Less LeBron, More Brains

"If all the year were playing holidays; To sport would be as tedious as to work." ~ William Shakespeare

Am I the only person in America that hasn't gone apoplectic about basketball player Lebron James' defection to Miami?

You fools, You pay your money, and I still play anywhere I want.

What is the big deal? Even if he is the greatest basketball player in history, which is highly doubtful anyway, he is, after all, only a man. And Basketball is only a game.

And, professional basketball, if you've seen any games in the last 20 years or so, has come to resemble not so much a game, as a rumble between the Crips and the Bloods.

A basketball team consists of five players playing together. If the rest of the team is ineffective, James would not be able to win any games singlehandedly.

So, I ask again: What's the big deal?

Lebron James playing for my favorite team (If I had a favorite basketball team) would not put any money in my pocket. In fact, no player from any sport is going to personally make me richer or smarter, or a better or worse person in any way.

I have no dog in this hunt. So, why should I care?

I am a sports fan but I think sports fans in America need to put things in their proper perspective.

This, by the way, is pretty good advice, if I do say so myself. I came to this realization many years ago on my own, and it's made me a saner, calmer, relaxed, less stressed man.

Before you get all excited about any professional sports team or player, consider this sage advice:

1. It is a sport. Recreation. A game. Whether it's basketball, football, baseball, soccer, Nascar, whatever. Sports are not a life or death priority. They are merely a diversion that offers some respite from the rat race.

A good book can do the same. Better, really. A good book can make a positive difference in your intellect, as well.

2. Professional athletes are paid quite handsomely, many obscenely, to play a game. They have no loyalty to the city or region where they play. They play for money.

Even if they play for the love of the game first and the money is not an important priority to them, if they've even come to love the city their team represents, it makes absolutely no difference.

If some other team offered them more money, they would be out and gone before you can say, "Rah, Rah."

Now, I have no problem with Lebron James or any other professional athlete making as much money as their teams want to pay. It is a capitalist system, and I am all in favor of the people being allowed to float their fiduciary boats wherever they want, as long as it's legal. If people want to foolishly pay exorbitant prices for an hour or two of entertainment, I say, "Go For it. Have fun".

I watch the games on TV for next to nothing, get better (and multiple) views of the action, and can walk into the kitchen for a free sandwich without missing anything important. After all, if it's very important or exciting, they will replay it ad nauseum.

3. Every year, the team that wins the league or world championship has to go right back out there and try to win it again the following year. The thrill of winning the championship is fleeting at best.

I was born in Kansas City, MO, and raised in Wichita, KS, less than 200 miles from KC. I like the Kansas City Chiefs. I like the Kansas City Royals. I even like the Kansas City Wizards. Do I want to see them win? Yes.

Do I get angry, depressed, distressed, or suicidal if they don't?

No.

For those of you who aren't sports fans, these Kansas City sports teams are not perennial winners. They are, in fact, perennial losers.

But, nevertheless, I watch the games. I enjoy the games. Usually. If they are fairly well played, I enjoy them. Whether they win or lose. If they win, I am reasonably happy for them, although nothing approaching euphoria.

If they lose, I shrug my shoulders and say to myself, "Oh well, the better team won this time". Then, I go on about my business.

They are not my teams. They don't even belong to the city. The players are not native born Kansas Citians. Why should they care where they play or for whom?

They shouldn't. And I don't care, either.

Just watch the games. Enjoy them. Appreciate their athleticism and their talent.

But keep them in their proper perspective.

Who Are The Real Fascists?

"When Fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will be in Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts." ~ George Carlin

Lowering the voting age to eighteen.

The minimum age for Representatives to twenty-five.

Universal suffrage, including for women.

End of the draft.

A Federal law sanctioning a legal work day of an actual eight hours of work for all workers.

A creation of various government bodies run by workers representatives.

A minimum wage.

Reform of the old-age and pension system and the establishment of age limits for hazardous work.

A progressive tax.

These principles are all principles of modern liberalism in America. They define much of what Liberals stand for today. With a few minor modifications.

But, do you know what other political ideology embodies those exact same principles?

Want a hint?

Here's more:

The abolition of the Senate and the creation of a national technical council on intellectual and manual labor, industry, commerce, and culture.

Repeal of titles of nobility.

A foreign policy aimed at expanding the nation's will and power in opposition to all foreign imperialisms.

Forcing landowners to cultivate their lands or have them expropriated and given to veterans and farmers' cooperatives.

The obligation of the state to build "rigidly secular" schools for the proletariat's moral and cultural condition.

The progressive tax (mentioned above) would amount to a one-time partial expropriation of all riches.

The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations and the abolition of episcopal revenues.

The review of all military contracts and the sequestration of 85% of all war profits.

The nationalization of all arms and explosives industries.

Here's the answer:

These are some highlights of the principles upon which the Fasci di Combattimento was founded, back in 1919, by Benito Mussolini.

Better known as Fascism.

This post is already too lengthy. I'm not going to explain which of these fascist principles are seemingly already on Obama's drawing board.

But, should the act of creating unelected and unaccountable "czars" to regulate, advise, and create official government policy give us pause?

How about the words, "America is not a Christian nation"?

Or, the phrase, "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them..."?

Or the Government takeover of automobile industries, banks and lending institutions, and insurance companies, etc.?

Am I making my point clear?

For the benefit of any left-wing moderately progressive Liberals who may have accidentally or intentionally stumbled upon my humble blog, I'll make it crystal clear, because I know you aren't bright enough to make the connection:

The principles outlined by Mussolini's Fascist party are the exact same principles embraced by modern American liberals.

So, before you hurl insults such as "Fascists", "Brown shirts", "Nazi's", "Jack-booted storm troopers", "Racists", etc, at Conservatives, first consider which political ideology most closely resembles the traits you are describing.

Then, shut the Hell up.

Or don't.

I don't care.

It's still a free country. You still have the right to disagree.

So far.

cross posted at American Descent.

