Latest Blog (continued)
Stop the presses!
Boy, am I ever glad I watched the news last night. Who knows how I would have gotten that information if
I had missed the broadcast?
Last night they announced that a black man was President of the United States. No, it's true.
I heard it myself.
They were going on and on about this "Christian" militia hoax and they said that the group was
planning to kill cops because a black man is President. Of course I
don't have to explain to you how killing cops is a logical Christian response to having a black
man in the Oval Office. 'Cause, you know, there weren't any militia groups back when Bush or
Clinton was President.
Look, I know you get it. If you don't get it I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just making sure you
can't say that nobody ever warned you.
A close personal friend of mine borrowed a DVD from one of his friends. His daughter wondered if the DVD might have been pirated, but my close personal
friend figured it was just an edgy cover design that was meant to look like the title scrawled on it with a marker. "Besides," he said, "I think laws don't really mean
anything now that the democrats are in power."
It's not that the US Government happens to have a temporary majority of democrats in office. It's that the democrats are in power, the same way one warlord or clan
leader in Somalia or Trashcanistan takes over control and holds it until some other warlord or clan leader figures out how to
wrestle control away. In heathen countries like, oh, I don't know, say Mexico for example, when you're mayor, your brother-in-law
is chief of police and your cousins are the cops and building inspectors and they get in on the bribe and corruption trade. It's
just the way the system works. If you're the friend of a politician, you're in. Otherwise you're out.
In the United States of Civilization we've always had a US Government that was more or less insulated from the particular party in power. The FDA looked after the health of everyone
impartially and the IRS collected taxes based on a set of written down rules. Government agencies didn't make up crap just to shut down people who were competing with their cronies and
Janeane Garafalo and her ilk see a black man. I see a Chicago gangster. I see Salvador Allende, who allows you to get the food rations if you're a member of The Party, but if you're not
you can't own a business or run a business or participate in the process. I see someone who is willing to use the vast resources at his disposal to reward his friends and punish his enemies.
The problem with living in a civilized society is that you don't recognize the signs of third world style government creeping in. You've never had to wonder if the gas pumps at one particular station
were metering 10 gallons but only delivering 7-1/2. You've always been able able to get a drivers license or a set of plates for a set fee.
You've always been able to call 911 and expect help no matter who you are or are not related to. You've never been pulled over and had the choice of handing over 50 bucks or getting pistol whipped.
But I looked out my window and didn't see any flaming asteroids coming out of the sky, so I'm pretty sure we're okay. Like I say, you can believe me or not, but you can't say I didn't tell you.
I've never broached this topic because it didn't seem necessary. You shouldn't have to say "Don't eat the daisies."
You might have figured out that I wish someone other than a socialist were President during this particular
time in our country. But Barack Obama is a duly elected President, installed in office through an orderly and prescribed process.
If a President gets out of control that same orderly and duly prescribed process is the ONLY way that we deal with him.
That's how we do things here in the US of A.
Like I say, I shouldn't even need to mention it, but the danger of having a government that acts like a third world
dictatorship is that the people might start thinking like third world people.
Nothing is going to happen to Obama. I know that's a tragedy for the media, who anxiously gobbles up every tiny thread of threat they
can latch onto, and makes stuff up out of whole cloth when there's no thread at all. Statistically he is safer than any human being
you know. That doesn't keep the media from going nuts over the capture of criminals and somehow stretching that into
"Christians don't like blacks."
Give the devil his due, the strategy is brilliant. The focus is shifted away from the President or anything he does, and onto vast
numbers of individual people. Instead of people evaluating the actions and motives of the President, they are protecting their own
image. "Look at me, look how cosmopolitan and enlightened I am!"
Multiply that by however many hundreds of legistators and millions of Americans who are insecure about their feelings on race and you
have a very powerful force.
The reason the strategy is so effective is this: The way we stop an out-of-control President here in Civilization is we take away
his power. He is one man in a carefully crafted structure; he's not a king. If he goes astray Congress refuses to pass the ridiculous laws he proposes, and
the people make sure members of Congress know they are getting fired if they don't. The Supreme Court refuses to rubber stamp his
looney measures. We have a system that is designed to keep tyrants from grabbing control. He still has the office, but he
has no power to do evil unless everyone else enables him.
