Saturday, January 29, 2011

How A Liberal Solves Annoyances

"Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice." ~ Arcesilaus

My Liberal Doctor (PhD Education) nephew often unintentionally gives me fodder for blogposts. Just reading his short Facebook status reports give me a unique insight into the Liberal mind. Here is his latest:

"I hereby decree: those who cannot park their Earth Bruisers in one space, drive them in one lane, or reach up high enough to brush the snow off their tops shall not be allowed to operate them."

Some points found within this short statement are singularly noted. First (and I may be wrong, but am pretty sure I'm not), I believe his term, "Earth Bruisers", is used to describe SUV's, and other similar large gas guzzling vehicles. He has swallowed the Liberal line that SVU's are destructive to this sensitive planet, and thus, are evil.

Incidentally, my only problem with people who drive SUV's is their apparent belief that their vehicles are made of glass. Of course, this is a generalization, so it doesn't apply to all SUV drivers. But, many of them are absolutely the slowest, most careful drivers I've ever seen, particularly in inclement weather. They drive as if one little bump in the road has the potential to shatter their vehicle. I was following one of them most of the way home last night, and I swear, the driver never drove over 25 mph in a 45 mph speed zone(and the roadway was dry), and almost came to a dead stop before crawling painfully slowly over a railroad track. "Oh, my God! You're driving a TANK! It's not going to BREAK if you hit a PEBBLE!"

But I digress.

Another point gleaned from my beloved nephew's short comment is his wish to create yet another law (or laws) with which to regulate our private lives. The idea that if something someone does annoys him, they should simply not be allowed to be annoying.

This is typical of Liberal thought, and what I consider a major pillar in the Liberal ideology:

"People are too stupid to take care of themselves, so the Liberal intelligentsia must take care of them, for them."

So, make a law.

As I've often said, people have a right to be stupid. While I agree with my dear relative that people who drive SUV's should drive them more responsibly and intelligently, passing laws to regulate them is overstepping our bounds.

You want to stop irresponsibility? Teach and encourage people to be responsible.

I understand that. Seemingly, Liberals don't.

The Jewish people in Jesus' time had so many oppressive laws it was virtually impossible to go from day to day without breaking several in the everyday course of their lives.

It would seem the modern American Liberal wants to bring those days of over oppressive laws back.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

A Call To Action

"The American, by nature, is optimistic. He is experimental, an inventor and a builder who builds best when called upon to build greatly." ~ John F. Kennedy

The following message had been making the rounds on Facebook recently:

"Kentucky just passed the best law ever. To be on Food stamps, Medicaid,or Cash Assistance on your Children or yourself You have to pass a DRUG Test. Now every other state should do the same. If you agree re-post. People that work HAVE to take a drug test so should they. if you agree"

When I first read it, I was at first elated, but then, I considered the source, and decided it sounds a little too good to be true.

Following the maxim, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't", I decided before I pass this tidbit on, I should research it to see if it's true.

So, I googled it.

This is what I found.

It turns out that it is partly true, and partly false. A bill has been introduced in one house of the Kentucky legislature. It has not been voted on yet.

Some time ago, I posted a photo of an actual "letter to the editor" that had been printed in some newspaper in the Pacific Northwest. I can't find the post now. Anyway, The author of the letter suggested drug screens should be required for welfare recipients.

Now, it appears the state of Kentucky is prepared to act upon that suggestion.

More likely than not, the bill will die on the house floor, if not sooner.

That is, if it doesn't get enough support.

We the people can make this proposal become a reality.

If you agree that this is a good idea(and I do), spread the word to all your friends and colleagues. We can make this happen by flooding the legislature's switchboard with our calls, and overwhelming their mail rooms and web browsers with messages of support.

We can set the precedence. If Kentucky succeeds in making this proposal a law, you know other states will follow suit.

Well, what are you waiting for?

Cross posted at American Descent

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

How I Would Balance The Budget

"If you would be wealthy, think of saving as well as getting." ~ Benjamin Franklin
I just read a snippet of Obama's state of the union address over at AOW's place this morning.

I didn't watch the speech. There is much more believable fiction on other channels.

As I've said countless times, I am not an economist. These billion and trillion dollar proposals, stimuli, tax increases and cuts boggle my mind. I don't understand how cutting this and raising that will reduce the national deficit very significantly.

I can only compare the national budget to my own personal finances. It is the only way I can relate.

I make far less money than I need with which to balance my budget. And, I can't manage my bank account by speculating that some future windfall is going to drop into my lap. I can only base my accounting on what I physically have in my possession.

I, unlike the government, cannot simply print more money. And, truthfully, because the government can print more money, this is where the comparison between my budgetary concerns diverge from the government's.

I could just stop here, and that would pretty much make my point.