Crybabies

"I cried because I had no shoes till I saw a man with no feet" ~ Assalam O alaikum

It's meant to be clever and funny, but within it there is a much deeper message. In the following Geico ad, the question is posed, "Does a former drill sergeant make a terrible therapist?"



The answer is a resounding, "NO".

In fact, I believe 98% of all therapy should be conducted in this manner. It's all part of what I've been saying:

We are becoming a nation of whiny little wusses.

If, in the future, some aggressor nation wishes to conquer the United States, all they will have to do is attack our aggregate self esteem, then waltz right in while we're busy feeling sorry for ourselves and take over.

People need to suck it up and stop crying about their petty little problems.

For all my readers who take offense at this post, consider the old admonition: "If the shoe fits, wear it."

Being offended seems to be our new national pastime.


The opening quote is from a Muslim poem. Also found in the poem are these words, "so if I want to cry now and ever, I will cry for forgiveness."

I find myself agreeing with this sentiment.

A Facebook Discussion

"If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from
within or without, we must try to extinguish it." ~ Thomas Jefferson

My Liberal Doctor nephew and I have been having an interesting discussion on Facebook lately. I thought I'd share it with my two readers, and invite comment:

It started when my nephew placed the following as his Facebook status:

"'They’re paying all these boats to run around like headless chickens,' [U.S. Rep. Gene] Taylor said, as reporters gathered to hear his assessment of the Sound....'I’m having a Katrina flashback. I haven’t seen this much stupidity, wasted effort, money and wasted resources, since then.'”

And then, he added this link.

I replied, "Here's one reason nobody's doing anything:", and then, I added the link to the following video:



To which he replied, "Allow me to retort:" and then added two links, both of which made the same basic point: Here, and here.

I, in turn, copied and pasted a portion of his first link, thusly:

"A chart provided by the State Department shows that as of June 23 five offers had been accepted and 50 were under consideration"

And, made the following comment:

"50 are under consideration? What are we waiting for? I'll tell you what we're waiting for: Obama and Emanuel are still considering how they are going to use this crisis to their own advantage."

I then added a link to this article, which I had linked to in my last blogpost.

To which he reiterated the point he made with the last two links by posting yet another link which said basically the same thing as the two previous links.

Then, I wrote back:

"Why would paying for foreign help be a problem for the biggest tax and spend President in our history? He is willing to send billions of tax payers money to big wall street corporations to stave off bankruptcy, only to see them waste the money on lavish parties and huge bonuses for their executives, yet he hesitates to pay a few million to help clean up the gulf?

Which is more important to the United States? Padding the pockets of Wall Street lobbyists and their employers, or saving the environment? It seems Obama has already provided the answer to that question.

And while we're on the subject, why is he wasting time pointing fingers instead of looking for ways to stop the leak?"

To which he replied (with an apparent growing frustration at my flawless logic):

"Wait, you're mad because the president was doing something besides looking for ways to stop the oil leak? This is the president and administration that enrages you when they get involved in crises in the healthcare industry, the auto industry, Wall Street, consumer protection, etc., but now their so-called lack of involvement in plugging an oil leak is your gripe of the week? Your politics are, um, complex. Definitely over my head, at any rate."

The last word (so far) was delivered by me, as I respectfully replied:

"I'm not mad. I'd say perplexed is a more appropriate word. And, I would never even imply that anything I say is over your head. I have too much respect for your intellect than that. After all, you ARE in my family. :-) Nevertheless, let me make it simple for you:

I am opposed to the government intervening in the free market system. Despite what Obama says, no company is "too big to fail". Nor would a company's failure mean the end of business in America. If they are so irresponsible that they can't stay afloat using sound business practices supposedly learned in their MBA programs, they deserve to fail. When one business fails, another springs up to take it's place. That's how the free market is intended to work. Ginormous corporations clinging to the brink of failure is not a crisis. Neither is healthcare or the environment.

Obama knows this. Otherwise, his response to these so-called crisis would not take effect sometime in the next ten years or so. He would initiate them immediately.

However, tons of highly toxic crude oil spilling out into the gulf of Mexico is an immediate crisis which calls for immediate measures.

A true leader would look to stop the bleeding and worry about who's at fault and who's ass to kick once the initial problem is solved. There is plenty of time to punish the guilty after the leak is stopped. (and, at this point, I resorted to one of Dan T's tactics) Surely you agree with that?"

Update: He did at least agree with me that punishing the guilty can wait until the problem is solved. See? Some Liberals have some common sense!

I'm proud to be his uncle!

A Crisis Of Competence

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." ~ Proverbs 16:18

Normally, I don't copy and paste articles into my blog form. I even put that in my blogger profile. I usually would rather offer my own thoughts, however disjointed and illogical they may be, and let the chips fall where they may.

That said, this article nailed Obama more accurately than anything I've ever read. Andrew Cline is dead on in his assessment of Barack Hussein Obama.

So, with the readers indulgence, here's a teaser for you offered in the hope it will entice you to read further:

"Patience, Obama repeatedly said. Patience. Fixing the enormous mistakes of the Bush years would take time. There would be no quick fix. Don't look for immediate results, keep gazing into the horizon. Here, I'll show you how, just tilt your head this way, slightly squint your eyes… there, now hold that position for the next three years.


Then, without warning, a pocket of methane gas exploded on an oil rig roughly 50 miles offshore. Suddenly we had a crisis that demanded a real-time solution, not a promise of rewards to be reaped after the next election."

I couldn't say it any better.

Cross posted at American Descent

Presidential Fail

"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." ~ Will Rogers

This is no joke. Obama has admitted to refusing to secure our borders.

These are the words to the oath of office that every president-elect is required to repeat upon his inauguration:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The number one job of the President of the United States of America is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. If the President of the United States of America refuses to defend the people of the United States, whom the Constitution was written to protect, shouldn't he be impeached, and removed from office?



If evidence is presented to the American people that the President of the United States is refusing to secure our borders for the sake of some pet legislation, shouldn't his impeachment and subsequent removal from office be demanded by the American people?