If he gets too out of control, we impeach him and remove him from office.
That's the way it's done here in the civilized world.
What if you inject the populace with something that prevents them from doing that? What if you turn every opposition to a politician's
evil back on the person opposing him and make it a reflection of the critic's own inner evil?
Then you immunize an bad man from the consequences that the system is designed to provide him for his actions.
You have never heard a conservative advocate violence. If you see an out of control mob throwing things through windows and rocking
cars you are looking at a group of liberals. What you do hear is liberals saying "Omigosh, I'm scared to death the the
conservatives are going to commit violence." Then the liberals commit violence and point to that as proof that conservatives cause
violence to happen.
Aside from the fact that we aren't savages and we value an orderly transition of power, can you imagine the damage that would be done
to our cause if we got violent? Look at the mileage the media is getting out of the imaginary and "potential" violence that
they're always talking about.
Since the liberals know those courses of action are closed to us, that makes their STFU strategy all that more effective.
Obama the visionary
You come to me to figure out the things that don't make sense. If you're making a list of things that make no sense at all, at the very tip top of that list is
the statement "Universal Health Care will reduce the deficit."
It's easy just to go to the simplest solution: Obama is lying, just like he always does. I know, I know, Occam's razor and all that. When you follow hoof prints
expect a horse, not a unicorn. But that's why you come to me, to discover what's not obvious to mere mortals without my gifts of perception.
The diagnostic secret here is to avoid examining that statement in a vacuum. Taken all by itself, "Universal Health Care will reduce the deficit" is an obvious lie.
But the first clue is that it's too clumsy and ridiculous even for this Keystone Cops administration.
It sounds as clumsy and ridiculous as when Janet Napolitano explained that "the system worked" because a passenger stopped a crazed Muslim from blowing up a passenger
jet. This was after said crazed Muslim successfully evaded all of the measures to prevent him from smuggling explosives on board a plane and successfully set his crotch
Ah-hah! Did you see that? "The system" is do it yourself. You can't get more American than that. Here in America we drive trucks so we can buy our own sheet rock and
remodel our own family rooms and hunt our own meat.
Think about it. The government's going broke paying for health care for people on Medicare and Medicaid. But now they're going to add 30 million more people to that
system and they're going to save money doing it. How can that be?
Do it yourself.
As the health care system matured the technology stayed in the system. The equipment the doctors use got better and better, but we still depended on the same old
fashioned method of going to a doctor, who examined all the symptoms, compared them to a list in his head of things that could cause them, and arrived at a diagnosis.
Obama's plan recognizes that Google is the new technology. Vomiting blood? Your chest feels like Rosie O'Donnell is sitting on it? Rash on the back of the neck?
Just save the cost of a doctor visit and Google it. No doctor can be as smart as the massive database that is the internet. More knowledge, less money.
Examining all possibilities
Although we have our answer, there is one side issue that deserves mention. Janet Napolitano's "system" didn’t prevent an enemy of America from getting explosives
on board a plane. And yet she says that it worked.
Maybe the "system" didn't want to prevent him from lighting his crotch on fire. See the genius in that? If they had prevented him from getting on the plane,
he would still own an intact set of genitals.
As it worked out, everyone won. The plane didn't get blown up and a Muslim male mutilated his own genitals instead of that of his daughters.
That's a system I could really get behind.
Hoax of the day
Hey, kids, it's time for that daily feature: Things you heard on the news that are hoaxes.
The news reported this morning that the government arrested some people from a "Christian Militia." They said that the group was planning to kill some cops
and then when they all got together for the big funeral they were going to massacre more.
Only problem is that "Christians" don't hate cops. Cops are the good guys. Most cops are Christians, in fact. It's a hoax. It's Obama's administration
desperately trying to propagandize the country into antagonism against the people who dare oppose him and his anti-American agenda.
See, this is what happens when people who know nothing about religion try to write fiction about religion. It's the reason you can't watch Supernatural any more.
