naivety. Stop encouraging them to be stupid and start impressing on them to shut up and listen when someone says, 'Uh, we tried that already. It ends like this." Everything else we learn in school works like that... science, math... but for some reason, we don't bother to build on the ideas from history and stop repeating proven dead ends. Does that make sense?

So, what does that long exposition have to do with right now? Well, there are still millions of bad loans sitting out there. There are still people who are not paying on their homes right now, but their foreclosure is being delayed by new government rules that will eventually expire causing another mass exodus in the housing market. There are idiots like Michael Moore calling for the banks to loosen their standards and start giving out loans again and people rallying behind that. Yo dude, we've tried that... twice... and both times it lead to huge recessions. Look up Einstein's definition of insanity.

Now add to this the rising cost of food and sudden, sharp oil increases due to unrest in the middle east. Remember gas prices in 2008? People who were on the cusp of making their house payments fell into lapse when gas prices rose to $100 a barrel then. This started the snowball effect of mass home foreclosures. Gas is now over $100 dollars a barrel again and predicted to go over $200 as unrest spreads across the Middle East. Combine that with rising food costs and creeping inflation (which, thanks to Alan Greenspan when he ran the FED, no longer includes the cost of energy and food... which is just stupid). What do you think the result is going to be with the people on the edge of their house payments right now? It's actually very predictable if you stop being thinking like a brick. It doesn't take an economic genius to see a trend that obvious.

4. Ok, now the bad stuff. What?! I know, right? Right now, the US Dollar is the world's reserve currency. That means all currencies in the world that participate in the global market are attached to the dollar and it's fluctuating rate. In the vaults of the banks of China, France, England, Japan, etc... are piles of American Bonds. Bonds are... well... essentially it's a check loan. When you or I get a loan, we are promising to pay back that money with interest. If we write a check to pay for that loan, we're saying, 'hey, this is good any time you want to cash it in.' That's more or less what bonds are in simplified terms. So, by correlation, America got loans from foreign countries and we issued them bonds; our check that says, 'you can cash this in whenever you want because we're good for it'.

Countries trade our bonds (debt) between their national central banks like hedge fund groups and banks did with sub-prime derivatives. Now, America is starting do owe more money in interest to it's loans than it takes in... so, in effect, America is becoming like the home owner that eventually defaulted on it's loans. As of this year, we will go from paying out 97% of what we take in to 124%... meaning, we will begin paying out 24% more than we earn. Hypothetically speaking, if this were you, what would you have to do? Here's a nice average person example to bring the astronomical numbers of federal spending into an understandable range for normal people.

Now, make a prediction based on what we just talked about. In the 80s/00s, banks and financial groups traded personal home-owner debts as sub-prime derivatives and got them insured through Mortgage-Backed Securities and CDS's and it lead to a financial meltdown when the home owners defaulted on the loans. Currently, countries are trading America's loan debts as sub-prime derivatives and are getting them backed by our bonds and we're about to start paying out more money than we make as a country. Take a wild guess. No seriously, just one guess. C'mon, nobody else is doing it. They're watching Charlie Sheen.

The biggest owner of our debt is China. They have the most bonds. They, along with several countries, are calling for a new base currency other than the dollar. So what? What does that mean? Well, if all of the major purchases of the world are purchased in dollars... oil for example... and then, one day they aren't, that means no one will buy our debt. That means all the promises the government made with social security, with medicare, with universal health care, bail outs, government aid programs... all gone. That means all our money is worthless. That means all the time you spent earning it is gone.

Here's why: If China and the rest of the world want to, they could destroy us financially right now. All they would have to do is cash in their bonds all at the same time. We don't have enough money to pay everyone if they all cash in right now. It would plunge into a phenomenon known as 'Hyper-Inflation', where the cost of everything doubles everyday as we print money to try and pay our debts. A loaf of bread would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It sounds crazy, but that's exactly what happened in Germany after World War I, paving the way for Hitler to take control over the desperate, starving masses when he pointed at the Jews and said, 'it's their fault!' It's the same thing just just happened in Zimbabwe in 2008.

We are not impervious to it.

When Hyper-Inflation happens and we can't pay our loans, the world will cry for a new standard like the Euro or the Yuan. Then, all our money will be completely worthless and all your savings, your 401ks, your IRAs, your money boxes, your stocks, your mutual funds... no one will accept them because they will have no value at all. Your entire life spent saving it up will become worthless and you don't get that time back. The only thing of value will be foreign currencies and gold. The only people who thought ahead to buy these things will be considered rich in the new economy and all you have to do is turn on the television now to see all the 'tax the rich' signs out there to know who people will want to blame.

People will be starving because food will be too expensive, and when people are starving, they resort to violence and crime. This paves the way for revolutions, something that there are already calls for right now by people who are too stupid to understand what they are calling for. This has also happened before. 1917, Russia. All it takes is one guy or girl to stand up and point the finger and people who don't know any better will get behind them because they are scared and angry. They won't be thinking rationally, and they will accept any excuse to not blame themselves.

5. Gold. It's the one thing that will be worth something if we don't get serious now about paying down our debt and cutting spending. And let's be honest, it doesn't look like we're serious. $60 billion?

That's like me eating Hardee's 3 times a day. Every meal consists of a Monster Burger with extra mayo and bacon, extra large crispy curly fries, jalapeno poppers and a large soda. Last year, I added a large milkshake to all three meals. But now, I'm going to get serious about dieting. I'm going to scrap off one granule of salt once a day, but the rest of the meal will have to stay as it is because I can't afford to cut anything else out but that one granule of salt once a day. And, I will not be starting an exercise program. That's how serious I am about my diet. This is my serious face.

$60 billion is .4% of our debt. In household numbers, if you make $50,000 a year, that's cutting out $200 in spending a year when you're spending $62,000 a year and saying you're getting serious about getting debt free. It's the Diet Pepsi of budget cuts. Just one calorie, not nearly enough.

Everyone says we should cut, but no one is willing to give anything up. So, predictably, gold has shot up in value because it's a historic hedge against inflation. The problem is, if all this goes down, when the new foreign currency comes online, foreign gold investors will start selling their gold. This will begin to drop the cost of gold and anyone in America that has gold will be forced to sell it before it becomes completely worthless triggering a landslide. We've seen this before too in history, several times. Everything that is happening now is not new, it has all happened before. All of it. And all these stupid young punk-ass kids that think they are so damned smart they don't have to read a history book are repeating the same steps the dumb punk kids in the past did.

So, think about that when you're 'standing in solidarity' with all the dumb ass kids out there that think they have it all figured out. Anyone who says 'equal pay for equal work' while making more than everyone else, and then can have the nerve to accuse 'rich people' of being the problem is leading you on a path that historically ends in bloodshed and destruction. Think for youself for once instead of walking in lockstep with the moron militia.

Public Union Nonsense Update

2011-03-03T05:27:00.000-08:00

It's amazing that this is still going on. Don't get me wrong, I love taking this situations apart all day. Some people play pool or video games for fun, I destroy people's arguments. Every day that goes by puts more and more ammo in my belt as people prove me right, but it seem like... you'd have to go back to work eventually. Are the people left there just the left over unemployed people getting paid to be there?

They're all just being used. I said it at the beginning, and now the evidence is rolling in that; regardless of the integrity of their personal intentions, they are being manipulated. 'Solidarity' with a Union just because it's a Union is dumb. Sometimes Unions are right, sometimes they are wrong, this particular time... it doesn't matter because there's NO MONEY! So, right and wrong in this particular disagreement, standing in solidarity, picketing for worker's rights... it doesn't change the numbers. The numbers say one thing: no money.

It's one thing to make a blanket statement of solidarity, but you have to ask yourself a few honest questions: Who's setting all these things up? Who's showing up? What are they saying when they are there? How do they support? Do I agree with what they are saying? Do they even know what they're saying? (And for the record, Noodle Boy is the epitome of stupid... but I plan to write a whole big piece on him, his points of view, the ridiculousness of his idea and it takes a while to dig up all the resource material for these things.)

But let's say you're still denying the Rise of Socialism happening in our country right now; or that you approve of it and you're one of the dumbasses that pretends it isn't responsible for the starvation and death of hundreds of millions of people throughout history in it's various forms because it 'just hasn't been done right', and that repeating that same failed social experiment over and over again and expecting a different result isn't the purest definition of insanity; let's look at this from the matter-of-fact point-of-view. How was that for a run-on sentence?

Politicians are using these people and this issue as a vote-securing motive, plan and simple. I mean, think honestly about this for a second, what is collective bargaining in the public sector if you're a politician? They can sit down at a bargaining table with Union Leaders who donate money to their election. They say, 'Ok, we got you elected, now we want to get paid more.' The politician says, 'Only if you can guarantee my re-election'. They agree and shake hands. Why? Because it's not their money. The Union reps take Union dues and give it to politicians and in turn, the politicians take taxpayer dollars and give it to Unions.

It's the same racket they accuse the Republican party of doing with Big Business CEOs in tax breaks and legal loopholes. Exactly the same. The business lobbyist pays into the politician's campaign and the politician solicits contracts, tax incentives and other goodies in return. Quid Pro Quo. You cannot accuse someone or some invisible group of someones (referred to many people who don't have a prodigious antagonist to name in their poorly thought out arguments as 'them') of something happening on your own side. You can't stand there and scream about corporate cronyism and pretend that finger is magically absent in Crony Public Unionism. You can't with any credibility, whatsoever. If you do, you are just an out-and-out hypocrite or a very accomplished practitioner of double-think.

It's like the the people who only see the statistic that the oil industry makes $1,400 a second and ignore the fact that that's what's left over after they pay $15,000 in expenses every second; $4,000 of which is in taxes, per second. They are in the top 1% everyone is screaming about paying their fair share, and ARE paying over 50% of ALL taxes... but still that's not fair? Quit trying to change and manipulate the facts.

Speaking of which, here's a great attempt at change the facts (and published in Forbes non-the-less!). Which was, by crazy-random-happenstance, contradicted by this article by Wall Street Journal the same day and the Milwaukee teacher's contract (pages 208 and 258). Here's another fabulous manipulation of the facts by self-proclaimed Communist head of the AFL-CIO, proclaiming taxes create jobs... yeah, for IRS agents. Just what we friggin' need. This is the same dude that wants to bring the violence of the Middle East protests to our country. What a douche.

I hear people on the left always talk about how peaceful they are all the time, but they seem about as peaceful as the alien in I Come In Peace when it comes to actions. Apparently 'Reclaiming the Dream' involves a Fight Club and for others in Georgia, it's about a public wrestling arena. Or maybe a mosh pit. Makes sense I suppose if your idea of a protest is whipping a group of sheeple into hysterics. For a group of people who've been protesting almost professionally (thus the designation 'The Professional Left'), they sure act like children. Or the guys from Jackass. Add to that sexual harassment of a minor. Very classy.

More sweet signs that don't advocate violence in any way.

GOP hearts the KKK?

10 seconds + google = this guy owes me a million friggin' dollars. Boom! Winning!
PBS

Just more hollow accusations that the Tea Party is driven by racism... while casting racist accusations... of varying degrees... which I'm pretty sure Kevin Jackson would disagree vehemently with... along with Allen West, Herman Caine, Deneen Borelli, Lloyd Marcus, our protester friend here, and blah blah blah... completely unfounded accusation. It's gotten to a point of predictable comedy that you can almost predict when someone will yell 'racists!' over just about anything. But as they yell racist, they support Affirmative Action... which is the use of racial discrimination to hire someone. Is that not racism? How can you say you're working to rid the country of racism while supporting it? Double-think.