Is Barack Hussein Obama fit to be President of the United States?

In my opinion, he is not only unfit to hold the office of President of the United States of America, he should be tried for treason.

Cross posted at American Descent

Father's Day Music

“It is easier for a father to have children than for children to have a real father.” - Pope John XXII

There haven't been enough songs about fathers, considering the importance of fathers in our lives. But, here are three of them.







My father died in 1990, just a month before his 73rd birthday. He was a great man. I only hope I can someday measure up to him.

A Great Quote

"No. Just...I'm OK." ~ Alvin Greene

Ann Coulter, on South Carolina Democratic Senate nominee, Alvin Greene:

"Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Greene was not a "legitimate" candidate and called his victory "a mysterious deal." (Yes, how could a young African-American man with strange origins, suspicious funding, shady associations, no experience, no qualifications, and no demonstrable work history come out of nowhere and win an election?)"

Everything In Our Power

"We're going to do everything in our power to protect our natural resources, compensate those who have been harmed, rebuild what has been damaged and help this region persevere like it has done so many times before." - Barack Hussein Obama

Two months after the BP Deep Horizon oil disaster, the Obama administration is no closer to solving the problem than it was the day after.

And yet, Obama says, "We're going to do everything in our power."

Really? Everything?

Well, I suppose he's done everything if talk is everything.

To be fair, here's what Obama has done:

Talk.

"We're going to do everything in our power".

Make speeches. "We're going to do everything in our power".

Visit the coast four times.

"We're going to do everything in our power".

Call up 17,500 National Guard troops (he says).

Only 1600 of them are actually on the job so far. And, as Mark Levin points out, those 1600 can't work 24/7. So, there may be as many as 5-600 working the gulf coastline at any given time.

Here's a pop quiz for you:

How many miles long is the Gulf of Mexico's coastline?

But, "We're going to do everything in our power".

Here. Read this article.

Don't have the time or inclination to read the article? Well, here's an excerpt or two:

"According to Foreign Policy, thirteen entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance within about two weeks of the Horizon rig explosion. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

The U.S. response - Thank you, but no thank you, we've got it."

What did Obama say? Oh, yes: "We're going to do everything in our power".

"Separately, a Dutch news site 'De Standaard' also reported Belgian and Dutch dredgers have technology in-house to fight the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but the Act Jones forbids them to work in the U.S."

What is the Jones Act? Simply put, the Jones act is a little piece of legislation enacted in 1920 which requires that "all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents." (source)

The Jones act can be waived in cases of national emergency. And, it has been in the past.

But, Obama hasn't waived the Jones Act.

But, Obama says, "We're going to do everything in our power".

This is more than Obama's Katrina.

This is Obama's Waterloo.

Cross posted at American Descent.

Not Natural. Not Normal.

"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

In a thread at Marshall Art's blog, a post regarding the endangered "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in America's military, the comments drifted to the usual discussion over whether homosexuality and the oxy-moronic "gay" marriage is normal.

Before I get into my usual rant, I want to state my personal view on both gays in the military and gay marriage:

Don't ask, don't tell:

If, somehow, some homosexual in the military has managed to conceal his deviancy up until now, I have no objection to him/her continuing to serve. As long as none of his/her fellow soldiers know, keep it that way or leave. If, however, he/she has been outed, either by self-outing or by discovery of his peers, he/she should be discharged.

When a homosexual is outed, the other soldiers become self conscious, and will likely imagine they are being leered at, or they may possibly mistake some innocent friendliness as being an unwanted attempt at seduction. It would be an enormous distraction, and effect the cohesiveness of the unit. And that, in time of war, could cost lives.

Gay Marriage:

Personally, I don't care if two homosexuals want to get married to each other.

But don't expect me to give them wedding gifts, and they'd better not expect congratulations from me. I think homosexuality is disgusting. I don't want to know about their perversion.

Other than that, they can swish their tail feathers anywhere they want. As long as they leave me out of it, I really don't care.

Now. On to my rant:

A few years ago, an article was published in the New York Slimes, which reported scientists had genetically altered a female fruit fly by injecting it with a male gene. It naturally did what male fruit flies do. It made sexual advances on another female fruit fly.

From this, the scientists drew the conclusion that homosexuality was genetic.

The writer of the article did not mention if they had tried the same experiment with male fruit flies. The article also did not mention whether they had tried the same experiment with multiple fruit flies, or with other animals.

I suppose the New York Slimes assumed we would all just believe them, because they have been so trustworthy in the past. (sarcasm)

I can't link to it, because to do so, I would have to subscribe to the New York Slimes online, and I won't waste good money on that treasonous, lying, piece of filth.

But the research was fatally flawed. Allow me to explain why.

In the first place, they started out all wrong. Instead of attempting to find a reason why the hypothesis isn't true, which is the scientifically accepted method of testing a hypothesis, they set out to prove genetic homosexuality is true. When you do this, you are starting out prepared to dismiss any evidence that conflicts with your initial hypothesis, other than which is absolutely undeniable.

Next, frankly, the conclusion reached by these scientists simply doesn't make sense.

They said homosexuality must be genetic because fruit flies injected with the opposite sex gene responded as if they were homosexual.

But, remember. They injected the gene into the fly.

The fly's genetic make-up had to be altered for it to behave in a manner opposite of it's true nature.

The gene was not already present.

It is never present in nature.

The fruit fly does only what fruit flies do. They are born, they eat, they mate. And then, they die. That's all.

Fruit flies do not and cannot choose their sexual orientation. At least, not without outside influences.

Needless to say, fruit flies are not human.

Human beings are the only creatures on this earth who have the capacity of abstract reasoning. They are also the only creatures on earth who choose their sexual preferences.

Human beings are the only creatures who can choose to defy nature.

And, homosexual human beings defy nature.

They choose to be deviant. They choose to defy nature. They choose to deny their own sexuality.

Why?

The reasons are legion.

I believe it starts with a lack of self esteem.