"Scene 2: The Mormon bishop enters the cathedral. She takes a drink of holy water and pulls a copy of the Talmud out of her blood red robes."
And it's no surprise that the Obama administration has no more clue about it than Hollywood does.
Oh, sure, everything's just fine!
The anti-Christ in Chief was yukking it up with his Kool-Aid drinking disciples. "People were saying, you know, if Health Care gets passed it's gonna' be, you know,
Yuk, yuk, har-de-ha-hah.
"So I, you know, I looked out the window and you know what? I didn't see any asteroids coming out of the sky!"
Ha-ha-hah, chortle, yuk yuk, ha-hah weeeeeee!
The man's hilarious. It's a shame that wit like that is wasted on the stage he's playing on.
You know the deal here. First of all, the man has never made a secret that the only Americans he cares about vote democrat.
He buys Elizabeth Edwards' cheating husband's theory of Two Americas. In his version there's the America that blindly worships him,
and then there are the sub-humans that he has to endure, like rats the exterminator hasn't figured out how to get rid of yet.
If your lips aren't surgically attached to his backside, you can go curl up somewhere and die for all he cares
If you're still an Obama supporter, how much longer are you going to wait? When a "friend" bashes someone else that's not in the room, it doesn't mean you're bonding.
It means that he has no loyalty. The second you don't conform to his ideal, you're dumped. He has no more loyalty to you than to the person he's bashing.
But the unmistakable point is this: What Obama said is just what the passengers on the deck of the Titanic said right after the iceberg strike.
'Hey, we're still afloat. How bad can it be?'
The people who knew anything about the ship knew: Once the fifth compartment flooded she was going to sink. It was a mathematical certainty.
The inability to see consequences is a marker for idiocy. The dog doesn't know why he's getting thumped on the nose unless it's right after he peed on the wall.
The drunk wakes up the next morning and the sun came up, his wife and house are still there. "Woo-hoo! I got away with it again. No damage done."
The reason actions have delayed consequences is so that only smart people get to profit from them.
If we slice the Two Americas into smart and dumb, guess which one Obama fits into.
Repetition is the mother of Learning
I hope you caught what I was saying in my last few posts. Every time I teach a lesson I remember points that I started to
make but never really finished off.
1. Note to democrats: When you do evil things to people, don't be surprised if they get upset.
You've faced the demorats on the battlefield enough times that you know their strategies. I know, I know, it's not an activity you
want to engage in. Republicans have jobs and families and go to school plays and little league games. They love America because the
system provides freedom so they can do those things. In contrast, Democrats live to stir the crap. They are constantly practicing their
hobby, which is creative deception.
2. That notwithstanding, the reports of violence and hatred directed toward democrats are, for the most part, hoaxes. They
were orchestrated by democrats, they were carried out by minions for democrats. They are the classic seminar caller tactic.
The voicemail that is played most often is a democrat calling Bart Stupac to abuse him for not being communist enough.
It happened before the bill was passed. To say that's representative of Republican hate speech is like the Americans being accused
of invading Poland in 1968.
3. The message the democrats continue to deliver is: Shut up! They will say it in a hundred different ways: You are a racist, you
are intolerant if you believe in marriage, your views are unenlightened . . . It's all the same message. The only thinking that is
allowed is what's prescribed in the little red book.
It's just like buying a car. You want to buy a car. The car dealer wants to cheat you out of your money. He wants to wheel and deal and
play tricks. That's why he's in the business—he likes the game.
I know it's tiring and maddening and takes energy away from living your life. But it has to be done. Don't fall for
the "Of course 27+2=29" trick. You have to be vigilant and not let them slip things past you. "Insurance companies are denying people
health care based on . . . " Stop! Insurance companies do not provide health care. Do not even let them finish the sentence, or,
in the fantasy world that is democrat politics, it magically becomes true. Making evaluations based on someone's behavior and preferences
is not even close to being the same thing as making judgments based on race. Not even close.