Even the President got in on this:

"But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent "Tea Party" movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn't helping them nearly enough, he said."

Seriously?! You really think that!? How naive can you get? Talk about a guy who just does NOT get it... we've been screaming about jobs for 2 years and for the government to take their boot off our collective throat so we can fix the jobs situation, and he interprets it as racism and focuses on not following the federal Defense of Marriage Act Law and sues Arizona over trying to enforce the federal law on Illegal Immigration. We want you to get off our chest so we can breath, the world is burning down around us and what's important? Mo-Town awards. Nice call.

Now, I'm not saying the topics aren't important... well... the Mo-Town one is pretty stupid... I'll go on the record with that one... but as the President you cannot advocate breaking the law. That's first. Lead by example. Same with the runaway legislators in protest states (which, finally they are taking action on for breaking the law). If you don't like it, you work to move it in the direction you want it to go, not boycott. If you ignore the law, then what is the purpose in us paying the taxes for the court system, cops and the politicians that create the laws? If you're just gonna ignore laws put into effect by the will of the people through representative elections just because they don't fit into your world view, I want my money back. You're obviously not upholding the Constitution, which is what I pay you to do. You're ignoring the democratic process... we might as well rename our country California and ignore ballot initiatives.

But there is hope, at least one liberal/progressive writer has realized that this problem is not about taking benefits or denying bargaining rights... it's about being friggin' broke. He's seen through the misleading nonsense about 'worker denigration', which is completely unfounded and inaccurate to the entire premise of what's happening. THERE IS NO MORE MONEY! The country, the state, we can't continue to spend like we were. Who agrees? Only a few hundred of the top economists.

If we keep pretending like we're not broke, the dollar will no longer be the world's currency. If that happens, you think things are bad now? Just wait until our money is no good anywhere but here. Wait until the dollar isn't required to buy oil anymore to see what gas prices will look like. People like Michael Moore will never get that because he thinks everyone's money belongs to the state, that it's just paper and it's value has nothing to do with our position in the world. It's not just paper... but if they can get you to believe that, they win. They become our owners, 'perched on top of us from birth to death'. In essence, all of our lives belong to the state according to Michael Moore.

But we have to remember, what is money? It's a representation of our time spent laboring. We translate that time into a trade-able commodity in order to pursue personal happiness. When some idiot makes a blanket statement that all money belongs to the state, you're saying that all time belongs to the state. If all time belongs to the state, then all lives spent in time belong to the state. If all lives belong to the state, then there can be no expectation of privacy because your life belongs to them. There can be no expectation of earnings for anything you do because all lives are worth the same. If the state owns your life, then the state is responsible for providing for you everything you need: a house, a job, food, resources, health care, transportation... when you put it that way, you start to understand the demands of these people.

They are screaming to be enslaved and new-speak to sugar cover their siren calls.

Tom Morello and Michael Moore both under Michael Moore's statement there, have no expectation to any money whatsoever for the time they spent on their art because the time they spent making it was not theirs, it was the state's. You have a hobby that you are good at and you want to sell your efforts? Nope, sorry, your time belongs to the state. But yet Michael Moore, in full contradiction to his own logic, is suing for lost money.

Bro... you just said that money is yours, it belongs to the state. The guys who made google, they would make the same amount of money I do even though they revolutionized the world we live in. That makes no sense. I have no disillusion that they have benefited humanity way more than I have and thus, their time is worth more money and should be translated as such.

Additionally, it's not a finite amount of money. I WISH. They are printing more... which is a BAD THING. And what does that say about their opinion of us? If our money/time/lives belong to the state and they are printing more and devaluing it via a lovely process known in business as Economies of Scale (essentially making something worth less through increased production, in this case money... which is our time... which is our lives) by your own logic you have to question the judgment of anyone who would advocate for the 'collective' at the cost to allowing individuals to define their worth on their own terms.

Sigh... ok, I think I've peed in enough Cheerios today, I'll start focusing on Noodle Boy for tomorrow.

** - Sorry, the noodle boy thing had to wait, too much other stuff happening.

"No War For Oil"

2011-02-26T04:42:00.001-08:00

Remember when gas prices spiked to $40 a barrel during the elections in 2008 and people took to the streets screaming 'No War For Oil!' and accused Bush of war profiteering? Yeah... it was the same time DMX found out Obama was running for president? Remember? Those were the good ol' days. They're predicting $200 a barrel now... wow... but it's democracy man!

Tom Morello & Friends

2011-02-26T01:41:00.000-08:00

I just found this out and it gave me a warm fuzzy and a small amount of chub because if there's one thing I love, it's taking an argument, dissecting it and pointing out contradictions. Self described Marxist Tom Morello, guitarist for Rage Against the Machine, showed up in Madison, Wisconsin to lend his voice... and guitar... to support the Union protesters. So, in his honor, here's some things I love about Tom Morello and Rage Against the Machine:

- What I really loved was Mr. Morello was one of those people who related it to the 'peaceful' protests in Egypt...you know, the ones where hundreds of men beat and raped Laura Logan while screaming 'Jew!' and are screaming in Tahrir Square for racial genocide and the destruction of Israel... that peaceful protest... and read a letter about the beauty of democracy... which, let's be clear what democracy is: it's government by the people, where decisions are made by the majority.

So, here he's supporting a protest where there protesters are protesting the democratically elected governor and attempting to prevent the will of the majority, while legislators, realizing the democratic system they used to pass health care will now work against them, ran away to hold that democracy hostage instead of manning up to the vote like their challengers did for them on the health care vote, despite knowing health care would pass if they voted. In one instance, the losers acted like adults and in another they are acting like spoiled children. Time to nut up or shut up boys.

- I love that the song that made RATM famous ends with the scream of 'Freedom! Freedom, yeah right!' That is ironically the same thing I was told by a guy I met on a camping trip in January who escaped Yugoslavia before it did what all Socialists countries do... dissolve into poverty and starvation... was an inside joke to the citizens there. It's the same joke that's shared among former Soviets I got to work with in the military. I'm curious if anyone tortured and killed by Castro, Che or the Chinese government would share in that joke. Well, I suppose if they're dead, we can't learn that answer. Maybe when the living ones get out of the labor camps, presuming they don't die by getting worked to death and stop crying over the silly loss of their murdered family members by their loving Socialist leaders.

- I love, love, love that they advocate Socialism and Marxism, but earn all their money from Capitalism. CDs, shirts, stickers, patches, DVDs, concerts, Guitar Hero! 'Buy our songs on iTunes and fight Capitalism!' If that's not a show of double-think to the highest absolute degree, then I don't know what is. That's about as crazy as if... say... Michael Moore were to ever make a movie about the horrors of Capitalism and then sue a film company for $2.7 million he was 'cheated' out of. Or a anti-Capitalist, Marxist Rapper being #1 in sales on Amazon. That would never happen because they wouldn't have those sorts of non-conflicting life views.

- In that vein, it's awesome that they support Che Guevara as a Revolutionary, especially considering he despised rock music and tried to stamp it and jazz out during the Cuban 'Revolution' through something we in the business refer to as 'murder'. It's not as bad as it sounds I'm sure, just ask our 'peaceful' friends in the Iran that took over in 79'. I think Cuban escapee & 9 time Grammy winning jazz musician Paquito D'Rivera put it best, "Che hated artists, so how is it possible that artists still today support the image of Che Guevara?" "Che was an inspiration for me. I thought, 'I have to get out of this island as soon as I can, because I am in the wrong place at the wrong time!'" MAN! Wouldn't it be awesome if the people supporting these assholes had the same sort of self-preservation and sense of awareness?

Che is the same guy who persecuted and killed gays and lovingly signed his letters 'Stalin II'. He was essentially the Latino Charles Manson. Here's some actual Che quotes that you won't find in Hollywood-ized inspirational pick-me-up movies like Che or the Motorcycle Diaries:

"...the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink..."

*Jay-Z, single-handedly proving Che wrong every day

"Mexicans are a rabble of illiterate Indians." *Uh... I'm pretty sure that's a slam on both Mexicans and Indians in 7 words. 90% of comedians are totally jealous right now.
"Youth must refrain from ungrateful questioning of government mandates." *I love this one because it's from the same group that scream 'think for yourself, question authority!' Really? Because you're just going along with what some band guy is saying about a guy that hates band guys... and what he's saying is don't question authority. You should question the judgment there.
"The very spirit of rebellion is reprehensible." *And yet he was a rebel... and all these people think of themselves as rebels that wear his t-shirt... but who are you rebelling against when you group-think and follow the idea that the collective always comes before the individual? Are you rebelling against individuality and proposing we all act like carbon copies? Does that make any sense?
"My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood... Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any surrendered enemy that falls in my hands! With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the deaths the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!"
"Hatred as the central element of our struggle... Hatred that is intransigent... Hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond this natural limitations, making him violent and cold-blooded killing machine... We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!" *Remember though, they come in peace. They are anti-nuclear weapons. But somehow, it's the Tea Party that is violent and vitriolic in nature.

Although, I think there is one quote of his I like. When he was captured in Bolivia, he immediately gave up and pleaded for his life and his last words were, "Don't shoot - I'm Che! I'm worth more to you alive than dead!" *Bang*

So, to be clear, RATM supports this guy... so by correlation, they must support his point of view, his actions and his methods? And let's be even more clear, Che was pro-violence, pro-nuclear weapons, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-mexican, anti-art and freedom of expression, anti-questioning of authority. Moreover, he didn't just oppose them, he actively and murderously enforced those views. Now, I don't believe RATM actually supports these points of view, but ya gotta wonder about people who would support a movement that uses this guy, Stalin, Mao and other mass murderers as their mascots.

*Che Guevara, the world's greatest T-Shirt salesman.
Can be seen in Starbucks across the country.

- I absolutely (heart) that they promote Marxism with calls like, 'Don't listen to the rich!' 'Tax the Rich!' I'm sorry... isn't... that... um... you? I mean, if you want us to tax you more, I suppose we could... but I'm sort of a proponent of treating people equally, even the rich. Equality... Equal Justice? That's like... my thing... you could say. Not my idea mind you, I completely stole it from Martin Luther King... an obvious conservative bigot. Bigot!! What good is equality if we don't get paid for things that never happened to us or for work we aren't doing! Idiot!

It's funny how they rip on the rich all the time and say they are responsible for poverty, instead of... you know... laziness, but I'm curious how many people a Rage Against the Machine tour employs. For a Harvard guy, he seems to miss the obvious, like how many people earn a living off the money that trickles down from their CD, DVD. He and people like Jay-Z are absolutely insulted by the very concept of Reaganomics... but, they are the perfect example of it's working effects. Like Jay-Z's clothing line Rocawear. A rich guy, starts a business and generates more money for himself. In doing so, he has to hire people as the business grows, then he makes more money and has to hire more people. God damn evil Trickle-Down Economics! Fuck You Capitalism! How dare you allow people the opportunity to make a life for themselves and give them the financial ability to chase their dreams! YOU ARE EVIL! Always makes me feel warm and buttery inside, like a lobster roll from Red Lobster, when I hear them rip on it and then plug their next concert series or clothing line.

What's really great about the whole Eat the Rich mentality is that all the kids that scream it also aspire to be wealthy celebrities. So... essentially, what they are really saying is tax the rich if you aren't rich, and if you are, then just stand in the picket lines for a few hours before returning to your mansion to sit pool side. I think the best summary I read was about their point of view was, '... it is better to be rich and famous than to dig a ditch or work at Asda...". God forbid you have to work to achieve that. It's bullshit Bobby.