In the last several years, homosexuality has become fashionable. Because of the efforts of homosexual activists, many people who otherwise wouldn't have considered being homosexual have "joined the movement", so to speak. Joining this club satisfies the need to belong.

I suspect many of the members of this particular club are not really homosexual at all, but they want to belong to some group so badly, they assume the stereotypical mannerisms that all people, straight or gay, easily recognize. Probably all of them, if they continue to affect the mannerisms of what they consider to be "gay", eventually engage in some sort of homosexual activity. Once they go that far, their self esteem reaches an all time low, and the homosexual lifestyle claims another victim.

I personally know a homosexual young man who tries so very hard to convince everyone around him that he is gay, I have become convinced he is not really gay at all.

He simply tries too hard.

If it were natural and normal to be homosexual, why would one try so hard to act that way?

If it's natural and normal, just be homosexual. Be yourself. Stop trying to prove your "gayness" to everyone else. Normal people only find that behavior disgusting, and don't want to know.

Even with the strong pull of inclusiveness mentioned above, I believe very few people enter the homosexual lifestyle in this manner.

For the most part, those who eventually choose an aberrant lifestyle do so because of some childhood trauma or influence, from extreme circumstances such as rape and molestation, to merely a lack of a strong role model in the child's home.

Homosexual enablers will often say something like, "Homosexuals are disdained and hated and treated badly. Why would they choose to be discriminated against if it's so much easier to be heterosexual?"

Well, the answer to that question is this: There are people who are affected with some sort of medical or neurological disorder. They crave attention.

Read up on Munchhausen's syndrome.

As I mentioned, in spite of what certain people, such as Dan T. , Geoffrey, and scores of others, will say, homosexuality never occurs in nature. It requires some alteration by an outside force, such as the injection of an unnatural gene, as we've seen, or a traumatic influence (or semi-traumatic. It's a relative term) from some sort of outside entity.

I've said this before. If you want to be gay, go ahead. Whatever turns you on. I don't really care. I won't hate you for that. I might dislike you for other reasons, but not your choice of sexual preferences.

But, don't flaunt your perversion in front of me, please. And, stop trying to convince others that it wasn't a choice, and that you were born that way.

You weren't, and subconsciously at least, you know it.

The only thing you are doing when you insist it's natural is encouraging more confused young people to deny the fact that they are suffering from childhood traumas or outside influences instead of dealing with them and expunging those particular deviations.

And, if you are normal and pretend you believe they are, too, despite what common sense tells you, keep it to yourself. You aren't convincing anyone.

Cross posted at American Descent.

The Wussification Of America

"Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem more afraid of life than death." ~James F. Byrnes

Driving home for lunch a few days ago, in a hurry, I found myself driving behind an SUV that was evidently being driven by someone who thought their vehicle was made of glass. The driver came to almost a complete stop before crossing a railroad track, and then rolled across at approximately 1/2 mile an hour.

OK. I admit that in my frustration, I may have overreacted somewhat, because shouting, "Oh, my God! You're driving a tank!" went unheard and thus, unheeded.

But, born of such frustration, I had a small epiphany that expanded to a bigger epiphany, and that is what I am writing about now. Here's how my somewhat quirky thought processes go:

Because this was far from the first time I had noticed how overly cautious drivers of large, nearly indestructible vehicles are, I have proffered a theory (unscientifically, of course) that people who buy SUV's are either adventurous or wimps.

Some people buy them for the purpose of taking them off-road, grinding through tons of mud, uphill and down, swimming shallow creeks, four-wheeling across bone-jarring gullies and rocky landscapes, and bouncing up and down and around like the "Scrambler" ride at the amusement park.

But, alas, Most buy them because they fear being injured in a collision. They buy four wheel drive vehicles so they can maneuver easier in rain and snow, then drive in rain or snow as if they are driving on eggs and afraid they might break one.

It seems to me the latter far outnumbers the former. Most people buy SUV's because they are wimps.

And that epiphany led to a greater epiphany:

Our nation is becoming wussified.

It isn't only the purchasing of nearly indestructible vehicles that leads me to this conclusion. The evidence is in nearly every facet of American life.

A few examples:

The increasing obsession with eating healthy.

Our parents and grandparents never heard of such strange creatures as anti-oxidants, carbohydrates and cholesterol, yet most of our ancestors lived happy, healthy lives, many well into their eighties and ninety's.

My two great-grandmothers each lived to 92 years old. My paternal grandfather and grandmother lived to 84 and 92 respectively. My maternal grandmother lived into her 80's with Parkinson's syndrome. The only grandparent I had who died relatively young was my maternal grandfather, who only died young because he was struck by a bus.

My father passed away at 72. His doctor had him on a "healthy diet". My mother is still healthy and will soon celebrate her 90th birthday. She eats whatever she wants.

Did they live long because they didn't have the added stress from worrying constantly about their BFI or heart rate? Or maybe, just possibly, there is really nothing so unhealthy in our food that we need to radically change our diets.

Exercising.

Jim Fixx, the author of "The Complete Book of Running", a book extolling the benefits of physical exercise and how it considerably increased the average human being's life expectancy, suddenly dropped dead from a heart attack shortly after one of his regular morning jogs. He was 52.

Dr. James Rodale, a leading expert in health and healthy foods, taped an interview on the Dick Cavett show, during which he said, "I'm gonna live to be a 100", and promptly hit the floor to do 100 push-ups.

Minutes later, Dr. Rodale was dead, a victim of a heart attack, still sitting right there on Mr. Cavett's couch.

I have my own theory about exercise vs. health:

I believe there is only a finite number of beats in the human heart. Once the last beat is reached, you die. No amount of healthy eating or exercise can change that number. It is your number. When your number's up, your number's up.

Exercise increases the heart beat rate. The heart beats faster, thereby making the heart beat number increase more rapidly. Which results in a quicker death.

These examples deal with a fear of death. There are other examples dealing with sensitivity.

Our people have become so afraid of offending each other, that the best thing for us to do is never speak to anybody. About anything. You never know when you might be offending someone.