The point is we know how the democrats fight. We've seen it time and again and we can't keep falling for the same tactics. They tear down
their own campaign signs during elections. They paint racist epithets on their own doors. They throw bricks through their own windows.
They are liars and users and manipulators. Do not be fooled into trusting anything these people do or say. Do not believe the fabricated
stories. Do not be intimidated into shutting up.
Great Minds Thinking Alike
After posting the above I read Michelle
Malkin's excellent column on that very topic.
Here's a sure-fire way to make money, even in a down economy. When you hear about Republican committing violence or hate, bet that it's a hoax.
If the democrats don't want to go to the bother of themselves yelling "Nigger" at an Obama rally or tearing down signs or breaking windows,
they just say it happened when it never did.
Republicans don't typically engage in violence, vandalism, and hate speech. It's not that we're not pissed off or that we don't have a
right to be. It's that it's not productive. That's a democrat trick. It's classical liberal projection. Bill Ayers and other people who
think like Obama have a natural instinct to throw a bomb or vandalize something. So naturally, that's what they accuse us of doing.
I don't know why I bother
I got tired of screaming at the radio and called in today. I explained that the last caller was an idiot; that the issue is NOT people who
go to the emergency room without paying. It's the people who don't use the service at all who would have to pay. I said that the auto
insurance argument is completely baseless, because there is no law that says you have to own a car. If you choose to participate in the
privilege to drive a car on public roads, it's not unreasonable to require you to have insurance.
The host was saying "Yup, yup, you're right, good point."
I had some errands to run, so I was still in the car 20 minutes later when Mario called in. "You know, this isn't any different from
anything else. We're already required to buy insurance. You have to buy auto insurance. Isn't a person's health more important than a car?"
Here it comes, I thought.
"The federal government doesn't require you to buy auto insurance," the host said.
Yes! I thought. Perfect setup. Here it comes.
What? Yes they do, Mario said.
Okay, you set it up, here comes the spike . . . the federal government doesn't require you buy auto insurance . . . because . . .
"The State government does."
What? Are you freaking . . . oh, you have got to be kidding me!
Then the host—the exact same host I talked to 20 minutes earlier—went on to explain how that's completely different because
State's Rights and this and that and . . .
No. It would be exactly the same. If the state government required me to buy pink bandanas I wouldn't be any happier about
it than if the feds did. The government (period) does not require you to buy auto insurance, because the government doesn't
require you to own a car. How many millions of Americans don't have auto insurance . . . because they don't own a car!?
C'mon, people, let's get with the program! We can't afford sloppy thinking at this point in the game.
It's important that you understand that I'm writing this Thursday morning, March 25. If you're reading this after that date, you're going to think I cheated; that I heard the Rest of the Story on the news, and back-dated it.
This morning there are "reports" that bricks are being thrown through windows of demorats' offices.
You know that's pure, unadulterated, 100% grade AA bullcrap.
By this afternoon everyone will know that it's a hoax. I guaran-goshdarn-tee you that if any bricks got thrown through any windows, it was done by demorats.
I guess it's not prophecy to predict something you've seen a hundred times. By the end of the episode House is going to save the patient; when the truth comes out the demorats did the violence to themselves to make the Americans look bad.
Takin' it to the Streets
Pelosi, Chris Matthews, et al are wringing their little hands over the hate that's being directed towards congress for being enemies of America. They are telling stories of hateful voicemail and bricks being thrown through windows.
So someone sent some loathsome congressman a nasty voicemail? Boo-freakin-hoo. Congress wants to do evil but it wants to escape the consequences of doing evil.
If every congressman who voted against the will of the people were lined up against a wall and shot, they'd be a little less anxious to vote against the will of the people, wouldn't they?
Here's an idea: If it hurts your feelings to be called a socialist QUIT BEING A SOCIALIST!
"Let's be clear about this." Pelosi and Chris Matthews are telling you to shut up. They are telling you that if you have an opinion that doesn't square with the state-sanctioned mindset, you are not allowed to talk.
Now, when people are excluded from the process, what are they going to do? Are they going to react the way that liberals did around the turn of the last century, and commit violence because they aren't allowed to speak?