I think this is an awesome way to sum it up. You have people mocking and dismissing the idea Socialists are involved in the protests... 3 feet from marching Socialists.

Hypocrisy of Union Protestors

2011-02-24T01:32:00.000-08:00

Racial insults. Attacking women. Anti-Semitism. Calls for violence. Breaking the law. Ignoring the democratic vote of the people. Openly lying to employers and using tax payer money without performing their duties. Media turning a blind eye. For a group of people trying to win hearts and minds to their cause and claim they are the victims, they are doing an exceptional jobs of bullying everyone around.

Sorry, I just can't get behind that. There is a right and a wrong way to do things. Saul Alinsky's idea that 'the ends justify the means' is the wrong way, and dangerous. And let's be honest, these people are just being used. They are the useful idiots Lenin talked about when he used the Unions in 1917 to take down Russia and impose the Soviet State. Anyone with eyes can see. Chicago Revolution Newspapers being handed out supporting the Revolutionary Communist Party?

Anyone with ears can hear. People talking about cloning and reviving Che Guevara? Bring Castro to power in the US?

These are the people everyone is standing with? How can anyone talk about integrity and honesty and a better way of life if you build it off dishonesty? If the first brick you lay is in dishonesty, what sort of expectation can you possibly have for anything honest after that? That's like cheating on your fiance the day before your wedding and expecting to still live happily ever after.

For example, writing doctor's notes for teachers to be off work? Any doctor that gets certified has go through medical ethics and in talking to a couple doctor friends, this is a direct violation of that oath. One even said that they could get their license pulled for doing that by the state. It's doubtful that would happen though, there's always a shortage of doctors thanks to the AMA.

For the teachers who would openly engage in that sort of dishonesty, you say you're doing this for the kids, but what sort of example are you setting here? How can you as an educator, a person who is suppose to teach children ethics, a person who is suppose to lead by example, in any seriousness, challenge a child or teenager on values or teach morality if they bring in a fake sick note to skip class when you do the same thing? How can you tell them not to steal when you are openly and proudly stealing tax payer money every day you skip your job and continue to get paid for it? You can't. If you try to, you'd be a hypocrite. Luckily, they don't apparently attempt to teach morals in their school, just Union History.

Protesting is fine. Confronting someone and challenging their point of view is fine. But asking someone how many children 'he claims' because he's black? Seriously? And the TEA Party is racist? Really? Isn't this group supposed to supports racial equality? It shows that these people don't see it as an equality issue, so much as a way to cushion their numbers. They apparently are only for the rights of minorities so long as being for those rights keeps them in a position of power and those they are 'supporting' underneath them, propping them up. Apparently this black man didn't know his place was under the boot of the Unions instead of deciding on his own.

How about this guy from Rhode Island yelling gay slurs at this camera guy for a PUBLIC access show? Is this acceptable to support as long as it mean Unions get to continue pretending it's 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' and continue to get more than the public they are suppose to be serving? (move to 7:32)

Or how about calls for violence from the 'peaceful left'? Calling for violence in what is suppose to be a 'peaceful assembly of the people' is beyond bullying, it's what those who are in power do when they are faced with losing that power. They fight to keep their grip on it at all costs. Just look at Egypt, or Libya. Calls for violence are a last desperate act to retain control.

Here's another instance of people just blatantly knocking a camera out of someone's hand. Why? DOn't get me wrong, it's not as horrible as some camps like say, religious zealouts who commit acts of violence in the name of their lord or anti-Civil Rights 'protesters' that would beat innocent blacks for daring to stand up to white special interests, but it doesn't make it acceptable because it's just 'a little bit' of violence. And now that you have tax payers standing up to Union special interests, and what do they do? Resort to violence. How long before you go from this:

to attacking people? We've already seen Union members attack people who just want their rights back before.

And this is just ridiculous. From a group of people that are loudly portraying the governor as Hitler to insult a guy and call him a 'bad Jew'? Why? Because he has his own opinion? How hypocritical.

Breaking the laws you are sworn to uphold shows an utter lack of respect for the people you are suppose to represent. It shows that you are not a representative of the people, but a representative of special interests. The facts are simple: a democratic vote was held in the state, the voters chose what they wanted to support and because you know you're going to lose a vote you run away like children is just downright dishonest, oppressive and quite honestly, you should be fined the amount of taxpayer dollars you've wasted through your dereliction of duties. You have every right to be upset about it, to be opposed to it, but disrupting the system you are sworn to is pathetically childish. Take your ball and run home little boys.

How these people think Union special interests are any different than corporate special interests is comical; especially when they are yelling 'tax the rich!', as if the rich aren't already paying for the majority of everything.

And the most insulting thing, is the media portrayal of this whole event. They are openly advocating actions the contradict the results of a democratic vote. They are openly working against the will of the people in Wisconsin. The majority voted for this, on this platform. If we ignore their vote, then we ignore their will as free people. If we ignore their will, then we cannot pretend to live in a free society because it would mean that the desires of a few are more important than the will of the majority.

Now, this is just a band, so I never take bands seriously because most are not very educated on the topics they talk about and deal mostly in the realm of emotions and what they want facts to be, not what they are, but how many impressionable kids are they influencing?

Open calls for Communism? Way to go. I guess Vladimir Lenin was right, "Trade Unions are a School of Communism."
This in particular sucks cause I like the Dropkick Murphys... but I can't side with anyone who would attempt to smother the voice of voters and subvert the will of a free people and the decision that was made using an act of democracy. I especially can't support anyone that would make open calls for violence against the people who are just trying to get their their state out of fiscal ruin so their children aren't wage slaves to public employee benefits when they get older.

One thing I've learned is if you want to analyze a movement, look at their protests. If they are insulting, vulgar and promote violence, those are the kinds of protests that end in dictatorships and heartache. If they are peaceful and considerate like the Civil Rights movement, then they will end up on the right side of history.

So for all the people saying they stand with the Unions of Wisconsin, that's fine, you are who you stand with. And right now, that's communists, socialists and thugs. Just think, this Saturday, admitted Communist Van Jones will be organizing a country wide protest under the premise of the American Dream Movement. He claims the current Tea Party is violent and throws the usual accusations... but, can you name one instance where the Tea Parties have used violence. In fact, can you name one instance where Tea Parties did anything but clean up the place after their protest.

This from the same guy who said the Tea Party was all old people. So what are they, a bunch of old violent retirees? Conflicting messages. You can go out there and support your buddies in attempting to force America under state control... I mean... you'll fail, but I'm not going to stop you from going with what you think is right, even if it's Socialist oppression.

Debt Ceiling

2011-02-23T04:55:00.000-08:00

Remember this?

The Daily Show - Bush V. Bush
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

I'm curious why he hasn't done the same thing in reference to the debt ceiling raise. It's ok, I'll do it for him.

New Obama:

Obama Raises Debt Ceiling

"U.S. President Barack Obama has signed a law that will allow the U.S. to borrow nearly $2 trillion more than before.

The president signed the bill Friday night at the White House with little public fanfare.

The maximum debt the U.S. can carry is now $14.3 trillion. The U.S. was already poised to exceed the previous maximum."

Old Obama:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." - Senator Barack Obama, March 20, 2006

When you're right, you're right. Now that this exact same argument is being used against the current exploding budget, it's an 'outdated' and 'childish' sentiment. How so?

Wisconsin Union Protests

2011-02-18T20:28:00.000-08:00

Are people pissed or what? I hear a whole lot of echoing stuff from the news and sound clips, but I haven't heard anyone break this down... but I have ADD, and one of the wonderful things about ADD is that you think about 5 or 6 things all the time, so you usually can't focus on just one thing. But, when something actually grabs your attention and draws all your focus, there's really nothing quite like the obsessive objectivity that comes with it. So, I decided to dissect this problem instead of listening to... whoever is getting people so excitable.

My first question. What is a Union? Now, I know what a Union is, but I need to know what they think of themselves as.

According to the International Union of Operating Engineers

"A union is workers joining together to pursue policies and goals beneficial to one and all. Nothing more, nothing less."

"As a worker, you have a right under federal law to form a union, select representatives of your choice and bargain collectively with your employer. This helps balance the power that employers have over individual employees."

Disclaimer: There is more and I've attached a link in their name, please go read their entire pitch to get a better idea of how they define themselves. I've selected the two quotes that I think are most important for this discussion. But I'm telling you to please go read the whole thing. Please.

Now that you've read it, no one can say that I am misquoting them or not giving them their fair say... I put it up front and first.

Essentially, a union is the use of numbers to balance the tables between the workers and the people who pay them to work. I would say that's a fair summary of the idea of a union. Me. Nathan. I say it. Under this definition, the argument could be made that unions are necessary, especially for workers in a business that treats them poorly. Now, I'm not going to argue that if that's the case, don't work for that business because some people just don't get that and it's irrelevant to this particular topic as it is.

If a union negotiates with the employer, when you step into the realm of public jobs, who is the union's employer? In the teachers of Wisconsin case, it's not the schools or the school board. It's not even the state legislators. It's the taxpayers. So, by definition, the teacher's union's employer is the people who are paying them, the citizens. The suspension of collective bargaining rights with the school district or government doesn't violate this definition. In fact, it reinforces it because it simply returns the bargaining power back to the tax payer/employer.

Prior to this, you had two layers of middle men/women, negotiating how much the employer/taxpayer would pay the teachers without discussing terms with the employer/tax payer. The school board would do the bargaining of raises and benefits, of which there wouldn't be much push-back because... well, it's not their money. The government would agree to the changes because... well, it's not their money either, and summarily pass the bill in the form of new taxes or tax increases to the taxpayers/employer, who had no say.

Normally, these negotiations happen in full context of how much money a company is making so the unions don't over-extend their privileges and bankrupt the company. That's what responsible unions like the Carpenter's District Council of Greater St.Louis and Vicinity do and in return, they bring a stamp of quality. Sadly, they are currently the minority, which is unfortunate. Obviously, there are unions that are not responsible like the UAW that have bankrupted Chrysler and GM with their demands and have hired people that will take naps in closets on company time. The UAW could fix that, but again, different topic and not relevant to this one.

In the case of public institutions, this is not the case. See what I did there... with the word case. Man, I love being a nerd. A teacher's union rep doesn't come to the home of every parent and ask to see their budget in order to determine if it's feasible to raise the salary of the teacher. They don't even hold a vote in that school district to ask the parents about raising salaries which would be the democratic thing to do. With everyone screaming about democracy, I'm surprised no one has come to this conclusion yet.

The places that do put it on the ballot, like here in O'Fallon, IL, put it in small print (just like the small print they accuse corporations of using to hide inflationary fees) and no numbers are discussed so the taxpayers have no idea what it's going to cost them, what the current salary is, etc... so there is no context. Do you want to give teachers a raise... well, hell yeah we do. But, if you put it in context, give the voter the information necessary to make a smart vote... they may be like... well, hell ye... wait, I can't afford that. Is this really their benefits package? What the hell bro? Who signed that into law?! At least, that was my reaction. When a majority of voters vote against a salary raise for teachers because they can't afford it, then balance is kept and the salaries and benefits don't crush the voter under burdensome taxes. Viola, democracy in action.

Additionally, like GM and Chrysler, the state is bankrupt. And why are they bankrupt? Because the citizens are bankrupt. They are foreclosing on homes, living on welfare and unemployment, which uses state money; of which there is none, so the state's are borrowing. So, when I say there is no money, there is literally no more money. So let's say the protesters win, guess what happens in a year? They all get laid off or furloughed. Why? Because there is no money.