But, I digress. Since I am not, in any way, some kind of economical genius, I devised a way, years ago, of balancing my budget. This is what I do:

When I receive my paycheck, after first depositing a small amount of it into my savings account (for emergencies), the first thing I do is determine what bills are most pressing. Then, I calculate how much of my money I can afford to pay on those bills. If I don't have enough to cover all the most immediate bills, I do one of two things:

1. I call my creditors and make payment arrangements. I negotiate (if they'll let me) a future time and amount that I feel reasonably (barring some unforeseen catastrophe)sure I can pay, and/or...

2. I sometimes have to let a bill or two slide until the next paycheck. This is undoubtedly the worst choice, because once in a while something gets turned off. Unfortunately, that can't be helped. If I don't have the money to pay it, it can't be paid.

Next, I pay the bills I have determined I can pay without going completely broke.

With the remaining money, I calculate how much I can spend per day until the next paycheck. Then I try to stay under my self imposed spending limit every day, thereby increasing the amount I can spend per day until the next paycheck. Hopefully, if I did my calculations correctly, and some unforeseen financial emergency doesn't come up, I will have something left before my next paycheck, which I can add to the paycheck, with which I pay the next round of bills.

I check my bank balance every day, religiously. (By the way, because I check my balance everyday, I have stopped attempts of identity fraud on more than one occasion. You see, what they do is invade your bank account and withdraw a very small amount of money at first to see if you discover it. If you don't catch it, they withdraw huge amounts.)

This system works for me, provided I don't overspend my daily allotment on whims. If I do overspend one day, I have to necessarily adjust my per diem spending limit.

This cycle will continue until I either start getting paid enough to pay my bills and have funds left over, or I receive an unexpected windfall such as win a lottery, or a rich uncle dies and leaves me his entire fortune.

Neither is likely to happen. I don't play the lottery and as far as I know, I have no rich uncle.

Now, the way I see balancing the federal budget is much the same, except on a much grander scale.

Just like myself, unless the Federal government has a trillionaire uncle somewhere who dies and leaves his entire fortune to the U.S. Government, or the federal government wins a trillion dollar plus lottery, the way it's currently budgeting it's money is not working.

The federal government has to first determine how much money it actually has.

Then, it has to pare down it's spending to the point where it can only spend what it has, and no more. If it has to be done daily, the way I do it, then do it that way. If something has to be cut off temporarily, let it be cut off.

Make some arrangements, if necessary. The government should always be aware of exactly how much money it can spend without going over the limit. In other words, the government should be checking it's bank balance every day and making adjustments.

It needs to stop printing up monopoly money. All that does is create a false sense of security that our children and grandchildren will have to pay dearly for later.

Then, don't go over the limit.

Too simple, you ask? Perhaps. But, as I say, I'm not an economist.

Cross posted at American Descent

Monday, January 24, 2011

Welcome Back

"Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And auld lang syne!"
~ Robert Burns

Tugboat Cap'n (or Tug, as I call him) is back! After over a year of inactivity on his blog, I had sadly removed him from my blogroll. He stopped blogging, and even efforts to contact him through his wife and sister (Facebook friends) failed to resurrect him.

A couple of days ago, I noticed an invitation on my Facebook page to befriend a new Facebook user who has a very common name. I checked out his profile but still wasn't sure if he was the same as the man I know as Tug. So, I asked his sister.

To my delight, he answered my question himself! This morning, I noticed a comment from Tug on my blog, so I linked his name and visited his once dormant blog, and found he had written a new post.

I have now re-added him to my blogroll.

I've also dropped a few blogs. Not because I have anything against them. I don't. But my blogroll is really for me, so I can quickly link to my favorites. I doubt anybody else uses my blogroll to link elsewhere. I dropped the ones I rarely, if ever, visit anymore. I just don't have time to spend it dropping by every blog on my roll. Maybe now that I've pared it down somewhat, I can visit more often. For now, any one who reads this who's blog has been dropped, fear not. If you comment here, I will link over and visit yours.

Welcome back, Tug, and thanks for being my friend.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Ahhh, Memories

How many of these do you remember?

Monday, January 17, 2011

How The Left Honors King

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Martin Luther King's dream can be summed up in that one short statement that he uttered in his famous "I have a dream" speech on the 28th of August, 1963.

Today, I opened up my browser, and I read this. My first thought was, "Now, that is just stupid. Exactly what does Martin Luther King's dream have to do with the tragedy in Tucson?"

Then, I read the article.

Amazingly, the author of the piece managed to create a link between the shooting and Dr. King's message.

It is a tenuous link at best.

Is there nothing the left won't do to let no good crisis go to waste?