The interesting thing, as Ann Coulter points out in
today's column, is that what Pelosi and Matthews and the rest are saying has the result of people doing violence against Republicans.
Republicans don't throw bricks through window and beat people up. That's a democrat trick. Not only are democrats criminals, but criminals are for the most part democrats. In a sidebar story, that's why the democrats are so anxious to allow convicted felons to vote.
And Glenn Beck has figured it out. What he says really makes sense. They know the tactics that don't work, because that's where they came from. You can read the whole transcript, but here are the highlights:
If you were in the 1960s and you were a radical and you believed in a Marxist revolution, you were crushed. And who crushed you? . . .LBJ and Nixon. The man. Not the hippies. The man.
. . . . Now, if I was a radical in the 1960s and I say, how did we lose? We lost because we were[n't] in power . . . you must have power. It's not enough to be out on the streets. You must be Richard Nixon. You must have radicals at the top. Now, if I again am sitting there and I'm listening to that and I think, you know what really, what really killed us here was Americans don't like bomb throwers. They don't like hippies.
So now they're in power, the people who have plotted a revolution . . . If you're going to take over, if you're going to end it, if you want to have the true fundamental transformation of America, what you do is you have to reverse the roles. You have to put yourself in the role of LBJ, the man, and you need to put the man, you need to put the good Christian people in your role from the 1960s, the ones with the signs and the banners in the streets . . .because you know what the man did to you that pissed you off! You know what the man was doing to you that made you say, "I gotta get a bomb!" And you also know that doesn't work.
So if they are now at the top, why do you think they are needling and poking and prodding all the time? . . . They need you to break the law. They need you to become them in the 1960s. They need you to do it. Because they know America does not support those kinds of people and they have become legitimate. They have dropped the radical pose for the radical ends, and they are making you the radical.
Do not play into their game.
Three friends go to lunch at a buffet. They ask the cashier how much it costs. "Ten dollars a person." They
pay the host $30 and get their food and go to the table.
The manager goes over to the cashier. "How much did you charge them?"
Thirty dollars, the cashier says.
"Well, we're running a 'Three for $25' special today. We need to refund them $5.00."
The cashier takes the five dollars the manager hands him, but on the way over to the group thinks 'How are they going to split
$5 three ways?' He gives them three dollars and keeps two for himself.
So each person paid ten, but got one dollar back. So each person paid 9 dollars for his meal. All three of them together paid $27.
Add the 2 dollars that the cashier kept, that comes to 29 dollars.
What happened to the other dollar?
Scroll Down for the Answer
There's no trick math here. 9 x 3 does equal 27 and it's absolutely true that each person paid 9 dollars. It's absolutely true
that the group paid $27. You can work the math any way you want. Each paid 10, each got back one, that's 9, 9 X 3 = 27. Or the
group paid 30 and the group got back 3, 30 – 3 = 27. No voodoo there.
The 27 dollars that they paid plus the 2 dollars that the cashier kept equals 29 dollars. 27 + 2 always has and always will equal
29. They initially paid 30 dollars but we can only account for 29 of them.
I was buying a load of hay one time and we were having a hard time coming up with the total. The farmer said "It's math. We all have
to come up with the same answer."
So I don't believe that we've discovered the great cosmic loophole in our mathematic system.
I guess you've scrolled down enough. The 2 dollars that the cashier stole were part of the 27 dollars that the group paid. It has nothing
to do with anything. 27 dollars that they paid, plus the 3 dollars they got back total the 30 that they initially paid.
The cosmos is still in order.
I really like this puzzle because the math is perfect; it's the reasoning that is flawed. Figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure.
This is what the demorats do.
Thomas Sowell gives us a perfect example of
how they pull this trick with the numbers.
Under the headline "Costly Bill Seen as Saving Money," the San Francisco Chronicle last week began a front-page story with these words:
"Many people find it hard to understand how the health care legislation heading for a decisive vote Sunday can cost $940 billion and cut
the horrendous federal deficit at the same time."