It's completely simple economics. We're talking below 101, we're talking lemonade stand economics right now. I want to make more lemonade, but I had to pay Jimmy to work the stand so I can't buy more lemonade mix. Either Jimmy can take a cut in pay so I can keep making lemonade and hopefully earn some more money and give him back a raise when things get better, or I have to close the lemonade stand. That's really all this is.

And that's the ultimate failure of public unions in contrast to private unions. There's a belief that they can just strike and the result will be like a corporation that, when the workers strike, stops making money. After a while, they need to make money again, so the cave to union demands. The catch here is that the citizens aren't making much money right now and with the teachers on strike, they are making less money because now they have to pay for baby sitters. It basically has the exact opposite effect.

Now, I can understand the confusion. Many people believe that it's the government that is paying the teacher's salaries and that the citizens are the consumers. But the government has no money of it's own. The citizens are not consumers of government, they are it's employers. The job of government is to carry out the will of the people. Without tax dollars, there would be no government. But if there were no government (while not realistic), there could still be schools because taxpayers could simply pay the school directly.

So that's point 1. See... ADD... all that was just a single point. This is why I suck at Twitter.

Point 2 is about the act of democracy. There are many relationships being drawn about Egypt and Wisconsin in the media. Egypt supposedly protested for democracy, and we'll see if that pans out to be true. I think the people did, but I get the feeling that; just like what happened in Iran, a small group or two will force themselves into positions of power and take over the movement. Not relevant, back on topic Nathan.

Wisconsin's teachers are protesting against the decision of the attempted actions of the governor who was democratically elected by their employers, the voters/taxpayers. So, in the case of the teachers, they are protesting essentially against the democratic decision of the people of Wisconsin. The governor said he would take these actions during his campaign and a large majority of people voted for him. In other words, they realized in order to save the lemonade stand, Jimmy had to take a pay cut... or in this case, pay a little more for his benefits. Now that the governor is making good on the promises he made, everyone is shocked.

I am too a little, I've never seen a politician follow through on their word before on something that actual matters.

People like Noam Chomsky are saying that this is what we need, a move towards 'democracy', and ignoring completely that these protests are an open attempt to suppress voter's rights. Here's what he's really supporting, and everyone else who has only listened to the sound clips and read the bullet points are missing: If the state of Wisconsin can hold elections that set this into motion and a small handful of people can change the rules, what is the point in pretending there is a Democracy to begin with? If this small group of protesting teachers can just change the will of the people who pay their salaries, are the tax payers not just wage slaves to the unions and government at that point? It's essentially a banana republic. The entire concept of unions is based on democracy, they are voted into existence democratically. But here they are protesting against the wishes of a democratic election by the voters themselves. It's a double-standard.

Accusations are being raised that this is a power grab, and it is. In situations like these, it's always about power. But the grab is not by the predominantly Republican government, or corporations like some guy was yelling... corporations aren't even involved in this particular tango... the power grab is by the taxpayer. 50+ years ago, the taxpayers in Wisconsin lost the ability to negotiate the salary of teachers based on performance, a gap that has slowly widened with each successive governor passing further legislation to burden the tax payer. The longevity of the misappropriation of bargaining power gave the situation the superficial appearance of being right. Time has a way of doing that.

But really, all that is happening here is the return of that power to the tax payer, people like you and I. Well, maybe not me. It's being spurred on by a realization that debts are coming due. The responsible taxpayers want to pay the debts. Conversely, the union doesn't want to have to change their format on how they negotiate these changes. In that respect, they're a lot like oil companies that aren't very interested in changing their mining and refining techniques because, hey... what we got now is workin' pretty good for us. I think Rep. Ryan summarizes it well here.

But times are changing. People are changing. Sides are being drawn. Right now there is the biggest conflict of individualism and state-ism we've seen since the days of the Cold War or World War II. The state-ists are doing a grand job of convincing people it's about freedom and democracy, but if it were about freedom, it would be about the individual, not the collective. But again, another topic... something I'm writing about currently for something else. ADD, more than one topic. See... us ADD kids don't need drugs, you just need to challenge us a bit more... side tracked. Stay on target... stay on target...

To add insult to injury here, Democratic legislators left the state in to obstruct the process. So now, you have teacher's protesting using sick days paid by taxpayer dollars, and using students who have no idea why they are protesting as political props or feel forced to be there. You have legislators breaking laws they wrote by leaving the state and staying at a resort in Illinois on taxpayer dollars. And if they prevent this return of power to the taxpayers, the taxpayers will have just footed the bill for this entire event and still be as powerless as they were before to do anything about it in the future and further in debt.

Where are the protesters picketing for taxpayer rights from the teacher's union like in Ohio?

And what are they actually asking them to do? Pay less than half the national average for their benefits. I would kill for that deal, so that means currently, they have a better deal than that. No wonder they're rioting. Don't believe me, READ THE BILL. Then ask yourself, why didn't any of the sites you normally read that gave you all your talking points have the bill attached? Because, if you read it, you'd see that they've fed you a bunch of crap.

I love people who love to be meddlesome and complain without knowing the facts... because I get to compete against them in the job market. As long as they are out there, not thinking for themselves or taking the initiative to go to the source, just waiting to be filled with what their opinion should be, I will always be employed because business loves people who can think on their feet... not sheep. Sheep get the coffee.

And, if you're interested in fairness, you should probably hear Scott Walker's reasons for doing this... if you're not interested in fairness, continue on. These are not the droids you're looking for.

Harry Hoosier

2011-02-18T13:31:00.001-08:00

Another black history month icon that no one knows much about is Harry Hoosier. If you've ever wondered where the term Hoosiers comes from, this is it. Hoosier, a Reverend on the Frontier, and people called his converts 'Hoosiers'. So... when you call a white person a Hoosier in an attempt to insult them... realize that they are called that because of a black preacher.

I found a good blog post about it.

The Rev. "Black Harry" Hoosier (or Hosier) 1750-1810

"Harry Hoosier was born a slave in North Carolina, but toward the end of the American Revolution he obtained his freedom, converted to Methodism, and became a preacher. In 1781, he delivered a sermon in Virginia entitled “The Barren Fig Tree” – the first recorded Methodist sermon by an African American. Despite the fact that Hoosier was illiterate, he became famous as a traveling evangelist and was considered one of the most popular preachers of his era. In fact, after hearing Harry preach in and around Philadelphia, Dr. Benjamin Rush (1745-1813), a signer of the Declaration of Independence and an evangelical Christian, declared that accounting for his illiteracy, Hoosier was “the greatest orator in America.”

Early in his ministry, Harry became a close associate of Bishop Francis Asbury (1745- 1816), the “Founding Father of the American Methodist Church.”

(In 1771, Asbury – an Englishman – heard an appeal from John Wesley for preachers to go to America to “spread the Word.” Asbury responded, and during the next four decades he preached almost 20,000 sermons and rode over a quarter of a million miles across America – on horseback! When Asbury first arrived, there were only 550 Methodists in America, but by the time of his death in 1816, there were 250,000 – and 700 ordained Methodist ministers. In 1924 when a statue of Bishop Asbury was erected in Washington, DC, President Calvin Coolidge declared of Asbury that “He is entitled to rank as one of the builders of our nation.”)

Hoosier and Bishop Asbury traveled and preached together, but Bishop Asbury (who drew huge crowds) remarked that Harry drew even larger crowds than he did! In fact, the Rev. Henry Boehm (1775-1875) reported: “Harry. . . . was so illiterate he could not read a word [but h]e would repeat the hymn as if reading it, and quote his text with great accuracy. His voice was musical, and his tongue as the pen of a ready writer. He was unboundedly popular, and many would rather hear him than the bishops.” Harry also traveled and preached with other popular bishops of that era, including the Rev. Richard Whatcoat (1736- 1806), the Rev. Freeborn Garretson (1752-1827), and the Rev. Thomas Coke (1747-1814). The Rev. Coke said of Asbury that, “I really believe he is one of the best preachers in the world. There is such an amazing power that attends his preaching . . . and he is one of the humblest creatures I ever saw.”

Hoosier ministered widely along the American frontier and is described by historians as “a renowned camp meeting exhorter, the most widely known black preacher of his time, and arguably the greatest circuit rider of his day.” However, he was unpopular in the South for two reasons: first, frontier Methodists such as Hoosier tended to lean Arminian in their theology, contrasted with the denominations of the South that were largely Calvinistic (e.g., Presbyterians, Reformed, Episcopalians, Baptists, etc. – yes, the Baptists of that day were largely Calvinistic!); second, Methodists were outspoken against slavery whereas the majority of the South supported slavery. Therefore, southern groups such as the Virginia Baptists came to use the term “Hoosiers” as an insulting term of derision that they applied to Methodists like Black Harry Hoosier, meaning that they were anti-slavery in belief and Arminian in theology.

Fisk University history professor William Piersen believes that this is the source of the term “Hoosier” that was applied to the inhabitants of Indiana. Piersen explains, “Such an etymology would offer Indiana a plausible and worthy first Hoosier – ‘Black Harry’ Hoosier – the greatest preacher of his day, a man who rejected slavery and stood up for morality and the common man.”

Noted African American historian Carter Woodson reported the words of early Methodist historian John Ledman in describing the closing chapter of Harry Hoosier’s life:

After he had moved on the tide of popularity for a number of years . . . he fell by wine – one of the strong enemies of both ministers and people. And now, alas! this popular preacher was a drunken ragpicker in the streets of Philadelphia. But we will not leave him here. One evening, Harry . . . determined to remain there until his backslidings were healed. Under a tree he wrestled with God in prayer. Sometime that night, God restored to him the joys of his salvation [Psalm 51:12]. . . . About the year 1810, Harry finished his course. . . . An unusually large number of people, both white and colored, followed his body to its last resting place, in a free burying ground in Kensington [near Philadelphia].

The Rev. Harry Hoosier was used by God to draw thousands of Americans to Christ during the early decades of the Second Great Awakening. "

Basic Economics For Non-Economists

2011-02-17T09:56:00.000-08:00

Here's a great "example given to us from Duquesne University Economics Professor Antony Davies;

If the Federal government were scaled down to the size of the average US household, here’s what its finances would look like:

The Federal government would earn $50,000 a year in tax revenue (the same as the average US household).

It would be $325,000 in debt.

It would pay almost $10,000 a year in interest on that debt.

Last year, it would have spent $79,000.

This year, it is hoping to spend $86,000.

The $100 billion in spending cuts (that some politicians view as draconian) would be equivalent to the household cutting its $86,000 in planned spending down to a mere $83,700. Not a bad start, but the household has another $33,700 to go before it balances its budget."

Source

To complete Antony's last bullet here, I just did the math to translate $33,700 from the household budget in the example to the real-life budget cuts still needed to level out our national budget.

$1.4 Trillion.

$1.4 TRILLION! That's how much more in budget cuts we need in order to bring the budget back inline.

The CBO is projecting that Obamacare would COST $1-2 Trillion... basically the exact opposite direction we need to go. Not to mention that CBO estimates are based on today's numbers and assumes that the data will not change... which it always does. Historically, CBO projections are the 'best case scenario'. So, you're telling me the best case scenario right now is going to cost us more than we need to cut in order to friggin' get our house in order?