We can't pray at public events because of the off-chance we might offend some atheist.

We can't use the word, "Queer" because we might offend some homo.

We can no longer keep score at t-ball games because, God forbid, some 6 year-old players might feel bad if they lose.

Some school teachers can't mark test papers in red ink for fear of hurting some lazy student's feelings.

We can't give out awards to high achievers because by so doing we might inadvertently injure some low achiever's psyche. We must, instead, give all the participants an award regardless of the level of achievement.

We can't suspect young middle eastern appearing men might be terrorists for fear of offending Muslims, most of whom are either terrorists or at least, support Islamic jihadists.

Men must be sensitive, while, paradoxically, women must be strong and self sufficient. Stating the obvious fact that men are physically stronger than women and as such, can actually perform some tasks better than women is offensive to women. (and girly men)

Stating the obvious fact that some people have darker skins than others is tantamount to being a racist, and offensive to people with dark skins.

Normal ordinary thinking people know it's better to throw trash away in the proper receptacle than to carelessly toss it on the ground. Nature just looks more pristine that way.

But, only in massive doses can it do significant damage to the overall environment. (A fact seemingly lost on Liberals at their omnipresent rallies. Did you ever see pictures of the mess they leave in their wake?)

Mindless, unthinking, sheep minded people have created an entire global movement to convince people that littering and improper disposal of trash will destroy the earth in a matter of days, if not seconds if we don't start being more sensitive to our environment. (as long as we don't apply the same standards to them)

Somebody, a few years ago, walked out into their yard one unusually hot Spring or Autumn day and concluded that the earth must be warming up, and from that poorly thought out hypothesis, came the still unproven theory of Global Warming.

Now, AlGore and other equally clueless Liberals, are warning us that we will destroy the earth in the aforementioned same number of days or seconds, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Liberals are sounding the alarm every day about some new crisis that will ultimately destroy our planet, and the destruction is always imminent.

There are many, many other examples. Super-sensitivity abounds.

I could write a book on the subject, but suffice it to say...

America has become wussified.

Cross posted at American Descent.

Memorial Day

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." ~ Winston Churchill



h/t Z

Frank Frazetta

"All the heroes and legends I knew as a child have fallen to idols of clay" ~ Dennis DeYoung

May 10, 2010 came and went with barely a whisper of news about the passing of a giant. On that day, Frank Frazetta, one of my personal heroes, passed away.

I have always loved art, and once believed I had some talent. So much so, in fact, that I attended college with the intention of majoring in art, but eventually dropped out for a multitude of reasons. One of those reasons was because after observing the talent the other art students possessed, I realized I really didn't have that much talent in art, after all.

But, I still love art, and a few years after I left college, I discovered Frank Frazetta. No doubt, everyone is familiar with Frazetta's work, but don't know who he was. To this day, when I spy a cover illustration by Frazetta, I immediately recognize the familiar style. I can also recognize the imitators, of which there are many.

I first became acquainted with Frazetta's work shortly after college when I became interested in a particular type of comic book. I started buying and reading comic books with titles such as "Creepy", "Eerie", and my personal favorite, "Vampirella". The allure of these particular comic books came mostly from the artwork, which was far better than the ordinary DC Comics (which is very good in it's own right) style artwork.

Probably the most popular and most sought after comic book cover illustrators was Frank Frazetta. Frazetta's artwork was distinctive, and singularly recognizable by it's incredible detail.

Frazetta's art was probably the chief reason I became familiar with the novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Although Burroughs' novels have gone through possibly hundreds of printings since he wrote them in the 1800's, Frazetta's cover illustrations of books such as "Warlord of Mars", and the "Tarzan" series, spawned an entire new generation of Edgar Rice Burroughs fans.

I was one of them.

During one period of my life, I voraciously read virtually every Edgar Rice Burroughs book I could get my hands on, particularly those whose covers had been decorated with Frank Frazetta paintings.

Now, besides loving art, I also love Edgar Rice Burroughs' books, thanks to the artistic genius of Frank Frazetta.

It was the "out of the frying pan, into the fire" style of Burroughs that inspired one of my personal original quotations:

"My life is an Edgar Rice Burroughs book without the adventure."

Those readers familiar with Burroughs' novels will no doubt understand my meaning.

In honor and memory of Frank Frazetta, I now present my two readers with examples of some of his amazing artwork:

Conan

Warlord of Mars

Egyptian Queen

John Carter and the Apes of Mars

Gollum

Conan the Destroyer

Werewolf

Vampirella

Obama's Katrina

"The problem with political jokes is they get elected." ~ Henry Cate VII

Five (5) weeks has now elapsed since the BP oil disaster in the gulf took place. Obama has made one (1) short visit to the gulf area in that time.

One visit.

And, some of Obama's staunchest supporters are, to say the least, disappointed in their hero.


Here's some quotes I came across today:

"He blew it. Obama faces a meltdown akin to the unraveling of his predecessor, George W. Bush. A press conference and a visit to the region are simply too little too late. It doesn't matter whether government could do any better than the oil companies. The political fallout has taken hold. Obama failed to manage a massive crisis. There's no fixing this failure. His only hope now is changing the subject. Good Luck."

Here's another:

"Thinking before doing is one of Barack Obama’s strengths, but not in this oil crisis. The President’s famously deliberative style has not served him well.

When an uncontrollable gusher of this magnitude threatens the economy and ecosystem of an entire region, it’s not enough for Obama to essentially adopt a wait-and-see stance in letting the oil industry tinker and experiment in vain.

The President’s pattern is to swoop in at the last minute and close the deal. He’s good at it.

But sometimes presidents cannot wait to see what everyone else thinks and does before acting. When it comes to the Gulf region in environmental chaos, we needed a starter, not a closer."

And, another:

"[I]t just looks like he's not involved in this! Man, you have got to get down here and take control of this!..."

...Put somebody in charge of this and get this thing moving! We're about to die down here!"