I had been up 36 hours, and had just spent the night freezing to death on the floor of a drill rig, when John Conyers came on the TV in
the hotel room and said, in a matter-of-fact tone, that socializing medicine would reduce the deficit. Naturally, I just figured I was
delirious and went to bed.
It's not hard to understand at all. It is a lie.
But when I woke up I checked and confirmed that it was not my delirium, but his.
I will never understand how someone can stare you in the face and tell you a demonstrable lie. No matter how often the demorats do it,
I will never get used to it.
Congress sends the CBO the numbers: 9, 3, 2 . . . The CBO puts it in a computer. 9 X 3 is 27, add 2, that's 29. Of course it is.
It's a transparent and ridiculous game. Congress doesn't present real life numbers that don't support their case and the CBO is not allowed
to figure them in. "Uh, okay, what if this trainload of gold doesn't magically appear on the steps of the Capitol right at this point in the
spreadsheet?" Uh, uh-uh. You're not allowed to ask those questions. Just work with the numbers we give you.
But they don't only do it with the numbers. The point of this puzzle is that they slip an assumption over on you. " . . . plus
the two dollars the cashier took . . . "
The harder you look the more entrenched that becomes. You just accept that part of it and are searching for a flaw in the math.
That's the trick. Not massaging the numbers, but establishing a fallacious premise that slips past you. Then, as the argument progresses
it cements up and becomes "truth."
One of the best examples of this was a conversation between Mike Winder and Bob Lonsberry. They were talking about a proposed ordinance that
would prohibit discrimination in housing and employment based on a person's sexual preference. Hey, that sounds like a pretty good deal. Who
could oppose that?
But then as you get into it you see problems. Bob was pointing out a couple of them. The fundamental problem is that the government has no
right to tell you how to run your business. As they chatted Bob made the (rather weak) point that more people would be harmed by
the ordinance than are being harmed by the lack of it.
Winder came back with "You know, Bob, you just recited almost verbatim the exact same arguments people used for opposing civil rights in the 60s."
Oh, now he's stepped in it, I figured. There wasn't but one way to respond to that, and Bob had him dead to rights.
As it turns out, there was more than one way to respond. Bob said that if that was as sophisticated as his argument got, he was going to
disappoint a lot of people. He called it a "cheap shot" and said that race baiting was low class and the last resort of someone with nothing
else to stand on.
That wasn't a bad response, but I was screaming at the radio "You're missing the whole point!"
Winder immediately saw his misstep and drew
attention to it by trying to fix it, but Bob never saw the opening for a decisive blow to the jaw. He completely missed the point.
The point is that you don't choose to be born a black or a Jew or an Indian. Your race has nothing to do with your ability or integrity.
Your choices have everything to do with that. You might have been born in France, but you choose to wear the thin mustache
and the beret.
We can and do make laws based on a person's behavior. You don't get to steal my TV or car. That's
a behavioral choice the law doesn't protect. You can be born with a penis, but you have to choose to commit rape.
Same thing with tattooing or piercing your body or getting naked with someone who has the same chromosome configuration you do.
It's a choice; it's a preference. Choosing to be gay is not the same thing as being black or white or Indian. It never will be, no matter
how many times the liberals say it.
Nancy Pelosi (Satan-CA) figures that the Founding Fathers would be pleased with socializing medicine. She says that one of the inalienable
rights the Declaration of Independence talks about, along with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is being taxed to death for
inferior health care.
Aside from it being blasphemy for an enemy of the United States like Pelosi to even quote from that sacred document, it's a transparent
abuse of what the document says. If she (or whatever intern who made her aware that such a document exists) had read a little further she
would have encountered these words:
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it . . .
Consent of the governed? Are you freaking crapping me? (I just came out of the oilfield, but this is a family-friendly site.)
Have you ever seen the US government more destructive of the ends of governing by the consent of the governed? More people are in favor of
longer waits and less privacy in airport security than socializing the American health care system.
Obamacare has taught us a few things. Obama is an easy target and I'll continue to pound on him like an ugly stepchild, just because he's a convenient
archetype for evil. But the lesson, as if we hadn't learned it already, is that he's not the only evil person in our government.
Congress is an enemy of America.