Monday, January 10, 2011

Now, The Blaming Starts

"I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts." ~ John Locke

Even before the news media knew the extent of the recent shooting spree in Tucson, the first non-news commentary I read was an indirect indictment of the entire Conservative movement, and a direct accusation that Sarah Palin was to blame.

While the news media was still erroneously reporting the death of Democrat Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the lefties had already concluded that the deranged shooter was a right wing looney, heavily influenced by the hateful, bigoted rhetoric emanating from the vicious, unbalanced, hate filled, bigoted, homophobic Tea Party.

Then, with the news that Democrat Congresswoman had not died, but Judge John Roll had, we heard Glenn Beck was to blame, too.

Other speculation posited that Judge Roll had been appointed to the bench by George H. W. Bush, and was a Republican, and if he had been the primary target of the day's shooting spree, that might indicate the shooter is a Liberal.

For the record:

The man who carried out the horrendous murders in Tucson, Arizona Saturday was a mentally unstable individual who would have been just as negatively influenced by a bruise on an apple as by any political movement or ideology. From what I've read about him, he was just anti-government, regardless of whether the government espoused Conservative or Liberal values. In short, he was simply a homicidal nut.

No one could have predicted his actions. No one could have stopped him.

As far as I know, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin were not present.

In my humble opinion, the media itself is as much, or more to blame for this shooting spree as any one previously named.

It is the media that selectively edits news stories and interviews to portray events in the most sensational way. It is they who highlight the negative and play down the positive in the news stories they present. It is the media that put a spin on the stories and interviews they choose to air or write about. And, I'm not excluding FOX news from this indictment. They also are guilty of coloring much of their programming with an ideological crayon.

(Incidentally, why do you suppose the media finds it necessary to point out, ad nauseum, that the Congresswoman, who survived, is a Democrat, but the party affiliation of the Judge, who died, is not mentioned?)

But, no, the media did not put the gun in Jared Loughner's bloody hands. They did not incite his violence. They merely put their opinion out there, and sensationalized it, and that did what it was intended to do: Affect emotions.

Those emotions, coupled with an unbalanced mind created the situation that eventually became the tragedy in Tucson.

Friday, January 07, 2011

For, Or Against?

"Remember that what you believe will depend very much on what you are." ~ Noah Porter

A Muslim student reveals what she really thinks during a question and answer session following a speech by David Horowitz at The University of California at San Diego:

I believe this indicative of the attitude of the majority of Muslims around the world. Although friend Jim (and other Liberals)would have us believe they are as harmless as your average Baptist Sunday School association, facts don't support his position.

The fact is, Muslims, in general, have been strangely quiet over the years since 9/11 on support or condemnation of terrorist organizations. While most peaceful Muslims refuse to admit support, they also don't admit opposition.

I find that telling.

Before we blindly accept the supposition that most Muslims are peaceful, perhaps we should pose Horowitz's question to them to ascertain exactly their position on the Jews.

"For, or against?"

I wonder. How many of our peaceful Muslim neighbors would answer that question truthfully? And, how many would say, "For"?

In addition, when the big day arrives when militant Muslims arise and attack the Jews and their allies en masse, who will the peaceful Muslims defend? How many of these "peaceful Muslims" would participate?

In the final anaylsis, if we are to err, doesn't it make more sense to err on the side of caution and automatically suspect all Muslims of supporting terror than to blindly accept the possibly dangerous supposition that they are mostly peaceful?

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Introducing The Huxtaballah Family

"Maybe we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show." ~ Katie Couric

While surfing the net, I came across this news story.

Katie adopts the elitist Liberal condescension pose made famous by Charlie Gibson

Katie Couric suggests an Islamic version of "The Cosby Show", ostensibly I suppose, to combat what Katie calls, "the seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected, and so wrong -- and so disappointing."

We knuckleheaded Americans need to be educated.

Personally, I find Katie's perky enthusiasm for all things Muslim rather humorous, considering the fact, that, under Sharia law, she would not have anywhere close to the same liberties she currently enjoys under our antiquated first amendment.

But really, it isn't altogether unexpected to hear such moronic inanities issuing from betwixt those ruby red lips.

However, I really didn't want to focus on the hilarity of what "Klueless Katie" has to say. After all, we Conservatives have come to expect such empty-headed Liberal Media types to gush all over anything that's anti-American and pro-Islam.

I would instead point the reader(s) to the comments made about the story. Some are hilarious. Some are disturbing.

Keeping in mind, of course, that there are indeed peaceful Muslims living amongst us.

It's just that, as one commenter said, "The Bingfhndfnghy family living next door to you in the suburbs of America only have a 60% chance of being a muslim/arab terrorist sleeper cell."

I daresay we uneducated Conservative Americans have no similar suspicions about the Baptist family who spend their weekends at Bible study.