The first quote is by one of Obama's chief water carriers, Craig Crawford, a particularly rabid Liberal propagandist.

The second comes from an article by Mike Lee, who was commenting on Craig Crawford's quote.

The third quote is by former Clinton Strategist, and Obama supporter, James Carville.

For more from Mr. Carville, watch this:



Unlike Liberals, who placed the full weight of the blame for the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina (an unpreventable natural disaster) squarely on George W. Bush's shoulders, I won't blame Obama for the colossal oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I understand he had nothing to do with the causation of the spill.

However, at least Bush made a fairly timely appearance in Louisiana to assess the situation first hand.

Obama hasn't even attempted a photo op in relation to the oil spill.

Obviously, there is nothing he could have done to prevent the spill, and nothing he could have done to stem the leak. But, he could have at least pretended he was trying to do something.

What is he doing instead, you might ask?

He is appearing in San Francisco, campaigning for California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, and when he is done with that, he will be taking a vacation back in sweet home Chicago. Three campaign events, including a stopover at the home of one America's wealthiest families.

Ironically, a family that gained their wealth in the oil industry.

And, skipping the traditional Memorial Day visit to Arlington to honor the nation's war dead on Memorial Day, something that sitting United States Presidents have been doing annually for decades.

But, you know what? I support his decision not to uphold the Presidential tradition of honoring our fallen soldiers on Memorial day. As I said on my Facebook page,

"I think Obama doesn't deserve to share the spotlight with those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for their country. This celebration should be for those who love this country, not those who hate it."

Now, Blogger buddy Lone Ranger says, "Currently, about one out of five democrats who supported him, now oppose him."

It seems to me the only Democrats left who still support this guy are those who are willfully blind, deaf, and ignorant.

Cross posted at American Descent

The Buck Stops...Where?

"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." ~ Mark Twain

My Liberal Doctor nephew posted this on his Facebook page. He said he still loves Obama but imagines this must be what might be going through his mind, if he were in Obama's shoes.



Alas, I feel my beloved nephew underestimates Obama's strength of arrogance.

Pathological Narcissists don't ever doubt themselves.

Cross-posted at American Descent

A Problematic Party

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana

I am beginning to think this National Tea party movement may end up doing serious damage to the Republican Party's efforts to unseat Obama in the Presidential election of 2012. In the aftermath of recent primary victories by "Tea Party" candidates across the nation, to me, it is troubling that some of these candidates are actively campaigning more vigorously against Republicans than Democrats.

The Tea parties were a great idea in the beginning, when Americans across the country began to realize how dangerous the Obama administration's policies are. They served as an resounding wake-up call to those who were in the middle of the road and still unconvinced that electing Obama was a colossal mistake.

The Tea Party movement served it's purpose at the time.

Now, it's time to get back to the business of throwing the Liberal Democrats out of office. It will take a concerted effort by Republicans to accomplish that goal. But, sadly, we cannot do that with a "Tea Party".

I sense a split in the Republican party, and that isn't a good thing.

Third party candidates, for whatever reason, never win.

All they manage to do is insure a victory for the party that didn't split.

In 1912, Former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt attempted to wrest the Republican nomination from William Howard Taft* , and when he failed, he launched the Bull Moose Party. In the election, Roosevelt became the only third party candidate to come in second place, beating Taft but losing to Woodrow Wilson, who, many feel, was among the worst Presidents in our history.

Democratic Alabama Governor George Wallace ran for President as an independent in 1972, effectively splitting the Democrat vote between himself and George McGovern. If you remember, Democrat George McGovern was defeated by Republican Richard Nixon as a result.

Republican John B. Anderson ran for President as an Independent in 1980 against President Jimmy Carter and Republican Ronald Reagan. Although Anderson was a Republican, he was endorsed by many Liberal Democrats, which probably split the vote among Democrats, many of whom obviously felt that Jimmy Carter was an atrocious President, but could not bring themselves to vote for a Conservative Republican.

Likely, many Democrat voters felt that a Liberal Republican was preferable to a Conservative Republican, and Conservatives owe them a debt of gratitude for that, since Conservative Republicans hold Ronald Reagan up as the paradigm of Conservatism to this day.

In 1992, George H.W. Bush probably would have retained the Presidency had it not been for a Republican-turned-independent candidate, H. Ross Perot, who successfully pulled enough Republican voters away from Bush to insure Clinton a victory despite his numerous scandalous distractions (Gennifer Flowers, etc).

If, in 2012, the choice of Conservative candidates for President is split between the Republican party and the Tea Party, Obama will win the Presidency again.

This is something that Conservatives cannot allow.

Even a RINO President is preferable to a Marxist President.

If a Tea Party candidate is selected to run for President, he must be selected to run by the Republican National Convention, and not as an independent third party.

*Taft was as big as two men, so it was fortunate that he had two names, both William and Howard.

What's In My Head

OK. What got this song stuck in my head was meeting a guy a few days ago who used to skate in the Roller Derby. He is now a personal trainer. Interestingly enough, he didn't know of this song.

Political Correctness Will Get Us All Killed

"Lord, what fools these mortals be!" ~ William Shakespeare.

Here is something I was going to post an an entry about, but didn't get around to it, and now it's too late, but I'll post anyway, because the motive is still questionable:

The guy in the video who was seen near Times Square removing his sweat shirt minutes after (before?) the SUV was found with all the explosive devices aboard. look at this:



Why was he considered a suspect?

I've tried to understand what it is about a man removing a sweatshirt and placing it into the bag he is carrying that arouses suspicion, but I can't.

Now, if he just threw the sweatshirt away and walked on, possibly there might be reason to question that action.

But, If I am walking, and I get hot, and I remove my outer shirt or jacket, I will hold onto it, and If I am carrying a bag of some type, I would likely place the shirt in there.

I think I have an idea why this one man, out of all the other passers-by, was singled out as a possible suspect.

He is white, and apparently forty-ish.

Which is, in itself, in this politically correct, all inclusive, topsy-turvy world, a world created by journalists, a particularly dangerous combination.