Vince Lombardi once said "I never lost a game, but there was a time or two when the clock ran out while we were still behind."
Wouldn't that be great if the rules were structured so that the time never ran out until you were ahead. Every time Congress set a
deadline for their raping of America they ended up saying "Just kidding."
Hey, if there is any upside to this crossing of the Rubicon it is this: Now we know that the whole thing was just a semantic misunderstanding.
After all the corruption and bribes involved in socializing medicine we understand that when we thought Obama and Pelosi were talking
about bipartisanship they were really saying Buy Partisanship.
It's like a guy on the radio said: I hope universal health care can cover all the broken arms it took to get it passed.
The phone rings, I pick it up, some chick says she's from the Washington Post and would I like to participate in a survey. I ask how long it will take, she says it's about the candidates in the upcoming election (?) and what I thought about health care, I ask how long will this take, she says did I reach you on a cell phone or a land line, I say a cell phone, how long will this take, my wife says just say no or hang up, I say "No, I want to give her my opinion about how bad it sucks!"
The gal asks if I also use a land line for personal calls. I say sure, she says I'm sorry, you're not eligible to take the survey anyway.
I'm just guessing that The Washington Post prints the results of a poll they took that showed that Americans aren't all that upset about socialized medicine.
If you've been checking in for the last little while I apologize that I haven't been available to provide the inimitable insights and creative whining that you've come to depend on. I've been in the oil patch the last few weeks.
If you've given up checking back then you're not reading this and this particular sentence is a complete throwaway. Kinda' like other sentences, like: Socialized Medicine will reduce the deficit.
I can't . . . it's just . . . I . . . I'm speechless. I'm astonished that actually voicing that idiocy didn't cause the fabric of the universe to collapse on itself.
As the Drudge Report put it, Yesterday is a day that will live in infirmary . . . .
. . . more later . . .
Go ahead and cry for me, Argentina
A close personal friend of mine was in Argentina 28 years ago. He was driving down the highway when he saw a cop with a
radar gun standing in the median. "Crap!" he thought. Sure enough, a couple of hundred yards down the road another cop
waved him over to the side of the road.
"You were going 78 kilometers per hour." The cop said. My close personal friend thought that maybe he had mis-underestimated
the argentine technology, as he didn't see a radio or any way that the radar cop could have conveyed that to the cop he was
talking to. "Would you like to speak to the radar officer?" the cop asked.
"What? Why would I want to speak to the radar officer?" My close personal friend thought. "No, that's okay," he said.
The cop got a puzzled look on his face. He thought for a minute, then said "Okay. Come with me to the police station right
They went to the police station, which was located right across the road from where all this action was taking place. My
close personal friend was led into an office and pretty soon another cop came in and started hassling him. The cop left the
room and came back a couple of times. The cop told my close personal friend he was in a lot of trouble and then threatened
to impound the car. The cop was getting more and more frustrated as was my friend.
Up to that point my close personal friend had fended for himself pretty well. He figured he was safe, arguing his rights in
a police station. He hadn't done anything wrong other than going a little bit over the speed limit.
Finally, the cop pointed to the corner of his desk and said "What if I walked out of the room and when I came back 40,000
pesos were sitting there on the corner of my desk. That's when my close personal friend got scared.
Let me just explain, my close personal friend was very naďve—nothing like the savvy person that you're chatting with today.
He knew what was going on. The cop wanted him to try to lay down a bribe, then it was off to an Argentine prison for him.
For whatever reason—because he was a gringo, 'cause he was wearing a suit and driving a new car—for some reason the cop had
it in for him, and was setting him up to go to prison.
But my close, personal friend had spent some time in Mexico and thought "I wonder. What if I just . . . " Cautiously he got
out his wallet, pulled out 40,000 pesos, and laid them on the corner of the desk.
"Now why didn't you do that when the officer first stopped you?!!" the bully cop said, and my close personal friend started
See, that's the way business is done in Argentina. In fact, that's the way business is done in all countries that are not as
civilized as the United States. You know what I'm talking about, third world crapholes like Kenya, Indonesia, Louisiana, and
Chicago. Obama kind of countries.