This doesn't include the biggest expense in our economy, government employee pensions. Pensions are always left out of the projections. When you see libs and cons arguing over health care spending and defense spending and they're pointing and pie charts, pensions are never on there. The growing number of Social Security recipients are on there normally as the baby boomers retire now, but not pensions. If you include pensions, our 'promised' outflow of money gets pushed up to the $100 Trillion mark.

And we just added over 100,000 new federal employees.

Prepare for cuts players, it's gonna happen whether we want it to or not. If the government won't do it, if individuals in this country won't give up their individual incomes from the government for any purpose be it retirement, medical, school or anything else, the natural laws of economics will make it happen. Better to get use to it now so when the shit storm hits, your world doesn't come crashing down around you.

I realize at this point that I'm just as guilty as anyone else of financial abuse because I'm going to school on the GI Bill. JFK once asked, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." I'm thinking that statement is more valid now than it was in his time. I can't do much for my country where I'm at, but not costing taxpayers $17,000 a year is some place I can start as an individual.

**EDIT - Turns out I can't quit school without paying a bunch of money back that I don't have. Ain't that some shit?

My 'You Cut' Letter to Eric Cantor

2011-02-16T12:49:00.000-08:00

I came upon the You Cut section facilitated by Eric Cantor and I wrote this in hopes that it gets noticed... then copied it to a slew of commentators, new media journalists and news companies. I doubt anything comes of it, but one can hope.

"I have a few ideas for avenues of spending that can be cut from the federal budget, but I'll start with just one. Thank you for facilitating the platform for me to submit these ideas. I currently work at" (removed for privacy) ". On the " (removed for privacy) ", I work with video teleconferencing technology in a secure environment. After seeing the capabilities of such systems, I've realized that it is possible to use these systems to facilitate your current voting processes.

By utilizing this modern technology to update Washington D.C. (something I believe most would find unexpected from the GOP as the running joke is how little the GOP understands technology), you would trim the cost to run government, trim the cost to tax payers for our representatives to live in Washington D.C. and reduce the accessibility of members of legislature to take advantage of those resources to abuse by charging multiple cars, apartments and offices to the taxpayers, enable members of Congress to trim their pay to more closely mirror the wage rate for their states and local areas and show solidarity with their voters, have more control over the debate and control process in both the House and Senate and stream line the process better, allow for more open access by voters and media to the processes of our government, reduce material waste on the floor from resources like the printing office because all demonstration material could be digitized, reduce the travel costs across country by members of Congress (the last two would attract eco-minded voters in terms of resources and carbon emissions, another issue no one would normally associate with the GOP or see coming), be closer to your individual families, be more accessible to your constituents which would keep members more in tune with what we want from you, be less accessible to lobbyists which we would adore you for, and show us (to steal a slogan from the military) that you are serious about leading by example.

This particular idea has a compounding effect for savings and cost benefits if implemented correctly. It's my belief that by utilizing video teleconferencing technology for the purposes of legislation, you would streamline services and cut costs and provide the future framework for making congress members more responsive to their voters... which makes for better votes. Thank you again for providing this platform."

-Nathan Crowe

The Fall of European Multiculturalism

2011-02-11T13:54:00.001-08:00

In the United States right now, there is a whole lot of talk about how we need to be more like Europe. There's a lot of talk about 'Open Societies', where boarders no longer exist and we all live happily ever after. This is particularly supported by Socialists of all types, including the (and this one is strange to me) Libertarian Socialists (yeah, I know, but it's not as oxymoronical crazy as it sounds, just watch Zeitgeist. They are promote a type of Libertarian Socialist model.) A world without borders and national culture, the only culture is that of humanity. Makes for good sound bytes, but as they are finding out in Europe, looking good on paper and working in real life are not the same.

And what is Multiculturalism if it isn't the United States? We are literally built from hundreds of cultural backgrounds from millions of individuals and it formed into what we are today. We are the end result of actual multiculturalism where people who want to come here do so and adopt our customs and we adopt theirs. Over time, we keep the best ideas and shed the ones that don't work. That's the real nature of multiculturalism and we live it. The version that these people are supporting is narrow minded and ultimately academic. The belief that all culture can and should live together with no borders but somehow still retain their customs is naive. The fact is, they just don't like how our melting pot turned out so they are trying to change it.

Europe is about 5 years ahead of us on all these things. They've discovered the hard way that nationalized medicine doesn't work when they got bankrupted by it. And yet, people here in the US are screaming , 'every country but the US has universal health care!'. Really, that's the argument? Everybody's doing it? Peer Pressure is now the way to go? Didn't they teach us in school to ignore peer pressure? Europe are retreating from universal medical care and privatizing their health care systems again. They are backpedaling from Socialism and 'Multiculturalism' now and yet the US 5 years behind them are barreling forward. If you want to be like Europe, then it's only logical that you have to take into account that they are backpedaling from failure right now, openly.

What are the lessons we need to learn? I think my friend actually summed it up well a few years ago when he said he felt like he had nothing to feel proud about with his country. Every generation before something they could latch onto and this generation has nothing. His sentiments are echoed in 'The Coming Insurrection'. I've heard other people in my generation and younger say the same things. The only bonding thread seems to be to burn down everything that has been built and destroy it all. Capitalism, Communism, Democracy, Religion, Humanity... They have no allegiances except destruction. They are political atheists convinced that there is no such thing as a system that works. I know many people disagree with that, but it doesn't change that outlook from the younger generation.

And I'll be honest, even I don't entirely disagree with the despair they feel, because I feel it myself from time to time. I'm from this Lost Generation of self-hating misanthropes... I mean, I completely get it. I do. But, I do not agree with the conclusions from the likes of The Coming Insurrection. I do not think that the answer to the problems that plague us are to destroy ourselves and burn everything to the ground. I feel like we just haven't put enough effort into finding something to be proud of as a younger generation. We can fix that if we make the effort.

Do I think things have gotten out of control? Sure... it's too big. Everything is just too big. Big structures and organizations just aren't efficient. Big Businesses, Banks, Unions, Governments... big cities don't work well... hell, even big families don't work well. It's easy to see why, there are too many competing opinions and individual goals. There's no possible way to make everything work in tune and that's what their version of multiculturalism doesn't take into account, it forgets the individual. It attempts to forget individual differences. The only time it remembers the individual is when it tries to remake the individual.

So, I fully understand the frustration. And for the first time, I hope we do follow Europe because they are showing us that this thing we're attempting to do isn't going to work. We don't need to be one big culture of humanity, we have that already whether we accept it or not. Maybe all we need is an identity, a team, to cheer for and feel proud to be a part of. Maybe it's not acceptance we need, but competition. Competition doesn't have to be hateful; after a UFC match or a marathon or the Super Bowl, we can smile and shake hands and say, 'good game'. But I can't think of a time that I feel more invigorated as a person than when I'm competing, even if it's in a video game against the AI characters.

Now, I don't know this for a fact, but what about this for an idea: instead of working together for a better world, what if we compete against each other to develop things that make the world a better place? A sort of humanitarian Olympics, winners are recognized both individual and by country to have contributed the most to the world. I'd say the Nobel Peace Prize, but that has become so politicized, it's just a joke. I'm talking about a real competition where the measure of what teams do for the world is measured in money saved and quality of life improvements. Just an idea. The degree of their impact is measured by how many people around the world buy into the idea in the market instead of some academic modeling that get skewed statistics.

I'm sure it's hard to imagine, especially after all the dissuasive things the government has done to us, but it starts with us. If you have an idea, now is the time to start testing it. Now is the time to start patenting and producing on our own as small businesses without Union suffocation. If you can see problems coming down the pipe, for example, the cost of food skyrocketing, now is the time to start a small grocery business that gets everything locally so when food costs go up, yours will be more affordable. Capitalize on the coming problems instead of crying about them. At this point, what do we have to lose other than everything? We're going to lose that anyway here soon enough, it's time to go for gold.

Peter Salem

2011-02-09T13:08:00.000-08:00

So, for black history month, I decided to talk about a black war hero from the Revolutionary War. I never got taught about him, and perhaps you didn't either. I'm not sure why, he played a pivotal roll in our countries development, but he seems to have been removed from our history books. Here's a decent article about him that's summarized pretty well, original here.

Exploring Peter Salem's roots

Peter Salem (1750-1816) is one of the iconic names in the history of Leicester. I don’t know what the situation is now, but 80 or so years ago we Leicester school kids were taught about Mr. Salem, a former slave who became a hero at the Battle of Bunker Hill.

There used to be a marker on Peter Salem Road in Leicester that identified the spot where he lived for many years before ending up at the Framingham poorhouse. He had been born in Framingham and thus was deemed, in his old age, to be the responsibility of that town.

Born a slave, he was given his freedom when he joined the Colonial forces fighting the British redcoats in the Revolution. He was a soldier at the Battle of Lexington on April 19, 1775, and his moment of fame came at Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775, when the British forces, under the command of Maj. Pitcairn, came charging up Breed’s Hill toward the Colonial fortification. According to the account, Peter Salem drew a bead on the major and killed him with one shot from his musket.

That dramatic moment is supposedly pictured in John Trumbull’s painting, “The Death of General Warren at the Battle of Bunker Hill.” According to Wikipedia, Mr. Trumbull interviewed many of the participants on that bloody day, and “Peter Salem is believed to be in Trumbull’s painting also. Salem is at the far right, observing the carnage and death of General Warren.”

I remember years ago visiting the Bunker Hill Monument in Charlestown and seeing an old musket displayed on the wall. The legend said that it was the gun that Peter Salem used that fateful day. I wonder if it’s still on display.

Mr. Salem has long been considered one of the early heroes of the Revolution, and one account says that he met George Washington. A monument to him was erected in Framingham in 1882. He died in 1816.

And now Peter Salem is taking on a new historical role. Amir Mohammed, a researcher in the role of Muslims in early American history, has raised the possibility that Mr. Salem was a Muslim. When he was freed, he dropped the name of Buckminster, the name of his master, and took the name of Salem. Salem, sometimes spelled “Saleem,” is an Arabic word for peace. Several entries on Facebook and other Internet sites discuss Mr. Salem and his possible Muslim background.

Although it is possible that he had Muslim roots, it will be hard to prove, given the lack of documentation. Arab slave traders were active in Africa in the 1700s, and some of their captives were exposed to Islamic teachings. Researchers have identified a number of slaves as Muslims. But whether Peter Salem was one of them is hard to say. The main histories of Leicester do not mention any Muslim connection.

Emory Washburn’s “History of Leicester” has several pages on Peter Salem. Some of his account seems based on the personal reminiscences of some old-timer: “Peter served faithfully as a soldier, during the war, in Col. Nixon’s regiment. A part of the time, he was the servant of Col. Nixon, and always spoke of him in terms of admiration.”

After the war, he came to Leicester for reasons unknown. According to Washburn, “He lived at various places in the town; but his last abode was a cabin which he built for himself, on the south side of the road leading to Auburn (now Peter Salem Road) … In front of his cabin he planted and reared two or three poplar trees ...

“Horticulture, however, was not his forte. He earned a precarious livelihood by making and mending baskets, bottoming chairs and the like, which gave him admittance into everybody’s house, where his good nature rendered him a universal favorite especially with the children. His military training in the army had given him a sort of instinctive soldierly bearing … and a marked courtesy of manner, which he never omitted or forgot.

“It was a treat, too, for the younger members of the family to gather around Peter, while engaged in mending the household chairs; or sitting in his chimney corner, with the youngest on his knee, while the flickering blaze let up his black face, to listen to his stories of the war ...”

If Peter Salem is ever clearly identified as a Muslim, it will be another feather in Leicester’s hat. The town already was remarkable for its religious tolerance. Unlike most 18th-century Massachusetts towns with a single, official church, Leicester had a Quaker meetinghouse, a Baptist church and a colony of Jews along with its Congregational Church on the Common. If it also had a Muslim in residence in those years, Leicester would certainly be unique.

But, Muslim or not, Peter Salem deserves to be remembered. I like to think of him as an old codger, surrounded by wide-eyed children, telling about the battles of Bunker Hill and Saratoga, or walking along the streets of Leicester, impressing onlookers with his erect military style and his courteous greetings.

As Washburn puts it: “But will anyone say that this humble black man, whose hand did such service in the very redoubt on Bunker Hill; who perilled his life … for that freedom of others which he had never been permitted to share till he won it personally by personal valor … does not deserve a place among those whom it is the purpose of these simple annals to commemorate?”

Yes, it is time to remember Peter Salem.

-Albert B. Southwick

Defunding the Stimulus

2011-02-08T07:32:00.000-08:00

A few things to think about.

2 years ago, in a desperate mad rush, Congress and the President passed the 'stimulus' bill (which is more like getting a new credit card to max out than a stimulus), piling $814 billion on our federal deficit. Unemployment was 8% then and we were told that the money would prevent a dip into the 10% arena and to keep Chrysler and GM from going bankrupt.

After 2 years, we can see the results. Unemployment did go below 10% and is still around 9%. Chrysler and GM did go bankrupt. Add to this that all of the $814 billion hasn't been spent (estimates put the remaining amount left around $45 billion) and that leaves me with two questions: If this money was needed so urgently two years ago; every single dime of it, to fix the economy and they truly believed that spending it would fix the economy, why didn't they spend all of it? Since the stimulus didn't work (which was predictable considering no 'stimulus' has ever worked) and there is money left over, does it make more sense at this point to refund that money and pay it into our deficit?

In reference to the first question, I'm of the mind that either they didn't entirely believe what they were saying, or they are holding on to $45 billion for future use... or both. Keep that in mind around election time. I'm inclined to think that the Democrats are going to pull a page from FDR's re-election play book and put that money into businesses in swing districts to secure their votes and make it appear as if the money has having a positive economic effect. The fact that it will only be like a shot of adrenaline to them that will wear off in a year won't matter after the election is won.

In reference to the second, yes, it makes more sense to pay any remaining money from the 'stimulus' into our debt. 'Stimulus' bills are nothing more than credit cards on a national level. It's money that didn't exist before to you and though you may spend it and for a short time look like you have more money than you actually make, but it's an illusion. Eventually, you have to pay that money back... with interest. It is the same with our debt and the stimulus bills. The money was created, devaluing our currency making our money worth less and eventually we will have to pay back $814 billion with interest.

When you have to finally pay those credit cards bills, how do you do it? You work more hours and you go with less. Essesntially, you lower your quality of life temporarily to pay off your credit cards. Now migrate that to a national scale. Obama/Bush & Co (cause Congress hasn't changed much while we've swapped Presidents) have been on a spending spree maxing out our credit cards and applying for new ones and then maxing them out, but we're the ones who will be working overtime to pay them off. Their answer is more stimulus, raise the debt ceiling. Can you raise your debt ceiling? Is that smart to do? Or does it just postpone the inevitable and compound the problem?

Regardless of what you want the answer to be, I hope you really, really enjoying working. Like... a lot. A whole lot.

'Proposed South Dakota law would require citizens to purchase guns

2011-02-01T08:37:00.000-08:00

A bill has been introduced in the South Dakota legislature that would require all able-bodied residents to purchase a firearm, the Argus Leader reports.

The measure, which would take effect on January 1^st, 2012, would give all South Dakotan adults 6 months to acquire a gun “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

According to the bill’s sponsor, Republican state Rep. Hal Wick, the bill has no chance of passage. He says he introduced it to prove that last year’s federal health care law is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not,” he said. “But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance.”

Apparently Candidate Obama is in the same corner as the 27 other states suing over the constitutionality of Obamacare.

Text Messaging Saves Hundreds

2011-01-28T06:39:00.000-08:00

Great News!

2011-01-25T05:59:00.000-08:00

Hey, good news everyone! The Obama administration has noticed a startling drop off of pharmaceutical companies and development in the last year and has decided to create a billion dollar fund to create them! Isn't that awesome!? Let's see, one year... that has nothing at all to do with the passage of health. None at all. And I see absolutely no problem whatsoever with the government taking on the financial strain of creating all our drugs for us. We're good for the money after all. And with the government making our drugs, the fact that we can't sue them for neglegance if they screw it up will never be an issue like it has with private companies we could take to court and make pay for their mistakes.

Ok, in all seriousness, did we or did we not say before health care passed that many companies would choose to disband and close up shop than deal with the new paper work burden and taxes heaped on them? We pointed that out and we were called fear-mongors. Guess what's happening? They're closing up shop. Wow. Who'd've thunk? Did we or did we not say that through Health Care's passage, the cost of everything would go up? If you read the CBO estimates of the time, there was no accounting for this, and surprise, sur-fucking-prise, here's the first of many of the wonderful hidden costs that will stack on top of the cost of Health Care now. Do you have a billion dollars? No? Guess what, you still get to pay for it.

Everyone that supported it, I hope you're watching because this is the first move of many to come to cover something they didn't anticipate... despite the fact we TOLD THEM IT WOULD FUCKING HAPPEN. So thank you for that. Thank you for believing some academic who's never existed in the real world and teaches their bent world view in a vacuum at some university instead of listening to the doctors. Thank you for believing a politician's word, something that has been a running joke since Sumeria. Thank you for being lazy and so happy to wrap yourself up further in the chains of taxation slavery. Way to go. It's no wonder America is failing with pety assholes making small-minded, short-sided decisions with no thought to the fucking consequences and thinking everything will be sunshine and rainbows because it looked good on paper.

"If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves" - Thomas Sowell

The problem with supporters is they don't want to account for reality. They want tell sob stories and talk about the way things should be, but the way things should be is not how they are. Aside from the fact that everyone has a different perspective of the way things should be. They think that if we just change the rules, everything will either operate the same with decreasing cost or people will suddenly stop pursuing their own interests and 'do what's right'. Most people don't do what's right for the sake of doing the right thing, to believe otherwise is just naive. To plan an entire program on that notion is just plan fucking stupid.

You may have noticed, we don't live in Mr. Roger's neighborhood. We live in a world where actions have consequences and there is nothing for free. I don't go to fucking work because I want to support the war overseas or benefit government or some higher cause; I go to work to translate my time and skills into money in order to pay other people to do things they don't necessarily want to do like grow/make, ship and sell me food, medicine and provide me power, water and other necessities.

In order to make drugs, the producers and manufacturers have to make money. When you diffuse that system under the pretense that they make too much when you don't know how much it costs to run, test and pay employees, who are you helping? You're putting people out of work, leaving less providers, which raises costs and now that the government gets involved, guess what... new taxes! Doctors have to pay off ridiculous school loans and mal-practice insurance. So yeah, they all make a lot of fucking money. Get over it. If they don't, there is no incentive. Doing 'the right thing' isn't going to pay the bills to run their businesses, it's not going to pay their employees salary, it's not going to pay off theirs debts from all the people who stiff them on payments, it's not going to make sure they have the necessities to live and it's not going to finance future research.

And again, this is only the beginning. In 2 to 4 years, wait until the new estimates on the number of doctors comes out and the AMA is forced to lower their medical standards like the Air Force did in order to meet the rising demand to fill vacancies created by people like my friend's dad who's retiring this year instead of dealing with the new rules. Or two of my friends who have now dropped out of medical school. Even my personal doctor is thinking about quitting or moving. That is 4 doctors or doctors-to-be that I know. How many do you know that are choosing to leave instead of dealing with government paper work and taxes? How many across the nation? How do you think that's going to affect the cost of Health Care? I'm sure you didn't, and that's why you supported it. And because you supported it, things are about to get much worse. So again, thank you for that.

"When a man spends his own money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about how much he spends and how he spends it. When a man spends his own money to buy something for someone else, he is still very careful about how much he spends, but somewhat less what he spends it on. When a man spends someone else's money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about what he buys, but doesn't care at all how much he spends. And when a man spends someone else's money on someone else, he doesn't care how much he spends or what he spends it on. And that's government for you." - Milton Friedman

Rationing Begins

Estrogenized Males

2011-01-06T11:00:00.000-08:00

This weekend, I went to a birthday outing with for a friend. While at this place called Dave & Buster's playing video games, there was a dude in this roller coaster imitation, virtual reality... thing... I'm not sure what it was. He had the Justin Beiber haircut, the coat, scarf, horn-rimmed glasses, tight pants... the whole emo-image thing down. After it was over, he got up and said, "Man, that was rough. Why'd it hurt so much?" to which I had to bite my tongue and keep from responding, "Cause you're a fucking pussy."

I mean... seriously. Why'd it hurt so much? No man should ever say that. What a bitch.

NY Russian Immigrants say 'Too Socialist'

2010-12-27T05:33:00.000-08:00

If anyone would know, I'm petty sure former Soviets would. They also know how it ends.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-russian-immigrants-flock-to-gop-say-todays-democratic-party-too-socialistic/

And in other Marxist news, Piers Corbyn... while being a crazy Marxist... seems to know a bit about global warming... or the lack there of.
www.weatheraction.com

And to drive home the point: 111th Congress adds $3,220,103,625,307.29 to the deficit... before nationalized health care. That's more than the previous 100 Congresses combined. Go team!

Healthcare Coffers and the Debtly Hallows

2010-12-14T02:45:00.000-08:00

Couple things on the coming Health Care debacle, aside from the now projected costs of $40 trillion (does that much money actually exist, or do they have to print it?), everyone who thought Canada was fantastic should be questioning their judgment and wondering why all the Unions and companies that supported it are now able to get on an exemptions list that the rest of us can't.

Why are you getting an exemption?!?! You wanted it! This is what you paid millions in campaign funds and advertising and lobbyist bribery to get! It's here! The moment is yours, but now you get an exemption?!

What does that tell you about the new bill when the people who campaigned for it get a waiver? It tells me there is something incredibly wrong. The health care bill; like climate change policy, was never about what they said it was about. It was about closing the invisible cage on the people of this country so that by the next generation our children have no idea what real freedom was, that there was ever an option.

"Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind. " - Morpheus, The Matrix

I still have yet to hear how any of this is possible on a Constitutional basis. The president himself acknowledged that the 'Constitution was a charter of negative liberties' for the government, but went on to say that it didn't cover the things that the government should do on your behalf. But that isn't true. Thomas Jefferson was very clearly on that point, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

It drove me crazy during the health care debate (which I never did see a 'debate') how the media and politicians would only invite those that supported their cause to applaud for their speeches, read sob stories and never once bring up the Constitutional provisions that allowed it. They couldn't because there was none. Knowing that, I understand why they danced around it, they had to make it seem like there was overwhelming support for it when over 70% of people in this country didn't want it.

"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." - Padme, Star Wars III

Thankfully, it didn't take states long to assert their 10th Amendment rights.

Also, according to a recent poll, the idea of spending more money isn't as attractive as the media and talking heads have made it sound. Americans want spending cuts, not new program costs... and happily, they realize the cuts are more important than deficit reduction. I was actually worried about that based on personal experiences with people I know.

For example, I have a friend who has a crap load of credit cards. He pays minimums on all of them, which doesn't even cover the interest, but keeps his credit rating high. When he wants something else, he just applies for a new credit card and adds more debt. He then complains that he can't pay them off because he can't spare any more money to pay off his debt. When I told him he needs to cut his spending; stop going out and wasting money partying, he said he couldn't do that because he couldn't stand to sit at home by himself.

So, basically, he couldn't stop spending. Like the government. But if he quit going out and took that money to start paying off one of those credit cards; once it was paid off, he could snowball that now freed up money it into the next credit card, and the next... until he gets debt free. The government could and should do the same. They have got to cut costs and start steamrolling the debt, not creating more problems by instituting universal health care.

But whenever you bring up cuts, their argument is always, 'Well, we can make cuts, but we'll have to send teachers, police officers and fire officials home and open the prisons up.' Really? That's really the first place you make spending cuts? You can't, oh, I don't know... cut your own salary? Stop flying home so often? Use modern technology to curb spending costs in Congress with video teleconferencing votes? Stop having so many lavish parties at the White House? Cut pork spending from bills to pay for drama clubs in prisons and airports in the middle of no where? Trim the number of executive committees? Limit federal employee salaries? Limit the number of federal jobs? Allow segments of the the government to privatize? Go paperless for all the executive orders and 2,700 page bills? Issue a daily spending allowance for Congress like military members when they're on TDY? Live in your home district instead of the overpriced Washington D.C. area? You really have to let criminals out first and send police home? Does that make any sense at all?

Why don't you locusts try cutting some of the programs and their unanticipated costs?

I mean, how much was medicaid porjected by the LBJ administration to cost right now when it was created? Adjusted for inflation, 6.5 billion a year? It costs 475 billion a year right now. But the thing is, there shouldn't be any programs to friggin' start worth. They create and uphold laws, not institute programs. Why don't you try pulling medicaid back into the estimates first before sending fire fighters home?

And if you're sending firefighters home, I would encourage the fire fighters to privatize. I don't mind making my police and fire fighter services a separate bill. Hell, if they're privatized, I can actually talk to them about their quality of service and as part owners of their now private services. With a privatized police force, I could participate in owner's meetings where we vote on whether these stupid cameras everywhere are really necessary and which laws are really necessary in our area and need to be enforced. That'd cut costs right there. And the number of accidents.

The government routinely underestimates the costs of it's programs, and the way people would complain about the government not doing enough had me legitimately worried that we would never get free of it. But, after seeing that Rasmussen poll, maybe there is still hope. I suppose now it depends on if everyone is ready to give up they're 'benefits'. I've already made the decision to never claim Social Security, even if it's there (however doubtfully) when I get older. What we really need is for baby boomers to not claim it. Their parents or grandparents may have set it into motion, but they are the wealthiest generation to date; which I'm happy about, don't confuse me for some class-ist. I'm saying, if someone is well off, yes, you may have paid in your whole life, but by claiming it, you are putting an unthinkable financial burden on the shoulders of your children and grand children because whether you want to admit it or not, Social Security is a ponzi scheme.

Although if they don't claim it, politicians will just find another use for it... hmmm... That is a problem. How do you fix that I wonder. I mean, other than the obvious - ie - voting for honest people and not politicians (lawyers) who are hellbent on writing confusing legislation to benefit their lobbying buddies. If they don't claim it, politicians will call it a surplus like they did under Clinton and just create new programs from the 'savings' that costs us even more money we don't have.

What about this idea? Claim it and redirect it to paying the national debt off directly.

It's terribly inefficient... it means everyone gets taxed, government hands reach in the pot and take some, then it's sent to social security claimants who get taxed for it and then send it to the government debt pile to pay on it. It makes more sense for the government to just cut spending, but they've made it painfully obvious they can't. This might be a tool that we can use as individuals to take power into our own hands. I'll have to look into this for my book. After reading about charitable donations here, looks like you can claim it on your taxes. I'll have to double check that and run the math since I can't find anyone else online that has had that idea.

Social Justice

2010-12-08T02:57:00.000-08:00

If there is one concept that has perpetually destroyed the idea personal responsibility and self motivation in this country, it's Social Justice. On my college campus last year (or maybe it was the year before now, I lose track of time), I saw a sign for a Social Justice week. At the time, I was like, 'Oh, social justice, that sounds good.' When I listened in outside the auditorium for a bit, what I heard was nothing but reparations, racial equality in the work place, unionism, how evil America's history was... not for me. From that one event, I just figure Social Justice was the new name Socialists and Marxists were using to promote their agenda. Anyone who's actually read up on American history knows they are excellent at changing their names, but the views always remain the same. Currently they are called 'Progressives', but their entire litany of views and actions are the same.

But, it's unfair to judge a cause by a single event, and after seeing it pop up over and over, I decided to ask, 'what is social justice?'

It's funny, but no consistent definition came up when searching for one. In that respect, it's a lot like Fascism which is a far left view, but is taught in colleges as being far right. I've gotten in plenty of arguments with teachers over that particular topic because they tried to portray Communism being far left; which it is, and Fascism being far right. When I ask them to explain how, they will give me this bit from Vladimir Lenin explaining that Socialism is the transitional stage between Democracy and Communism (the fact that they thought the US was a Democracy told me all I needed to know about the teacher: Publicly Educated), but they can't explain what makes Fascism far right, just that it is. I had one teacher tell me it was centralized control of all market forces, like how Hitler controlled the means of German production. Really? Cause that sounds like what Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Mao & basically every other Communist dictator in history had.

The only difference between Fascism and Communism is the words, they are both leftist ideologies meant to bring about these classless Utopian societies that, through centralized management, money becomes unimportant and supplies like food and material items are so plentiful that people can have whatever they want at no cost. It looks great on paper and sounds great in conversation... like the Zeitgeist movement. But the problem with it is they don't take into account the unpredictability of reality. They make lots of broad assumptions, the biggest being that once the society is started, everyone will like it and live peacefully inside it. And of course, they can't implement it on a small level for those that want to do it and allow others that don't want to be a part of it live in whatever way they see fit, it has to include everyone... whether they want it or not.

Unfortunately, the track record for such societies is a 100% fail that each time has lead to the starvation of millions upon millions of people, denial of even the most basic rights, mass poverty and a general restriction of options on every level. So, I suppose in a way that social justice 'levels the playing field' because everyone became equally poor, starving or dead. Go team.

And for the record, the far right is Anarchy. The far left consists of total government, the far right is a complete lack of government. That's why when people call the United States a 'center-right' country, it's because the Founders believed in just enough government to keep order and then for everything else, you were on your own - ie - personal responsibility.

So, social justice is this abstract liquid concept that takes the meaning of whatever the listener wants it to be, but somehow boils down to 'making' things 'equal'... which if you think about it is an oxymoron. You can't 'make' anything 'equal' because one person's perception of equal isn't the same as another person's; which is the entire problem with Social Justice, Progressivism and Socialism, and most of the time it involves taking from someone to give to someone else; which in any other setting is called theft.

A perfect example of this unfair and poorly thought out Social Justice concept is the idea of Reparations.

Reparations is one of the most racist things I've ever heard of that's getting passed off as 'equality'. Taking money from people to give to others is stealing, it doesn't matter the reason. It doesn't matter how much or how little a person has, you do not have a right to the possessions of others. Money is a physical representation of the time a person spent laboring to earn and by taking it from them, you are essentially robbing them of their time which is akin to robbing them of their life. How is that any different than slavery? Does it make sense to make someone a wage slave to pay someone else for slavery that they never endured, because that's what reparations amounts to.

When you use force; whether it's a gun or the IRS, taking money from someone against their will and give it to someone else, it's theft. We learned that in Kindergarten. You're talking the most basic of morals. Some people might say, 'well it's the governments money'. No. No it's not. The government does not have it's own money. They have our money. That is our money. They spend it like it's theirs, but they stole it from us to pay for the promises they made. They don't take it from their own pockets, they steal it from ours.

Reparations is racist because it doesn't just support open theft, it supposes that white people owe black people money for the ills of slavery. I've never heard anyone put a dollar amount on what a human life is worth, so while you're reading, you should. Under Reparations, what should a black slaves lost wages be worth? What should their life be worth? Remember that number.

Now, aside from the obvious argument that no blacks are currently slaves, have ever been slaves or even have the slightest idea what being a slave in the 1700s and 1800s was like, and that there are no living white slave owners from that time period either, how does anyone propose to divine who deserves money and who owes it? If you go purely based on color of skin, aside from being open racism, then you include a lot of black immigrants from around the world who's families weren't here during US slavery, and a lot of whites who've recently immigrated here that have no family ties to 'white oppression'.

Additionally, being that there were black slave owners that imprisoned blacks, do their family members deserve money? How do you figure out who's distant relatives were slaves and slave owners? Do you do some sort of family tree? Who pays for that for every black citizen in our country? Beyond that, every racial background was enslaved during this period, not just the blacks. Do they all receive money? How do you determine that? Especially for the white slaves; like the Irish, who were treated worse than Africans because they 'spoiled faster in the sun'. Do white people get reparations from whites if their family tree reveals that they their relatives were slaves? Since we're so cross-sectioned now, what if someone has a relative who was a slave and another was a slave owner? What about mixed race couples where one's relatives come up a slave owner and the other's come up slaves, do we just get to call it a wash?

More importantly, who pays for all of this?

If we're taxing money to perform background checks on everyone and then taxing more money only from people who's relatives that they had absolutely no control over and turned out to be slave owners to give to those whose backgrounds include a slave relative, how much does all that cost? We can't even pay our federal debt now, where do we get the money to pay for all that?

And here's the real kicker, if you want to get specific, Native Americans fought for the South as well as were slaves at some point. So where do they fall in this perceived paradigm? The slaves, or the slave owners that they fought along side by choice?

Remember that number you came up with on what you think a life is worth? What would we call 'even' in dollars for a life or multiple lives of slaves? By putting a dollar amount on life, you automatically diminish the worth of humanity and the worth of these slaves, which is exactly what the slave owners did. So by applying a value in dollars to a human life, you've become no better than the slave owners. If you think that every life is incalculable and that no one can put a dollar amount on it, then you insult the worth of everyone who fought and died during the civil war and the civil rights movement to ensure black equality by presuming their sacrifice wasn't enough.

The point is, we've paid the debt for slavery in bloodshed and human lives from every racial background. To write off that sacrifice as not enough is grotesque. To propose that 'equality' can only be established through open racism and in complete disrespect of the millions of lives lost, diminishes the actions of the likes of Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr.. It insults their memory in the worst possible way. And people say capitalists are greedy...

"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood."

So, OK, what's next? Racial Equality in the workplace? Let's talk about that. What do you define as equality? 'Equal pay for equal work' as the Unions proclaim despite being paid more. That is Lenin by the way, you know... the Communist architect responsible for millions of dead Russians when he encouraged them to rise up and kill the land owners and take their land for them... turns out the rich land owners knew how to raise crops and the regular folks didn't. Who knew farming was a skill? What are the odds? And because of that, the following years the crop yields decreased and people starved. Yay Social Justice! That's what happens when you encourage class warfare though.

Speaking of which, it's odd, the average pay for a Union worker was between $55,000-$74,000 while the average worker is between $33,000-$50,000 and minorities are more likely to work in Unions. You'd think they'd include that information in the Bureau of Labor Statistics together to form a more accurate picture, but I just checked, they don't. Isn't that weird? It's like the Unions are a different class of worker that get paid more than everyone else. But aren't they the ones accusing rich people of being in the upper class? No, the BLS rates private industry separate from Unionized industry, which allows them to perpetuate the idea that blacks earn less than whites and thus, say that on the campaign trail, breed dissent and garner votes under the false promise that they will fix it.

Quirky note: By their own proclamation, Unions should lower their own wages to meet the national average and ensure 'equal pay for equal work'... because if we raised everyone's pay, then the cost of everything would go up defeating the purpose of the raise. That and if they got paid the same, they wouldn't have a financial advantage anymore. Same thing happened in the Ukraine following the fall of the Soviet Union. Look up how the coal miner's union drove the country into hyperinflation by repeatedly protesting for wage increases, which in turn drove up power costs which drove up the cost of everything else.

Playing by their rules and pretending Union workers are just better than the rest of us (but aren't included in the class warfare accusations they toss around) and don't need to be counted in the statistics, black men then earn about $4,000 less yearly than white men. Why is that? Well, according to education levels of those hired, white men are more likely to enter a career field while or after going to school. This means that they typically enter at a higher rate because the company doesn't have to spend as much time training them because they already have knowledge of the job and tasks they perform at the job.

For example, I entered my job at a higher range because I already knew the job and I had a clearance that would've cost the company money that they didn't have to pay for. A guy I work with who happens to be black came in at a lower wage because he didn't have a clearance and the general knowledge of the job and what it entailed and we spent several months training him. According to Social Justice proponents, that's racism in the work place. But is it really?

I spent 6 years in the military and he came in as a civilian. I knew the job already, he didn't. I had a clearance that costs around $80,000 and he didn't. Is it really racism, or just simple economics? And he's not upset about it, he's making the best of his opportunity. He's going through training on his own now and improving himself which will allow him later to make transitions at the company or to a different company and earn a higher salary.

And that's the whole point. He's doing it. Him. Not the government. He didn't get hired to fill some quota. He made a positive impression in the job interview, got the job and now he's improving himself. If only everyone could be so evil and anti-Social Justice in this country as my buddy at work.

But contrast that with the fact that white women on average earn more than white men now (many are taking up lead and CEO positions in the workforce) and black women earn more than anyone. How is possible that black men earn so much less than black women?

It comes down to motivation. Black women are typically single mothers. I'm not making a generalization, that is a statistical fact. And, really, you could say this about most successful women I think. It's become a huge motivator for women in America to get educated on their own. They have a choice: they could sit on public assistance their whole life struggling and perpetuate the cycle of generational welfare, or they could take control of it and give their children a better opportunity than they had to earn their own way and create their own freedom and choices.

Happily, that's exactly what they've been doing. Like my friend at work, they aren't sitting on the sidelines waiting for someone to do everything for them. And good for them! Take your life into your own hands and make it better! We should be cheering these people on for giving politicians the finger and becoming successful despite how often the government has told them, 'look, you're a victim, you just need us to help you.' They are taking and acting on personal responsibility and not leaving their lives in the hands of some person off in Washginton. Is that or is that not how we felt about England prior to the American Revolution? They are working to improve themselves and the lives of their children and earning results instead of using the hand they were dealt as an excuse. They are essentially pursuing life, liberty and happiness... which essentially is the exact opposite of Social Justice which amounts to nothing more than trying to regulate equality of outcomes.

Regulating equal outcomes would be like telling Albert Pujols, 'Ok, look, you're hitting too many home runs. We gotta sit you out so the other players get a chance to play. I know we might lose, but it's more important that everyone gets to play.' That might be ok in little league (and frankly I don't believe that, sports are suppose to be competitive), but not in professional leagues.

And really, let's be honest, you're more valuable to politicians if you're on welfare and unemployment because to keep it coming, you'll keep voting for them. Once you're no longer in that bubble of victimization, it becomes easier to see how the government uses these people's lives to solidify that they stay in office longer, living on the backs of the American taxpayers. They make up problems like gay marriage to keep people voting for crap that doesn't really matter and could be easily solved to the liking of both groups involved in a rational conversation to keep getting re-elected. As longer as one side of the coin is oppressed, then that means they have a chance at re-election later.

Politicians use handouts like drug dealers, as long as you keep them addicted, they won't turn you over to the cops.

But, if you still believe in 'equal pay for equal work', then we should be bringing women's wages; both black and white, down and black men's up. In fact, I dare you to say that to any woman who's busted her ass to get where she is. She'll tell you that they are getting equal pay for the work they put in to improve themselves at work, college and home. They are working harder than ever because there is no more ceiling to their level of success. It is just as possible now for a woman to become a Donald Trump as it is a guy.

But the same argument could be used by white men. It's easy to forget that for one group of people and not another when you're racist. White men don't get great jobs because they are white men, they get them because they put in the effort and work. Telling people, 'yeah, ok, you may have gone to school for 8 years, but this guy is black... so we're gonna go ahead and give him the job.' That's really all that Social Justice is. It's open prejudice against an enemy to allow people to not blame themselves for their plight in life. Hitler blamed the Jews, Stalin blamed the wealthy class and Progressives blame whites. The problem with Social Justice is it encourages racism and hatred and the people don't even realize it.

Additionally, the accusation that there aren't as many minorities in the work place as whites is just a matter of numbers. There are a lot more whites than anyone else in this country, so the fact that there would be more white people in a work place is just common sense... which isn't common, so I'll say good sense. Every work environment can't be a Noah's ark of racial equality with 2 of every race represented. And realistically, when your start forcing work places to hire someone purely because of racial make up in the work place... that again, is racism. They are not getting hired based on the content of their character, but on the color of their skin. If flies in the face of everything MLK worked for. Using racism to promote racial equality defeats the entire point. We're supposed to be hiring the best employee for the job based on their accomplishments, not filling quotas.

And for everyone that thinks America is a bad place... there is no one keeping you here. If you want to be like Europe, why settle for being like Europe when you can live there? America broke away from Europe for a reason... and the fact that 26% of America's students don't realize July 4th is the celebration of America declaring it's independence from Britain is mind boggling... If you like Social Justice and social programs, go! There's absolutely nothing stopping you. The only reason you aren't going is because you're lazy and you just want someone to do it here for you. You'd rather be babied than take care of yourself.

There isn't a country on Earth that has a spotless background. Yes, we screwed up with slavery, but considering every country in the world supported slavery at the time, how in the hell can that be pinned on America? I don't hear people screaming about slavery in Sumeria. Yes, we screwed up with the Natives and brought over disease. No one knew that would happen, we didn't even know crap about bacteria and viruses at that point. Yes, Christopher Columbus was a rapist and murderer in Latin America, but it doesn't change that fact that he was the one who stumbled onto the continent. You can go on and on about everything America has done wrong, but you can also do the same about what it's done and is doing right.

It's one thing to remember our mistakes so we don't repeat them, it's another to dwell on them and pretend that it makes everyone in America bad. We are not bad people... most people don't have the time to be bad because we're too busy trying to earn a damn living to pay for all the ridiculous social benefits that the rest of the lazy people in this country expect to get handed to them. I know I personally don't get more than more 4 days a month to do anything enjoyable for myself outside work and school, when the hell do I have time to do anything bad? My brother lives down the street, but I'm so busy paying the taxes to support all these fucking people on unemployment and welfare that I only get to see him once every couple of months.

What really gets me is when people like Oliver Stone, Matt Damon or Johnny Depp; people who've benefited from what America has to offer, defile it and represent it as this disease in the world but openly give a pass to the likes of Hugo Chavez, Mao, Che, Castro, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and other murderous dictators in our history, calling them 'misunderstood'. Are you fucking serious? By that reasoning, Charles Manson must be the most misunderstood dude in our prison system today. He was just a white version of Che Guevara... but because he's white, one could say he gets a bad rap and labeled as a murderer and not a revolutionary. NO! They are both murderers! Get your head straight!

America is not bad or evil. It's a group of 300+ million people trying to do what they think is right with the information they have. Surprise, surprise, their ideas don't always line up with each other. In many ways, it's like a relationship. Every relationship is the same in that mistakes get made. Do you dwell on them or move past them? America is a relationship and we all have to work to make it work, literally and figuratively. Social Justice only provides a shield so people can play by different rules than the rest of us and pretend it's ok. We shouldn't be pushing others up, we should be following the example of women in the workforce in this country and pushing ourselves up.

It's one thing to reach out and give someone a hand through charity and it's another to force that act against someone's will. I read one article on Social Justice that taught people to treat charity as an insult and focus on expansion of social programs. But what is welfare and unemployment but mandatory charity? If it's an insult take accept charity from individuals, why is it somehow acceptable to accept it from the government? Is it because they force innocent, hard working people to give up money? That's like saying a lap dance is only good if the stripper is crying or that diamonds are only nice if children mined them with their bare hands. What kind of fucked up ethics and morals does it take to say that it is ok to steal from this person to give to that person, but it's not charity. How brainwashed can you be?

If you really sit down and analyze Social Justice, it does everything it accuses everyone else of doing. It is a subversive way to prop a group of people to a higher class of living and accuse others of perpetuating class warfare. It is equal pay for equal work, so long as the equal work doesn't require equal effort on the part of those that believe in Social Justice, and equal pay means they get paid more than the average worker. It is charity by force instead of charity by good will, which isn't charity at all. It treats the working people in this country paying for everything like criminals first, guilty until proven to believe in Social Justice. The idea that if you want it, you have to earn it dies on the steps of Social Justice. Social Justice is nothing but racial thievery.

But you know what? It won't even matter in a few years. The federal debt is going to make victims out of all of us. It will be a non-partisan issue. The gross debt to gross domestic product (GDP) is 94% and will pass it in the next two years. What does that mean? It means that all of these programs will start costing us more than the United States makes every year. By 2015, it will be 143% of GDP. When we hit 200%; meaning our spending to pay for our programs doubles the amount we take in, the interest on the debt will take over as the majority of our spending and we will be left with 2 choices: Cut all programs from Social Security to Medicare to the Military to Public Education (no more false threats) in order to pay down our debt or watch the economy collapse as the interest rate reaches a logarithmic scale of doubling known as Singularity.

A collapsed economy is the equivalent of bankruptcy for a nation. The money they have is worth absolutely nothing and inflation goes out of control as they print money in an attempt to pay for all their unfulfilled promises. I'm sure this sounds too fantastic, but in a few years it won't matter what you think it sounds like. It will be completely out of everyone's hands because people couldn't get their own personal greed under control and keep the government from raping us financially under the premise of taking care of us and creating 'equality'.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. "

Temporary Removal

2010-12-05T02:16:00.001-08:00

I've removed some of my blog posts for the time being. I'm sorting through them to decide what topics I'd like to include in the book of ideas I'm attempting to pull together.

Videos

2010-12-01T14:33:00.000-08:00

These 3 videos should say something to you.

This is in my back yard. Kicked a camera out because they thought they were with Fox? Megan Fox... hmmmm... that sounds delicious actually. What does Fox News have to do with anything? Using the police to suffocate the right of the free press violates the Constitution, it doesn't matter which news agency it is. It doesn't surprise me that it comes from a self-proclaimed Communist turned Progressive.

Here's a hot mic catching a politician stating that the votes are rigged. That should say a WHOLE LOT about what's happening.

And here's one that shows that it's not just the US feeling that government has gone out of control. Listen to what he says and think about how people hold up Europe as the model of successful Universal Health Care and Socialism and other benefits, but apparently all isn't well in the land of Oz. Just change Portugal with the Car Companies and Spain with California.

They seem like they are separate issues... but are they? Rigged votes as large governments are established and create powers of themselves, make states and countries financially indebted to them? Using the state paid police officers to enforce their will, picking and choosing who gets access to report news?