The media would like nothing more than to find a typical white man to suspect of terrorist intentions, and if he happens to be a Conservative tea partier, all the better.

Forget the fact that, with few exceptions, terrorists are young brown-skinned middle eastern Muslim men. The exceptions are white men who have converted to Islam. But, they are still young. Not forty-ish.

So, while police possibly wasted many man-hours researching this man who had the misfortune to take his sweatshirt off at the wrong place and the wrong time, the real suspect was preparing to escape to Dubai.

And guess what? The real suspect is a young, brown skinned, middle eastern Muslim male.

Go figure.

It is only a matter of time before these Liberal, blame America first, terrorist loving, love-everybody-regardless-of-how-evil-they-are-except-innocent-God-fearing-Americans, so-called journalists will distract law enforcement officers long enough to let a real terrorist kill hundreds of people.

It's not a question of "if" it happens. It is only a question of "when and where" it will happen.

OK. That's my opinion. Anyone have a better explanation for suspecting this man?

Tebow A Nazi

"There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Remember Don Imus getting fired a while back for calling the Rutger's woman's basketball team a bunch of "nappy headed ho's"?

Remember that for several weeks, numerous articles and news stories flooded our newspapers and TV sets calling for Imus' resignation and/or firing? Remember we couldn't go two minutes without hearing some breaking news update about the "racist" Don Imus? Remember all the threats directed toward Imus for his callous remarks?

So why has no one heard about this?

Fred "Toucher" Toettcher, a Boston Sports radio talk show host, called ex University of Florida Quarterback Tim Tebow's NFL Draft party, "some kind of Nazi rally". He went on to say, "So lily-white is what I'm trying to say."

(Toettcher is a German name if I'm not mistaken, isn't it? Well, maybe he has first hand experience with Nazism.)

See, my point here is this: Just because someone holds a party that happens to have a proportionately majority of white attendees, it is not a logical conclusion to assume they are all Nazi's. Or KKK. Or White Supremacists.

We might as well assume that anyone with German last name is a Nazi.

See the stupidity of the reasoning?

Or perhaps I'm off-base here. Maybe Toettcher just stupidly assumes that Christians are Nazi's. That's a stereotypical assumption often made by the Liberal elite.

Here is a more logical assumption: Toettcher is an idiotic racist, typical Liberal elitist.

Whatever. In any case, Toettcher's remarks should not be ignored. He must be called to account for his dangerously racist comments.

But, but, but, doesn't he has the right to free speech?

Well, Imus didn't. Well, I guess Toettcher gets a pass because he's a Liberal.

But wait a minute. Imus, although he calls himself a Republican is not exactly a Conservative.

So, what is the difference?

The American media certainly didn't seem to have a problem with censorship when Imus was on the hotseat.

Toettcher's seat isn't even warm.

What's wrong with this picture?

If Imus was wrong, so is Toettcher. I am calling for the Media to treat this incident with the same zealousness and fervor with which they so unmercifully attacked Imus. It's only fair, and, after all, isn't "fairness" the Liberal's buzzword?

I am officially calling for Toettcher to be fired for making racist comments.

Who's with me?

Solución: Aprenda el inglés

"La lengua es la fuente de malentendidos." ~ Antonio de Santo-Exupery

Quizá it's porque I'm viejo y determinado de mis maneras, pero I don't entiende porqué todo nosotros leyó, si sea muestras, documentos, menús, etc, tiene que tener una traducción española agregada a ellos. Bien, that' mal de s. Lo entiendo, pero creo there' manera menos costosa del S.A. de hacer que los inmigrantes entienden qué we' el re intentar decirles:

Lecciones de lengua.

Déjelas aprender inglés.

Finalmente, un candidato gubernativo que dice lo que están pensando la mayoría de los americanos:



Tim James está correcto.

La eliminación las idiomas españolas (y otras) de las traducciones en exámenes del carné de conducir (y, franco, todo) ahorraría el estado de los mil millones de Alabama de dólares. Toma mucho dinero para agregar el texto español a todos estas muestras y documentos.

Más, si los inmigrantes podrían entender señales de peligro, como James dice, allí estarían lejos menos accidentes, y una miríada de otros problemas causados por una falta de leer y de entender inglés podría ser solucionada.

Sería mucho más barata y tendría más sentido de ofrecer simplemente lecciones de lengua a las que los necesitan. Y si no creen que los necesitan, deben apenas volver a sus propios países en donde pueden comunicar con otros que hablen y entiendan su lengua.

Dios sabe que iría una manera larga hacia solucionar el problema del inmigrante ilegal.

Note: If either of my readers have difficulty reading this post because you don't read or understand Spanish, you can copy up to 150 words at a time and paste them into the box provided on this site and click on "Spanish to English" in the drop down list, then click on "translate".

And, if you translate this post, you will find it doesn't translate accurately, which is another good reason why immigrants who want to become American citizens should learn to properly speak and understand English if they truly want to assimilate into our country.

An Entitlement Mentality

"Medicaid is essentially bankrupt, Medicare is essentially bankrupt, why the heck would we give the federal government another entitlement program to manage?" ~ Timothy Pawlenty

Offered here, an unapologetic rambling response to a partial comment made in the comments section of my previous blog entry:

A commenter made the following (unsubstantiated) statement:

"Before the implementation of Medicare 75% of seniors died in poverty."

My response: Yeah? Who says?

Don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question.

You'll just run to some Liberal web site and quote some so-called scholarly finding which doesn't prove a thing, except in your own Liberally indoctrinated mind.

Listen: I was in marketing management for the majority of my life and I've learned one can prove or disprove anything with numbers, so, before we get into a pissing contest trading statistics, know this:

I grew up in a large city with a median income level below the national poverty line. I've lived in and around ghettos all my life.

I've been poor. I've been homeless. I'm not rich by anyone's definition now. And I've never accepted hand-outs from the Government except for one time. Once (in 1979), I allowed the Government to give me $300.00 to pay my bills and feed my children when I was flat broke and unemployed and my wife had just had a baby. It was a temporary help and as soon as I got a job (within a week), I got off welfare.

And, I paid back the money.

That, Moron, is what welfare was intended to do. Be a hand up, not a hand-out.

I've also lived in public housing next door to two single women with children each who lived on either side of me. The one who lived directly to the south of me worked her butt off, and saved her pennies, and eventually bought a house and moved out of the projects. Her two children were polite and respectful.

I have respect for her.

The one who lived directly to the north of me spent her waking hours sitting in a chair in her front yard, chain smoking, and complaining constantly that the government wouldn't give her even more money than she was already receiving. Her 2 children stole and consorted with gang-bangers.

I have no respect for her.

I've also made the mistake (when I was a Liberal) of voluntarily donating money, time, and resources to some of these irresponsible, entitlement minded welfare brats, only to watch them ask for more and more, and no expressions whatsoever of gratitude.

So, don't give me statistics ad nauseum that supposedly disprove what I've witnessed with my own eyes and experienced in my own life. You won't convince me there's any validity to them.

The fact is, most poverty is caused by bad choices and a lack of personal responsibility. And the Liberal policies of Liberal government only make it worse by instilling in the irresponsible an entitlement mentality.

Do this simple experiment sometime: Go down to your local WalMart parking lot and count the number of welfare recipients who are parked illegally in the fire lane in front of the store. Why do they park there?

Because they think they're entitled to park there.

That's the mind set Liberal Governmental entitlement programs have spawned.

If 75% truly died in poverty before Medicare and not after Medicare (which is disputable), it was a result of their own bad choices and irresponsible behavior.

And, here's a news flash for you:

People in this country still die in poverty.

Every day. Do you know why? Because Liberal governmental policies have not rescued any entitlement-minded individual from poverty. They've only succeeded in creating more poverty and less personal responsibility.

And more criminals.

If you don't believe that, you are either brainwashed or willfully ignorant.

And, by the way, Obama's policies are going to create even more poverty. And more. And more. Before he's done, the number of people who will die in poverty may be as high as 90%.

Medicare is a failure, and it's nearly bankrupt.

Listen. If you want to mount a personal campaign to eliminate poverty by throwing money at the irresponsible, go for it. That's what you're allowed to do voluntarily.

No one's stopping you from throwing your money away.

But, as you've no doubt heard, it's better to teach a man to fish than to simply give him a fish dinner every day.

It isn't the Government's business or responsibility to wet nurse these babies.

Who made the U.S. government the world's babysitter?

Useful idiots like you.

Social Justice

"It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered." ~ Aristotle

Social Justice. How often have we heard this term, and what does it mean?

I googled the term and found an interesting article that attempts to define it, although the author failed to establish, at least in my mind, a satisfactory definition.

Perhaps if I break it down to raw definitions we can better understand what social justice means.

First, the word "social" as defined by Webster's dictionary, offers twelve definitions of the word as an adjective, of which only the first nine have pertinent relevance to the topic of social justice:

1. pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations: a social club.
2. seeking or enjoying the companionship of others; friendly; sociable; gregarious.
3. of, pertaining to, connected with, or suited to polite or fashionable society: a social event.
4. living or disposed to live in companionship with others or in a community, rather than in isolation: People are social beings.
5. of or pertaining to human society, esp. as a body divided into classes according to status: social rank.
6. involved in many social activities: We're so busy working, we have to be a little less social now.
7. of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community: social problems.
8 noting or pertaining to activities designed to remedy or alleviate certain unfavorable conditions of life in a community, esp. among the poor.
9. pertaining to or advocating socialism.

When placed in conjunction with the word, "justice" it would seem to me to apply only to numbers 4,5,7,8, and 9.

The dictionary has 12 definitions of the word "justice", but only the first 5 to 7 would seem to apply to the term "social justice". For purposes of brevity, I will focus on the first 5:

1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

So, to encapsulate the term, it would possibly be fair to say "Social Justice" is defined thus:

Fair and equitable treatment to all members of a society by all other members of that society, according to previously agreed upon moral principles, resulting in administered deserved punishment or reward.

Now that we've defined it, the problem is, how to achieve social justice in our country, assuming our country is the society of which we speak.

The way I see it, the only true equitable fair treatment for all depends on the acceptance of moral guidelines of personal responsibility.

For instance, should we grant fair and equitable treatment to those who would not treat others fairly and equitably?

Should the irresponsible be granted fair and equitable treatment by the responsible, and if so, just how much should he be given before he is deemed no longer deserving of the rewards?

How do we distribute equal treatment when members of society contribute on different societal levels?

And, who is qualified to decide what is fair and equitable to those members of society who return either too little or too much fair treatment to the society?

Is this treatment incumbent on the governing body or on society itself to administrate?

I think social justice can not be administered by legislation. If there can be any semblance of social justice at all, it must be left up to the individual members of society to decide how he should treat the other members of society, in accordance with his own sense of morality.

Naturally, and inevitably, since each person has different concepts of what is just and moral, this would result in conflict between members of the society.

And that leads us back to inequality.

No matter how we define and/or administer it, social justice can never be either social or just.

And, in my opinion, it should never be attempted to be administered by the government.

That way leads inevitably to totalitarianism.

Seriously Evil Villains

"Often an entire city has suffered because of an evil man." ~ Hesiod

Did you ever notice the villains in cartoons have a sadistic sense of humor?

It seems the prospect of eventual world domination has a euphoric effect on cartoon super villains.

I can remember watching Saturday morning cartoons with my children such as He-Man, Power Rangers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Underdog, etc, and the villains would always laugh maniacally every time they revealed their plans to bring the world to it's knees in their quest to gain world power.

Even in popular movies evil power mad super villains always seem to have an odd sense of humor. Take Dr. Evil, from the Austin Powers series, for instance.

So, I wonder, do true evil villains with grandiose plans for world domination really enjoy inflicting pain and misery on people?



Apparently, the answer is yes.