Today Obama offered Scott Matheson a position as a federal judge. In a completely unrelated story, Scott Matheson's brother,
Jim, is one of the blue dog democrats who voted against the house version of the "health care" bill.
A friend who grew up in Louisiana told me "Bribery happens everywhere. The main difference is that in the United
States we know it's wrong."
We have crossed that threshold. Not only do we now engage in bribery, we do it openly. Nobody's pretending, nobody's
even trying to be clever. The Louisiana purchase and Ben Nelson's sudden loss of moral compunction regarding
federally funded abortion were blatantly done and thrown in our face. This is dirty, third world politics at its worst,
and the man in the Oval Office doesn’t even have the decency to be ashamed.
I cry for my country.
Making Sense of it All
In my last post I called the President of the United States a miserable prick and a retard. I think might
have even said some uncomplimentary things about him, too.
So then I hear this blurb on the radio where Obama is saying that a school that's failing should be
allowed to fail. I couldn't believe it. It was the same common sense approach that Neal Boortz probably
stated best. He said he couldn't understand how people could say "Omigosh, this school is doing a horrible
job educating our children. Let's give it more money so it doesn't have to close."
How often do you hear Obama taking the same position as someone with an actual brain? It was the same thing
that I thought when Obama, whose hatred for capitalism is only matched by his love for bashing America to
foreign countries, told an audience in Europe that capitalism has historically proven to be the best vehicle
for progress and doing good—or something that made sense like that.
I have a theory.
Obama is so busy doing his celebrity Oprah/Leno/MTV appearances and educating us stupid Americans about
things that we don't get, he's had to hire a Kevin Kline Dave celebrity impersonator. Occasionally this
double of his goes rogue and says something non-idiotic that makes its way into the press.
Watch your Mouth
I don't know who reported me, but after I called Obama a retard, I heard about a campaign that's going
on to add the word "retard" and its variants to the list of words we're not allowed to use. The people
behind the campaign say that it's offensive to mentally handicapped people.
I'm sure they were talking about mentally handicapped people that analyze political blogs.
After a careful review, I've concluded people with Down's Syndrome compose a very small percentage
of my readership. This is due, no doubt, to the highly technical analytical nature of my blog.
But here's my view. Don't quit using the word, just quit using it wrong. It's the whole degradation of
the language thing I'm always whining about. To retard is to slow down, as in retarding vs. advancing the
timing on an engine. Throwing around the word at random has reduced its significance to the point that it
means nothing. It's become silly. You know as well as I do that using the word (and the n-word) hurts the
person saying it more than some other group he might be referring to.
Obviously I don't believe the Campaigner in Chief has a medical condition
affecting his brain. I just think he's stupid.
Really, the mentally handicapped (or mentally challenged or whatever people other than the ones being
referred to want us to call them) have no reason to be offended. It's been
a long time since the word even meant someone with a physiological malady affecting their brain.
Just a Review
This relates to George Will's column, which I don't need to explain to you, because as a faithful reader
of this fine blog you've already gone through the weekly routine in the "John Galt Society" section and
read the column I'm talking about. He discusses how some people are turning every behavior into a
medical condition. You'll recall that such a malady affected Clinton, who couldn't be held responsible
for raping young girls because he must have suffered from some kind of medical condition that forced him
to do that.
Obama has cognitive biases. He's obviously got serious mental problems. But they're certainly not
I thought it was interesting that some alert photographer captured this shot of Obama during the "Health Care Summit."
Speaking of Health Care
There was a cartoon right here from cagle.com, but Chrome said that it is a known purveyor of malware? WTH? I know they're liberals, but I didn't think . . .
Here's kind of the cartoon I've never quite been able to come up with. This variation was one that I had considered. Others included the democrats digging a hole as fast as they can, complaining that the Republicans aren't helping, and not seeing the thug waiting to execute them once they had dug their mass grave.
The last thing you want is for someone to try to go to a page on your site and get a big ol' honkin' malware warning.
If you're interested and want to take a chance, the cartoon is at: