Friday, December 21, 2012

death of a thousand cuts

And when you think about what we've gone through over the last couple of months -- a devastating hurricane, and now one of the worst tragedies in our memory -- the country deserves folks to be willing to compromise on behalf of the greater good, and not tangle themselves up in a whole bunch of ideological positions that don’t make much sense.
- President Barack Obama (emphasis added)

All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Remarks by the President in a Press Conference | The White House:
'via Blog this'

unhappy holidays

no more Christmas for atheists... this isn't because i'm mean... it just isn't FOR them.

i'm serious... i'm getting tired of atheists... "Separation of church and state"... "No nativity on public grounds"... "Call it a 'Holiday Tree'"

really?... a holiday tree?... which holiday would that be?... we name them, you know... do you put up a tree for the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday?... or Valentines Day?... or the Independence Day holiday?... or is this tree for a December-specific holiday?... maybe Hanukkah?... is it a Hanukkah tree?... a Kwanzaa tree?... a Boxing Day tree?... be honest now... what f@#king holiday is it?

at this point, the crazies come out... we'll hear the pagans claiming the tree as their own... it's the Yule tree of the Germans... and this, i don't dispute the origins... however... who among us is worshiping Thor?... i know many people claim they are pagans or wiccans or druidism or some such... but most of them don't know the first thing about Thor, Odin, Mjolnir, or the reason the tree was decorated by the Norse... if they truly understood, they would never cut down the tree, nor would they bring the damned thing into their homes!

so let's get that settled here and now... if you're referring to the "holiday season" in general terms, such as "Happy Holidays", that's perfectly acceptable... there are many holidays occurring near this time of year, and a wish of "Happy Holidays" is fine... but if you are referencing anything related to the Christian holiday known as Christmas, then refer to it as such!... the tree is a Christmas tree... the gifts are Christmas gifts... the decorations are Christmas decorations.

so for all non-Christians... practice your religion and enjoy your holidays... and let Christians do the same.

for all atheists... shut your damned mouths... don't put up a tree... don't put up decorations... don't give nor receive gifts... you don't want to share our religion; fine... then you also don't get to share our traditions... you don't see me lighting Menorahs... you don't see me telling jews whether or not they can display them, either... so i don't want to see atheists decorating trees, giving gifts, or participating in our holiday... at all.

you cannot deny us our GOD GIVEN right to practice our religion... and, by God, if you refer to our traditions, call it by the right damned name.

Merry Christmas.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

silently screaming "I F**KING TOLD YOU SO!"

A Physician’s New Reality: Patients Ask Me to Break the Law
Ironically, but expectedly, the ones who do this now are likely to have supported Obamacare.

Obama won, Obamacare is the law, and, as my wife says, I will just have to learn to dance to a new song.

Now, don’t get me wrong, Obamacare is awful. Forget all the “free stuff” it provides. Children covered on their parents’ plan until 26 years of age? A scam, making young adults — excuse me, children — pay for complete, comprehensive health insurance when all they need and should pay for is major catastrophe insurance. Then there is the “annual ” or “preventative” exam, which according to Obamacare is “free.”

You gotta love this stuff. I wish I had the chutzpah of the people who wrote Obamacare. What they did not tell you, and I am, is that it covers absolutely nothing more than the bare minimum.

I have now posted a notice in my office and each exam room stating exactly what Obamacare will cover for those yearly visits. Remember Obama promised this as a free exam — no co-pay, no deductible, no charge. That’s fine and dandy if you are healthy and have no complaints. However, we are obligated by law to code specifically for the reason of the visit. An annual exam is one specific code; you can not mix this with another code, say, for rectal bleeding. This annual visit covers the exam and “discussion about the status of previously diagnosed stable conditions.” That’s the exact wording under that code — insurance will not cover any new ailment under that code.

If you are here for that annual exam, you will not be covered if you want to discuss any new ailment or unstable condition. I cannot bait and switch to another code — that’s illegal. We, the physicians, are audited all the time and can lose our license for insurance fraud.

You, the patient, will then have to make a decision.

Do you want your “free” yearly exam, or do you want to pay for a visit which is coded for a particular, new problem? You can have my “free” exam if you only discuss what Obamacare wants me to discuss.

This happened to me personally, as a patient, when I went for my physical. It is the law. If you are complaining of a new problem, then you have to reschedule, since Obamacare is very clear as to what is covered and what is not. Obamacare — intentionally — makes it as difficult to be seen and taken care of as possible.

Patients can be very tricky. I have had patients make an “annual” exam, only to want to discuss and be treated for another ailment. I can’t do it.

I can hear the complaints from you guys already — I become the bad guy. “Why don’t you just take care of the problem, and not bill out any different code? You’re a rich doctor, and we are entitled to free stuff.”

It doesn’t work that way. First, doctors are not rich and, like most of you, actually work terribly hard for a living. Second, Obamacare is the law — and as I said earlier, we are audited all the time now.

Also — I don’t ask for free gas when I go to the gas station, or ask for free food from the supermarket. Additionally, Obamacare has a 23% cut in Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals.

These lower payments won’t cover the cost of staying in practice to take care of the patient.

Private doctors are becoming a thing of the past. By 2014, less than 25% of physicians will be in private medicine. Obama was right in stating you can keep your doctor if you want to — the problem is he or she will rarely be available.

On top of all of that, doctors will be obligated — that’s right, obligated — to talk to you about things you may have no interest or need to talk about.

You may just want to have a pap smear or check your cholesterol. However, I am now mandated by the government to talk to you about your weight, exercise, family life, smoking, sexual abuse(!), and even to ask if you wear seat belts. And I am mandated to record your answers.

I am a physician. But I need to tell you to wear a seat belt and then record your answer.

I have received interesting responses from my patients since I put up the notice. Almost all are supportive and totally understand. The very few who complain? The same patients who always ask for free samples, who always complain that we do not validate parking. These are also the same patients who call my office and ask for free samples even when they are not even being seen.

Obamacare and its 2,000-plus pages are here to stay. I will still give my patients 100% of my time, energy, and knowledge. I still love being a doctor — my patients’ doctor. I will, however, abide by the law and follow it to the letter. I will have to learn this new dance. “Free” has its price.
original emphasis

PJ Media » A Physician’s New Reality: Patients Ask Me to Break the Law
by DR. PETER WEISS on November 24, 2012

Peter Weiss M.D., F.A.C.O.G., is Director and Founder of The Rodeo Drive Women's Health Center. He is also Assistant Clinical Professor of OB/GYN at The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. He was health care adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign. Dr Weiss is an Attending physician at Cedars Sinai and St Johns Health Centers
'via Blog this'

Thursday, November 15, 2012

TARP for Twinkies

WTH?... we need to unite to bailout Hostess Brands, Inc.

we've bailed out AIG, General Motors, Bank of America, CitiGroup, GMAC, Chrysler, Goldman Sachs, and 919 other institutioins with over $604 billion.

Hostess Brands Inc., the maker of Wonder bread and Twinkies, said it will shut down and liquidate unless enough members of its striking bakery workers’ union return to work today to resume normal operations.

The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union went on strike Nov. 9 after a bankruptcy judge in White Plains, New York, imposed contract concessions that 92 percent of the union’s workers rejected.

The bakery union president issued a statement repeating earlier demands.

“I am sure that our members would be agreeable to return to work as soon as the company rescinds the implementation of the horrendous wage and benefit reductions, including pension, and the restoration of the cuts that have already taken place,” Union President Frank Hurt said.

Hostess closed three of its 36 plants permanently Nov. 12, blaming the strike. About 13 plants are operating “unsustainably” because of worker shortages, Hostess’s Rayburn said. The bakers’ union has “made no demands, and in fact they stopped returning our calls about a month ago,” he said.

Founded in 1930 and based in Irving, Texas, the Company’s products include iconic brands such as Hostess®, Wonder®, Nature's Pride®, Dolly Madison®, Drake's®, Butternut®, Home Pride® and Merita®. Hostess Brands has approximately 17,780 employees and operates 33 bakeries, 565 distribution centers, approximately 5,500 delivery routes and 570 bakery outlet stores throughout the United States.

“We simply do not have the financial resources to survive an ongoing national strike,” said Gregory F. Rayburn, the Company’s Chairman and CEO. “Therefore, if sufficient employees do not return to work by 5 p.m., EST, on Thursday to restore normal operations, we will be forced to immediately move to liquidate the entire Company, which will result in the loss of nearly 18,000 jobs. It is now up to Hostess’ BCTGM represented employees and Frank Hurt, their international president, to decide if they want to call off the strike and save this Company, or cause massive financial harm to thousands of employees and their families.”

Hostess Says It Will Liquidate If Strikers Don’t Return
By Dawn McCarty and Bill Rochelle on November 15, 2012, Bloomberg News

Hostess to Liquidate if Strikes Impede Normal Operations Past 5 p.m., EST, Thursday
November 14, 2012

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

i was against it before it wasn't cool

there was much a'do on the Conservative Right a couple weeks ago regarding a video of (then) Senator Obama discussing several issues... many bloggers and pundits chose to focus on particular aspects of his speech...

some focused on his professed affinity towards the now-discredited Rev. Jeremiah Wright...
some focused on his pandering to black christian church-goers...
still others focused on his affected southern-negro dialect (from a hawaian/chicagoan who was Ivy-League educated).

they all missed the most important point.

that point was when he talked about the failure of government to waive the Stafford Act after Katrina and how they let down the people of Louisianna (forgetting, of course, that land-mass of Mississippi which took the brunt of hurricane Katrina)... his comments were designed to turn the poor masses against the establishment, and thereby against the Republican party.

what he failed to mention was that HE was a part of that establishment which denied the waiver of the Stafford Act.

yes, Senator Obama voted against waiving the Stafford Act only ten short days before condemning those who voted against waiving the Stafford Act.

what the conservative pundits (and, of course, the main-stream media) fail to recognize is the brazen dishonesty Obama displays... he first plays politics with people's lives by voting against waiving it... then he convinces folk that he was the one trying to save them, and some evil (and racist by implication) Republicans are against them... he must have been laughing with fellow Democrat and No-Voter, Hillary Clinton, after that speech... to think that he said this with a straight face, knowing he was the one to deny them.

In a May 24, 2007, statement explaining his vote against the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, Obama said: "With my vote today, I am saying to the President that enough is enough. We must negotiate a better plan that funds our troops, signals to the Iraqis that it is time for them to act and that begins to bring our brave servicemen and women home safely and responsibly."
some statement... of course, when Obama took office, he brought the troops home from Iraq right away... right?... right?

give or take three years.

and it's a good thing he was there for other communities when they were hit by disaster under his watch... like when Joplin, Missouri was destroyed by a tornado... they go their Stafford Act waived... right?

i'm having trouble figuring out how to phrase this next line correctly, without overstating or exagerating the situation... i'll be as delicate as i can possibly be.

Obama is a liar.

if this is what he does to manipulate people in order to get elected, there is no way i can trust Obama to speak the truth ever again.

Exclusive: In heated ’07 speech, Obama lavishes praise on Wright, says feds ‘don’t care’ about New Orleans [VIDEO] - Tucker Carlson - 8:50 PM 10/02/2012

Obama voted against Katrina waiver - PJ Media - by Neo-Neocon - October 3, 2012 - 4:47 pm

H.R. 2206 (U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 ) - Vote Date: May 24, 2007, 08:26 PM

Obama insisted on state, local Stafford Act funding after Joplin, Mo. tornado - by Zachary Snider - 3:46 PM 10/03/2012

Sunday, October 21, 2012

marriage advice no one told you

sometimes, i think arranged marriages are better... think about it... you've never met this person until your wedding day... then you must get to know this person slowly over the course of a lifetime; day by day... there are no excuses... you can't say, "You're not the person i used to know" or "You've changed"... no "Irreconcilable differences" because all you have are differences... and you must reconcile all of them!

too often, people think marriage is when you stop dating and can "be yourself"... but if your spouse married someone other than "yourself", why are we surprised when problems arise?... you get mad when he/she says they don't know you anymore, but it's your fault!... you've been lying to them all along!... it's no wonder divorce rates are so high.

which brings me to divorce... liberals (read: atheists, anarchists, gay marriage proponents, polygamists, and perverts - i'm using this term in the broadest sense) try to use divorce rates as ammunition to promote their own agenda... i'm not going to judge their agenda, only their method of attack... you see, divorce rates are so high because we have given in to the notion that marriage is a personal choice... one which we can change our minds on just because things didn't turn out like we imagined... the joke is usually "a man gets married hoping his wife won't change, and a woman gets married hoping her husband will; both are disappointed"... marriage isn't about personal choice... it's about making a commitment; not with the opposite member, but with yourself... moreover, it's a contract between you and your family, community, and society as a whole... it's most importantly a contract with God... i'll discuss this last point in a minute.

your word is your bond... when you say "I do", you had better... if you change your mind, what you are saying is "I don't follow through on my word, on my sacred honor, and I don't value commitments"... while i would never judge all divorcees, as i don't know who left whom, a person who causes a marriage to dissolve has decided their own word has no value... a person can justify it all they want, but you have broken your most sacred and valuable promise... the only saving grace is if your divorce is caused by the broken promise of your spouse, as a contract can only be whole if upheld by both parties... infidelity is colloquially understood as sexual, but fidelity means loyalty and the strict observance of promises... if your partner is disloyal to your marriage, be it sexual or not, then the contract is not being upheld.

that being said, it's not enough that your partner has been disloyal... you need to discover if you can repair the contract... marriage is about more than your personal feelings being hurt... it's a contract between more than two people.

you promised your family... not only your children (or future children)... you promised your parents... you promised to uphold the traditions of your ancestors... these traditions often seem like trivial things... "liberals" will attack traditions, too; trying to trivialize them... but these traditions are the glue that holds societies together... they are designed, over centuries, to reinforce family values and to strengthen family bonds... we don't send Christmas cards every year because Jesus told us to (he didn't)... we do it to remind ourselves that the people we are closest to are important to us... that they have value... that, though we may not think about them daily, we want them to know we haven't forgotten them.

also, we uphold these family traditions because it gives us a chance to remember... our family has stories, personal stories, that need to be remembered... each member has events which shaped their lives, and if we listen closely, we can allow them to shape our own... often, the harshest teacher we will ever encounter is experience... but not everyone must burn themselves to know fire is hot... stories being passed down, generation to generation, teach us... we borrow experience, and learn from them ourselves... "nani gigantum humeris insidentes" ("dwarves perched on the shoulders of giants")... to paraphrase Newton, we see further from the shoulders of giants.

a broken marriage also hurts society... each marriage is a contract with society, in essence saying "I will promote well-being within my community; I vow to protect others as I would protect myself"... you are showing, by example, your commitment to the whole by your actions in the part... for example, should you not value your own vows, what value can you reasonably expect others to ascribe to their own contracts?... should society, as a whole, devalue the bonds of matrimony, how can any member of that society hold secure those bonds society hold with them?... we trust that our government will honor its commitments to us, but when we don't honor our own, is it really any surprise that governments are inconstant in their promises?

God... we make these vows before God... atheists scoff at this... but even to the atheist, this should be our most solemn vow... "But why," you ask, "should an atheist make a vow before God?"... because this is a vow to our secret heart... we make this promise to ourselves, that should we be presented with an opportunity to be disloyal such that no one should ever know, we vow to remain constant to the promises we made... to a theist, God knows and sees all things, even those kept secret from our families and communities... should we break our pledge, God holds us accountable... an atheist believes in no such authority... so, should opportunity arise, there is no higher authority but himself... but the worst problem with this is the atheist is not omniscient... he has no means of knowing the future and whether his infidelity would ever be discovered... he can reason and justify all of his vows away, but he can't escape the fact that he can never fully know the outcome.

a theist resists infidelities even in the mind, knowing that God knows a man's heart... adultery in the mind is as detestable as adultery in the flesh... justifying one legitimizes the other... and i can hear the arguments already... "Just because I imagine it, doesn't mean I condone acting on it"... and that's true, one doesn't cause the other... but allowing your heart, in secret, to be disloyal to your vows grants you the first support for being disloyal in all other actions... "If no one ever knows, there isn't any harm"... how often do you hear, "No harm; no foul"... but when we justify one indiscretion, we open the floodgate for all others... you cannot open Pandora's box and only extract hope... either we maintain our vows, in public and in secret, or we find any reason to dissolve them.

and we often presume that our infidelities are secret and never known... we, fallible creatures as we are, will never know the end result of our actions until it is upon us... if we are not steadfast and stalwart in our vows, in secret and in public, we open ourselves up to the unknowable... for example, should we allow ourselves to be disloyal to our vow of "for richer or for poorer", should financial difficulties arise, we have allowed ourselves the latitude to place blame... once we have placed blame, in secret and in our heart, we will unknowingly change our behavior... there is nothing quite so hurtful as a slight roll of the eyes, thereby firmly announcing our placement of blame... we have been disloyal in our heart, and, without our conscious consent, we have displayed it to the world.

a firm commitment to our vow to an almighty God is our greatest protection against our own frailties.

wow... i've spent a lot of effort on fidelity... that wasn't where i was going with this... but, i suppose, you can't go anywhere without a firm foundation... once you have that, you have something upon which to build.

and how do you build on a marriage?... first, forget what everyone has told you (except this, of course)... marriage is never what you expect it to be... mainly, it isn't fun... oh, it can be... but that isn't what a marriage is... more often than not, it's a lot of work... it is compromise and often doing what you really don't want to do... and doing it with a genuine smile... yes, genuine... you have to decide for yourself that you will do that thing, which you would rather not do, because it is good for your marriage... doing something half-ass or begrudgingly is decidedly detrimental to a marriage... either do it completely or don't do it at all... dragging your feet like a hurt child only does damage to a marriage... playing games like "I'm-only-doing-this-because-I-have-to" or "If-I-do-this-you-owe-me" is childish at best, and does nothing to promote unity and growth... it's simply poisonous.

but being a push-over is equally poisonous... letting your spouse win every argument does nothing to grow a marriage... sure, it builds his self-esteem, but at the expense of your own... something as simple as what to have for dinner can build a marriage... even though many wives say they don't care what to have or where to go for dinner, this is often disingenuous... they care... but they often will let you chose for them as a gesture of kindness... men, notice this... it's fine to chose your favorite restaurant or meal... but, on occasion, chose what they would like... show them that you understand their gesture, and give them one back... if you go to a sports bar for wings and beers, take them out for sushi and cocktails (or whatever their personal preference is)... offer to cook dinner, and make something they like.

i'd make the same observation for women, but often they're better at this than men... however, they're not so good at it as they think they are... women like to spend time with their men, and men do to... but men want quality time, not necessarily quantity... you see this in the advent of the "man cave"... it's funny, but even back in the day when men spent 12 hours in the fields, they would come home only to go spend another 4 or 5 in the yard, barn, garage, or wherever they could... it isn't that they don't want to spend time with their wives, but they don't often get to spend time with themselves.

we're just wired differently... each of us needs to understand our own wiring and that of our spouse... we need to adjust our own minds to accommodate that of the other.

at the end of the day, we are each individuals... we know ourselves best... for us to have a successful marriage, our spouse must know us, too... and while many men would claim their wives are psychic mind-readers, none of us are able to delve into the depths of another's mind without a guide.

communication... this is the true pitfall of all marriages... "If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility." - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Driftwood (1857)... how do you know a secret history?... the only way to see it is through the lens of the viewer... i say "lens" because often even the person who lived it has colored it some... we don't like to remember our own faults and failures, but they are as much a part of our makeup as our merits and successes... if we don't communicate everything to our spouse, is it their fault when they stumble over a tender subject?... if wounded, ask yourself, "Could they have known?"... often we fight over things that the other could never have guessed was an issue... it is a rare case when a person intentionally wounds their partner... even if they do, there surely is a reason behind it... the point is simple... communicate.

so often you hear the accusation, "They rushed into marriage"... i think that's a poor excuse... arranged marriages often turn out to be the strongest... and it's not that those who set them up were excellent match-makers... far from it... but from the outset, these couples understand that they are entering unknown waters... their futures, fortunes, and very lives depend on how cautiously they enter into these vows... (a man can be as overbearing as he likes, but he must sleep sometime... he must eat... even the most docile creature attacks when cornered)... when the health of your marriage determines your future, you treat it with more reverence and respect.

"They're too young"... balderdash... it's not that they're too young... it's that they're ignorant... ignorant of what the commitment truly is... oh, they think they know... but they don't... how could they?... they believe what they see around them... they believe that they can simply walk away if they don't like it... because that's what a devalued marriage is these days... it's simply a personal choice... if at first you don't succeed, try, try again... bullshit... this is the most important decision you will ever make in your lifetime... because it will forever alter your life... young people don't take this seriously, because, for them, a lifetime is merely eighteen years... eighty years is unthinkable... it might as well be a thousand... when your most far-seeing goal is "what am i going to do with my life", you don't dwell much on who will feed you on your death-bed... the most anyone can project their lives forward is equal to the years they have lived... at eighteen, you can't imagine forty... (hell, at forty you wonder what forty-one might bring)... too young is really too naive.


got your attention now, don't i?... the devaluation of marriage is the single greatest reason for the rise in teen pregnancies, single mothers, and crime rates... sex is the cornerstone of the problem.

sex has consequences... oh, i know the common "liberal" responses... they'll talk contraception and abortion... women's rights... personal choice... sexual identity... but what it really comes down to is simply, "I'll make up any excuse to do what feels good"... forget personal responsibility.

well, here's the reality of it... sex is final... that's right; once you've had sex, it can't be undone... insert your own joke about how you can unscrew a light bulb... so what?... what's the big deal?... well, the unintended consequences are many... let's start with promises... when you have sex, you are implying to the opposite party that all results of the sex are agreeable to both members, intended and otherwise... you may not actually mean it, but don't get hung up on the details... the opposite member may not see it your way... neither will you, should you contract an STD... you'd have every right to be upset... and if you got pregnant, you'd have every right to expect the other member to be at least 50% responsible for it... but, let's be realistic... does that happen?... no, of course not... to quote President Obama, often girls are "punished with a baby" and left to their own devices by a dead-beat boy/dad.

but let's assume you've avoided the baby issue... and even the STD issue (which, by the way, you can still get no matter what protection you use)... you can't avoid the emotional issue... sex creates an emotional connection, whether you want it to, or not... men can usually get over this (again, we're wired differently)... but for women, it can be more difficult... this isn't necessarily their fault, either... sex releases oxytocin in the brain... this drug is so powerful that, in a 20 second hug, a woman can produce enough oxytocin to bond her to that man... during sex, dopamine is also dumped into the body... dopamine is highly addictive... but men aren't let off the hook easily, either... they get hit by vasopressin... this causes pair-bonding (read: monogamy)... that's right, guys... if you have sex, you might never have sex with anyone else... ever. (horror)

but a good, strong-willed "liberal" would be able to overcome all that neurochemistry, right?... of course... and that's where it all goes wrong.

like any good drug, you get hooked on it... you've had it, so you want it again... and what's wrong with that?... well, if you continue to avoid all the other pitfalls stated above, there's only two things left to avoid... addiction and resistance... sexual addiction is a well documented phenomenon (and videos of said documentation can be purchased at you local adult video store)... seriously, it's a problem that does not need to be expanded on here.

resistance, however, is another problem that is rarely discussed... but, like any drug, once you begin to use it, it takes greater doses to achieve the same result... for women, they just want the sex to last longer so they get the same oxytocin/dopamine fix... men also want more sex to get the same dopamine high... but men get resistant to vasopressin... they build up a tolerence to "monogamy"... sex, of any duration, doesn't bond them any greater... so, you have a dopamine fiend who has lost the pair-bonding requirement... wonder what happens next?

does this sound familiar?... man #1 has "played the field" before getting married... lots of sexual partners... avoided getting anyone pregnant, contracting an STD, or being shot by the girls' fathers... finally, he 'decides' to settle down... he finds 'Miss. Right' and marries her... well, the new Mrs. Right finds she has a sexual dynamo and expert lover... lucky her!... she gets all the oxytocin and dopamine she can handle... everything is grand!... but Mr. Right is drifting further and further away... he gets his 'Mid-Life Crisis'... buys a sports car (also a dopamine addiction)... suddenly, Mrs. Right finds out Mr. Right has had an affair with Miss Wrong, as well as his secretary, Miss Mediocre, and also Mrs. Satisfactory from down the street... and we wonder what went wrong.

we could discuss the benefits/costs of sex before marriage, but this is neuroscience... sex outside of marriage is detrimental to your future marriage... and when (not if) the vasopressin begins to fade, you had better be prepared to honor your vows and make good on your promises... because the next marriage will be (chemically) more difficult than the first.

so, all you "liberals"... there may be very good reasons to not believe in Biblical teachings... but these ancient rules now have modern science giving you the same answers... marriage is sacred, no matter your beliefs... sex outside of marriage is detrimental... devaluation of marriage and of sex directly leads to societal ills.

this is the most important decision of your life... do it right.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

truth matters

President Barack Obama had been on the job less than a week when a top economic adviser told him and Vice President Joe Biden that the country faced a trillion dollar deficit, Biden told a roomful of Florida supporters Saturday.
Vice-president Joe Biden - reported by TAMARA LUSH, Associated Press from FORT MYERS, Fla. 09/29/2012
At the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2005, the deficit was $318 billion – about a quarter of what it is now. It fell every year until 2007, when it was back down to $161 billion. Then the voters, who’d been fed a steady anti-Bush media diet, decided to give Democrats another turn at bat and handed Congress and its budget-making power over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The very next year, the deficit jumped back up to $459 billion. The year after that, Obama became President, and the deficit hit an all-time high of $1.4 trillion. True, Biden can argue that was partly Bush’s fault: he did start the TARP bailouts. But that was a one-time expenditure that’s since been paid back with interest. If there’s a good explanation for why it’s still Bush’s fault that the deficit has remained over $1.2 trillion throughout every year of Obama’s term, well… apparently, that excuse hasn’t dropped into anyone’s lap yet.
Mike Huckabee - Facebook post - 10/4/2012

CBO sees 2005 deficit at $317 billion - October 06, 2005 - William L. Watts, MarketWatch, Wall Street Journal
U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1) - By John Brinsley, Bloomberg - October 11, 2007
U.S. deficit climbs to $402 billion - By Jeanne Sahadi, senior writer - January 7, 2009
U.S. Deficit for 2009 Totals $1.4 Trillion, Budget Office Says - By Brian Faler and Julianna Goldman, Bloomberg - October 8, 2009

Government Spending Chart: United States 2001-2017 - Federal Data

Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public, 1971 to 2010, in Billions of Dollars - Congressional Budget Office - January 2011

Friday, September 7, 2012

this is what separates us #RNC #DNC

The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To
- DNC 2012 commercial video

We own this country
- RNC speech 2012 - Clint Eastwood

Democrats want everyone to "belong" to something "bigger than yourself." Hive mentality.
"Together, we can do anything."

Republicans take "ownership" and have "responsibility." Individualism.
"You can be anything you want to be if you work for it."

Thursday, September 6, 2012

before the cock crow

thou shalt deny me thrice.
and deny God and Jerusalem, they did...
GOPICYMI YouTube Channel

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

The First Four Years Are The Hardest… « mikeroweWORKS

Dear Governor Romney,

My name is Mike Rowe and I own a small company in California called mikeroweWORKS. Currently, mikeroweWORKS is trying to close the country’s skills gap by changing the way Americans feel about Work.  (I know, right? Ambitious.)

Anyway, this Labor Day is our 4th anniversary, and I’m commemorating the occasion with an open letter to you. If you read the whole thing, I’ll vote for you in November.

First things first. mikeroweWORKS grew out of a TV show called Dirty Jobs. If by some chance you are not glued to The Discovery Channel every Wednesday at 10pm, allow me to visually introduce myself. That’s me on the right, preparing to do something dirty.

When Dirty Jobs premiered back in 2003, critics called the show “a calamity of exploding toilets and misadventures in animal husbandry.” They weren’t exactly wrong. But mostly, Dirty Jobs was an unscripted celebration of hard work and skilled labor. It still is. Every week, we highlight regular people who do the kind of jobs most people go out of their way to avoid. My role on the show is that of a “perpetual apprentice.” In that capacity I have completed over three hundred different jobs, visited all fifty states, and worked in every major industry.

Though schizophrenic and void of any actual qualifications, my resume looks pretty impressive, and when our economy officially crapped the bed in 2008, I was perfectly positioned to weigh in on a variety of serious topics. A reporter from The Wall Street Journal called to ask what I thought about the “counter-intuitive correlation between rising unemployment and the growing shortage of skilled labor.” CNBC wanted my take on outsourcing. Fox News wanted my opinions on manufacturing and infrastructure. And CNN wanted to chat about currency valuations, free trade, and just about every other work-related problem under the sun.

In each case, I shared my theory that most of these “problems” were in fact symptoms of something more fundamental – a change in the way Americans viewed hard work and skilled labor. That’s the essence of what I’ve heard from the hundreds of men and women I’ve worked with on Dirty Jobs. Pig farmers, electricians, plumbers, bridge painters, jam makers, blacksmiths, brewers, coal miners, carpenters, crab fisherman, oil drillers…they all tell me the same thing over and over, again and again – our country has become emotionally disconnected from an essential part of our workforce.  We are no longer impressed with cheap electricity, paved roads, and indoor plumbing. We take our infrastructure for granted, and the people who build it.

Today, we can see the consequences of this disconnect in any number of areas, but none is more obvious than the growing skills gap. Even as unemployment remains sky high, a whole category of vital occupations has fallen out of favor, and companies struggle to find workers with the necessary skills. The causes seem clear. We have embraced a ridiculously narrow view of education. Any kind of training or study that does not come with a four-year degree is now deemed “alternative.” Many viable careers once aspired to are now seen as “vocational consolation prizes,” and many of the jobs this current administration has tried to “create” over the last four years are the same jobs that parents and teachers actively discourage kids from pursuing. (I always thought there something ill-fated about the promise of three million “shovel ready jobs” made to a society that no longer encourages people to pick up a shovel.)

Which brings me to my purpose in writing. On Labor Day of 2008, the fans of Dirty Jobs helped me launch this website. began as a Trade Resource Center designed to connect kids with careers in the skilled trades. It has since evolved into a non-profit foundation – a kind of PR Campaign for hard work and skilled labor. Thanks to a number of strategic partnerships, I have been able to promote a dialogue around these issues with a bit more credibility than my previous resume allowed. I’ve spoken to Congress (twice) about the need to confront the underlying stigmas and stereotypes that surround these kinds of jobs. Alabama and Georgia have both used mikeroweWORKS to launch their own statewide technical recruitment campaigns, and I’m proud to be the spokesman for both initiatives. I also work closely with Caterpillar, Ford, Kimberly-Clark, and Master Lock, as well as The Boy Scouts of America and The Future Farmers of America. To date, the mikeroweWORKS Foundation has raised over a million dollars for trade scholarships. It’s modest by many standards, but I think we’re making a difference.

Certainly, we need more jobs, and you were clear about that in Tampa. But the Skills Gap proves that we need something else too.  We need people who see opportunity where opportunity exists. We need enthusiasm for careers that have been overlooked and underappreciated by society at large. We need to have a really big national conversation about what we value in the workforce, and if I can be of help to you in that regard, I am at your service – assuming of course, you find yourself in a new address early next year.

To be clear, mikeroweWORKS has no political agenda. I am not an apologist for Organized Labor or for Management. mikeroweWORKS is concerned only with encouraging a larger appreciation for skilled labor, and supporting those kids who are willing to learn a skill.

Good luck in November. And thanks for your time.


Mike Rowe

PS. In the interest of full disclosure I should mention that I wrote a similar letter to President Obama. Of course, that was four years ago, and since I never heard back, I believe proper etiquette allows me to extend the same offer to you now. I figure if I post it here, the odds are better that someone you know might send it along to your attention.

The First Four Years Are The Hardest… « mikeroweWORKS

please sir, i want some more

i'm sorry, but we don't want more of the same, do we?... it baffles me that the big picture isn't seen by some very intelligent people... they sure think those trees look pretty, but there's a forest out there, too.

Mike Huckabee recently posted the following:
[T]he Daily Caller revealed some previously unpublished court information about a landmark case that many consider the fuse that set off the sub-prime mortgage boom and eventually, the economic meltdown. It was a 1995 discrimination lawsuit against Citibank, on behalf of a group of African-Americans who claimed they couldn’t get loans because of their race. It was part of a coordinated effort at the time by progressive groups. The banks didn’t want to be sued or accused of racism, so they loosened requirements for credit history and down payments.
at one point, the Daily Caller (and Huckabee, by proxy) attempt to tie a young Barack Obama to the sub-prime mortgage disaster... it's a stretch, by any reasonable person... but there's a bigger truth that the DC and Huck don't emphasise... it isn't that Obama was involved... it's the idea of forcing sub-prime mortgages on banks that don't want them.

so, what is a bank to do with toxic loans?... well, sell them, of course.
but who would buy them?... investors, of course.
and why would they buy them?... because they can be traded on the market, speculated against, even short-sales... they were high risk, so they could be bought inexpensively... and if mortgages were (mostly) paid on time, investors made big money... but if they weren't paid, investors were out only a fraction of their investment.
better still, you could bet on them failing, drive the price down, buy low, and get bigger returns... Stock Market 101 = "Buy Low; Sell High".

now, back the banks with federal insurance, and there is no risk should it collapse... great idea... idiots.

and the final nail, offer "No Documentation" and "Stated Income" loans... or "Interest Only" loans... someone with poor credit and slight income can get a loan without any repercussion against them... it's not like they paid a down payment, anyways!... the loans go belly-up, the banks foreclose, they're left holding property when no one is buying, they lose money... well, that is until the government bails them out.

the people who put this all in motion, from deregulating the banking industry to backing toxic assets to requiring loosened standards on housing mortgages... these are the people in the White House and have control of the Senate.

they believe that everyone has the right to own a home... everyone has a right to go to college... everyone has a right to everything.

and they believe it's the government's place to provide all of the above.

THIS is who they are... THIS is who is running things... THESE are the people want four more years.

Mike Huckabee's Facebook post
Obama’s African-American clients got coupons, not cash - 09/03/2012 - The Daily Caller
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Hysteria Over The "Risk" Of Being Poor

Please stand back.  I’ve been waiting all weekend to write this particular section for Nealz Nuze.  Seldom have I heard a more idiotic statement from someone in a position to know better … I mean this is so magnificently ignorant – even stupid – that if this woman’s ignorance were radioactive Democrats could build the mother of all nuclear brain bombs.  Just one could wipe out all intelligent life on Earth.
The woman we’re talking about is Melissa Harris-Perry.  Apparently she has a weekend show on MSNBC.  No surprise there.  At last check MSNBC had about 2,200 centrifuges at work 24/7 trying to purify stupid.  They’ve done quite well with Melissa Harris Hyphen Perry.
Melissa Harris Hyphen Perry is also political science professor at Tulane.  Read a bit further and you’ll pity her poor students.
Melissa’s meltdown (Can I just call her Melissa?  The Harris Hyphen Perry is tiring) occurred on her show over this past weekend.  The topic had turned to welfare and income mobility.  Melissa apparently lost it when a guest on her show suggested that people move from lower to higher income brackets by taking risks.  Oh my!  Now THAT yanked Melissa’s chain.  She actually started screaming and thrashing about on the air like a beached barracuda.  Here’s a section from the transcript of her hysterical fit, provided by Hot Air:
“What is riskier than living poor in America?   Seriously! What in the world is riskier than being a poor person in America? I live in a neighborhood where people are shot on my street corner. I live in a neighborhood where people have to figure out how to get their kid into school because maybe it will be a good school and maybe it won’t. I am sick of the idea that being wealthy is risky. No. There is a huge safety net that whenever you fail will catch you and catch you and catch you. Being poor is what is risky. We have to create a safety net for poor people. And when we won’t, because they happen to look different from us, it is the pervasive ugliness.”
Where to start?  This is like hunting over a baited field.  So many targets standing completely still with stupid expressions on their faces that you scarcely know where to shoot first.  (OMG!  A gun methaphor!)
Let’s start with the poor.  The poor, poor, pitiful poor.  Just how risky is it to be poor in America?  Lose your job?  You’re on unemployment.  No job? You’re on welfare!  Can’t find something to eat?  Food banks and numerous feeding programs.  Just tell me when was the last time you heard of someone dying from hunger in this country.  You have to hide somewhere to do that.  No roof over your head?  Check in to a shelter.  Fact is, most people who sleep outside make that choice after rejecting a bed in a shelter because they don’t want to abide by the rules.  For every story of some poor person who died on a freezing night outdoors, there is a story of a bed in a shelter rejected.  Get sick?  Medicaid.  Nobody is denied basic life-saving medical care in this country because they can’t afford to pay for it.
What’s it like to be poor in America?  Dare I say it?  Not all that horrible, actually.  First – in a general sense – the average poor person in America has a higher standard of living than the average European.  Read that sentence again – you need to understand what I’m saying there.  Read it until it sinks in.  Take the average POOR person in America and tell them they’re going to have to live like the AVERAGE EUROPEAN .. and they’ll start screaming racism, discrimination, oppression, and every other leftist trigger word they can remember.  Tell a poor person in America that they’re going to have to lower their living standard to that of the average European, and the proggies will tell you that you be “hatin’” on the poor.
Specifics?  Yeah .. I have some specifics.
First .. let me go back to a story and picture that appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution earlier this year.  The story is re-written for use every winter --- it’s about pitiful po’ folks having to wait in line to get their home heating assistance dollars from the government to heat their homes in the winter.  This past winter the AJC showed a picture of some pitiful poor person bemoaning the fact that she might not get her heating dollars.  Right there in her living room we saw her big-screen television (at least 50”) and the PlayStation video game.  There was also a space heater in the background.  The AJC writer told us that sadly this woman can only afford to heat the room she is occupying.  Well … guess what the hell what?  That’s the way the average European does it!  In Europe many think it’s just plain silly to heat a room you are not using.  That’s also the way your parents or grandparents probably lived in this country.  You wouldn’t expect this AJC reporter to know that though.  The purpose of the story was to make your heart bleed for this pitiful poor woman, not to give you any actual facts.
Pretty risky stuff, right Melissa?
More specifics?  Here you go.  This is from a two-year old study from The Heritage Foundation. 
  • The typical “poor” household in America has a car
  • 78% of “poor” households in America have air conditioning
  • 64% of “poor” households in America have cable or satellite TV .. most have two TVs, along with a DVD player and  VCR
  • Most “poor” households in America with children have a gaming system such as an Xbox or PlayStation
  • 38% of “poor” households in America have a personal computer
  • Most “poor” households in America have a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. They also have other household appliances such as a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.
  • The typical “poor” American has more living space than the average European.
  • The typical “poor” American family is able to obtain medical care when needed.
  • The average “poor” household in America claims to have sufficient funds to meet all essential needs.
One can only assume that in light of the growth of Obama’s entitlement society these numbers are even better now.
But wait!  (As they say.)  There’s more!
I’m about to show you that you have more disposable income in America as a single mother with three children – from God knows how many different fathers – than does a traditional two-parent middle class family.  Hold on.
Let’s consider the head of a household of four making minimum wage in America.  More specifically – a one-parent household of four.  The mom – making minimum wage – and three children.  Compare this to a two-parent household with two children making $60,000 a year.  Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current ran the numbers on these two families and discovered that the single-mom with three kids,  and no job marketable job skills that she could use to earn more than minimum wage,  actually has --- now get this --- actually has more disposable income than the family making $60,000.  How does that work?  Well .. you throw in the various government income redistribution programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, the school lunch program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, CHIP, Section 8 rent subsidies, and the heating assistance program and you have little Miss Minimum Wage – earning $14,500 a year – actually walking away with $37,777 in disposable income.  Meanwhile, the family earning $60,000, after taxes and childcare costs, brings home about $34,366. 
There, Melissa.  There’s your risky lifestyle.  Really?  Just where IS the risk you speak of?  Frankly, I don’t see that much at all.  It’s a life in thrall .. the government provides you with the security you so ardently desire in exchange for one simple little thing every two or four years … you’re vote. 
Do you want me to tell you about poor people and risk-taking?  Here you go:
  • Having unprotected sex so that your boyfriend can knock you up, and then having a child you absolutely cannot afford to raise … that’s risky.
  • Ignoring your education and job training opportunities to the point that you can’t qualify for a job that earns more than minimum wage … that’s risky.
  • Getting hooked on drugs … that’s risky
  • Spending your spare money on lottery tickets and at your local Tresses and Talons shop … that’s risky.
  • Taking money you could use to buy your kids a book .. and spending it instead on a cool tattoo.  Risky.
  • Getting a job --- and then making a habit of not showing up for work on Monday’s and Fridays … that’s risky. 
  • Refusing to move out of a crime-ridden inner city environment and relocating, by whatever means necessary, to an area with better schools, less drugs and crime, and some basic job opportunities … that’s risky.  And don’t give me this “can’t afford it” crap.  Our ancestors did that walking alongside covered wagons with a few tables and chairs and maybe a bed inside.  They had to dig holes in the ground to drop a deuce along the way.  You have a car.  There’s rest areas on the expressways.  Load it and use it.
  • Embracing the “no snitching” culture so that the police can’t do an effective job of ridding your neighborhood of the thugs that shoot your friends on street corners … risky. 
Now … dear, sweet, mindless Melissa.  You say that there’s no risk-taking in being wealthy?  Oh .. and that there’s a “huge safety net that will catch you whenever you fail over and over?”  Really?  Well .. you’re a political science professor .. so we’ll just assume you don’t know what in the hell you’re talking about.  Pretty safe assumption, I’d say. 
CNN’s tells us that households have lost a total of $16 trillion plus in household wealth since the recession.  Now this wasn’t wealth held by the pitiful poor.  By definition, they have no net wealth.  So where was the safety net for this $16 trillion in lost net wealth, Melissa?  Is the government out there making these people whole again?  Is the government restoring lost savings accounts?  How about depleted IRAs and 401Ks?  Being rich is risk-free? 
What of all the businessmen who have had to close down their businesses – their life’s dreams – as a result of the recession?  Where was that government safety net that catches them over and over and over?  Can you tell me one business lost to a small businessman that has been restored by government?  Can you tell me how the government stepped in and gave this businessman back the cash and time he invested in his business?  Isn’t it great that this guy wasn’t taking any risks? 
What about the stock losses in failed corporations?  What about the dividends no longer being paid by corporations on the financial brink?  Tell me, Melissa, how is the government stepping in to stretch a safety net under these investors?  Even The Huffington Post reports that wealth lost during the recession hit middle and upper income people the hardest.  Tell me what the government safety net did for them, Melissa?
Do you want to know what the safety net for the rich is?  It’s the exact same safety net your wonderful poor people have:  SNAP, Section 8, EITC, Child care tax credits, food banks, TANF and the rest of the social welfare programs that prop up your neighbors in that violent neighborhood you can’t bring yourself to leave. 
Don’t move, Melissa.  Trust me .. you’re right where you belong.  It’s nice they let you work in the house sometimes.  

Hysteria Over The "Risk" Of Being Poor

Saturday, August 25, 2012

lying liars lie

we expect politicians to "stretch the truth"... okay, they lie... we know that... but to make up a lie, get caught, then lie about the lie, get caught again, and finally dismiss it as if it weren't important... that takes some brass nuts of epic proportions.

for instance:
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz... also heads up the Democratic National Committee. [I] just want to show you some of the fund-raising letter that she sent out this week. [It says], "Their party just voted to embrace Akin's position by including a constitutional ban on all abortions even in cases of rape or incest in their 2012 platform."
"But guess what? 'The Los Angeles Times' reported yesterday that the platform was, and I quote, 'written at the direction of Romney's campaign.'"

(emphasis added)
so, according to the DNC and Chairwoman Schultz, the Romney campaign (and therefore, Mitt Romney, himself) supports banning all abortions, no matter the circumstances... and the DNC surely wouldn't decieve, prevaricate, exagerate, fabricate, or even lie... would they?
[T]hat quote was taken completely out of context. It was ripped in fact out of a sentence. If you put it back into that sentence, here's what it looks like -- quote -- this is from "The L.A. Times." "Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney are voting down substantive changes to the platform language that were written at the direction of Romney's campaign." So the DNC letter takes the last eight words out of that sentence, using it to suggest something that full sentence obviously does not suggest.
(emphasis added)
what?... they took eight words out of a completely different sentance and applied it to an entirely different idea... not even specific to abortion; just relative to the RNC platform as a whole.
well, they're caught... nothing to do but apologize... maybe say it was a typographical error... but surely they wouldn't lie again?
COOPER: You do acknowledge that Mitt Romney supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, don't you?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Mitt Romney's words are very nice, but the bottom line is that Romney's campaign just directed the Republican Party platform to include the most restrictive constitutional amendment... even in the case of rape or incest.

COOPER: Do you at least acknowledge that the quote that you gave from "The L.A. Times" is completely incorrect?

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Anderson, what I'm saying is, it doesn't matter.
lie... called out... lie again... called out... "it doesn't matter."

oh, but had it been a Republican, it would have mattered then... it must only be okay to lie if you're a liberal.

i'd call Debbie Wasserman Schultz a liar and a liberal, but i'd be repeating myself.

and kudos to Anderson Cooper of CNN for pointing out the lie... finally something "fair" if not balanced.

source: - Transcripts
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES - Interview With Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz; Romney Avoiding Abortion Debate
- Aired August 23, 2012 - 22:00 ET

Ron Paul delegates taking aim at Republican Party platform
August 20, 2012 - By Paul West
"Delegates for presumptive nominee Mitt Romney are voting down substantive changes to the platform language that was written at the direction of Romney’s campaign."

Thursday, August 23, 2012

the "no-reasonable-person" argument

i often get the "no-reasonable-person" argument right after my "slippery-slope" argument... it goes like this:
ME: "If you allow A, then you will eventually have to allow B."
REASONABLE PERSON: "No reasonable person will ever allow B."
well, guess what?... there are those among us who are "reasonable" and are pushing arguments that the rest of us abhor... but we've already gone past the point of no return in many cases.

for instance... abortion... (oh lord, here he goes again)... well, we've already allowed the unborn to be aborted at will... maybe we condemn certain methods like partial-birth, but we turn a blind eye to other methods which achieve the same end result; the death of the unborn.

but No-Reasonable-Person would equate abortion and infanticide... right?... right?

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.
- Journal of Medical Ethics - 23 February 2012
step #1: redefine the terms of the argument... it isn't infanticide... it's after-birth-abortion... because you've already accepted the term abortion as morally neutral.

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.
did they just make "non-human animals" equivalent to the mentally retarded?... i do believe they did!... and more so, they qualified their argument as "many non-human animals and mentally retarded" are persons; so, by definition, some are not persons.

let that sink in.

in case you missed it, adults who are mentally retarded are given a status below that of "many non-human animals"... they do not have a "moral right to life"... in other (more clear) words, you can kill them with impunity, with no regard to their rights (as they have none).

the "reasonable person" would argue that we would only allow aborting those which are unable to fulfill their potential as a person... "no reasonable person" would suggest aborting healthy children... right?

If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.
that's right... they want to abort healthy infants.

but we're not on a slippery slope... are we?

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

Thursday, August 16, 2012

soylent green energy - it's made of people!

The UN has called for an immediate suspension of government-mandated US ethanol production, adding to pressure on Barack Obama to address the food-versus-fuel debate in the run-up to presidential elections.

Most US ethanol is made from corn. The dispute over ethanol promotion pits states such as Iowa that benefit from higher corn prices – and in some cases are swing states in the election – against livestock-raising states such as Texas that are helped by lower corn prices.

The UN intervention will be seized upon by state governors, lawmakers and the meat and livestock industry, who have expressed alarm at surging prices for corn. Members of the Group of 20 leading economies – including France, India and China – have already expressed concern about the US ethanol policy.

The US is poised to divert around 40 per cent of its corn into ethanol because of the Congress-enacted mandate despite “huge damage” to the crop because of the worst drought in at least half a century, José Graziano da Silva, director-general of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, warned.

“An immediate, temporary suspension of that [ethanol] mandate would give some respite to the market and allow more of the crop to be channelled towards food and feed uses,” he wrote in an opinion piece in the Financial Times.

As Starvation Looms, UN Begs Obama to Suspend Biofuel Mandates
via Hawaii Free Press from:
Environmentalists Implementing their Population Control Plans - August 9, 2012

Monday, August 13, 2012

turn of the screw(ed)

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase." - Barack Obama (2008)

he lied...

as a matter of fact, when you think about it (assuming, of course, you think), the tax increase hits the poor much heavier than the rich.
and here's the proof:
Income up to:Marginal Tax Rate 2012Tax PaidEffective Tax Rate2013 Marginal2013 Tax Paid2013 EffectiveDifference Paid
example: $500,00035.0%$151,76130.4%39.6%$167,92233.6%$16,161

"For they all cast in from the surplus that they had, but this one has cast in from her want, everything that she had; she cast in all her possessions." - Jesus (Mark 12:44)
the problem is simple... the poor need what little money they have... the rich can spare a dime... this is the basis for much of the liberal's arguments... tax the rich; they can afford it... unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in real life... there aren't enough rich people to siphon off.

in 2009 (which is the data i have handy... i'd look up 2011, but i'm being lazy), there were about 140.5 million tax returns in the US... 4 million tax returns (that's 2.8% of all returns) from earners of $200,000 or more... from those under that magic number, there were 136.5 million tax returns (or 97.2%).

of the income tax collected from the 2.8% of rich folk, the IRS collected $434 billion... from the other 97.2% of the poor folk, the IRS collected $432 billion... literally half of all of the taxes collected came from those bastard 2.8% rich people who aren't paying their fair share.

a good liberal will reference Mark 12:44 in an effort to squeeze more money from the rich... the problem is the rich are the ones investing in retirement accounts, investing in businesses, and hiring people... they pay salaries of everyone (economically) below them... they put the most into Social Security (which should make any good Marxist happy)... every tax on the rich is also a tax on the poor... it creates more unemployed workers... it takes money out of investment funds... it means less goes into Social Security.

and for God's sake, stop extending the Bush Era Tax Cuts... it's just less money going into Social Security... 2% every year is being withheld from Social Security because of this... end those, and cut 2% from tax payers over $200,000... they'll invest it... they'll hire people... they'll save Social Security... we'll help the poor, create jobs, and become a profitable nation again.

this is not rocket science... it's economics.

United States: 2013 Federal Income Tax Update
23 May 2012
Article by James N. Phillips and Timothy C. Smith of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

eugenics much?

Pursuant to PPACA’s provision for no-cost preventive care services for women, insurance policies will be required to provide no-cost prenatal genetic testing starting August 1, 2012. A preventive treatment exists in response to many non-genetic prenatal tests.

There is no treatment pre- or post-natally for the extra 21st-chromosomal material that causes Down syndrome. Currently, an estimated 400,000 Americans have Down syndrome. Characterizing prenatal testing for Down syndrome as “preventive care” expresses a policy that fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome should be prevented from being born. Indeed, a member of the Court’s majority, Justice Ginsberg, previously stated in an interview that one purpose of abortion is to reduce “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Population reduction is exactly what happens where there is a public policy for prenatal genetic testing.

In and of itself, prenatal testing is value neutral and simply provides information—indeed, the diagnosis of Down syndrome is typically accompanied by shock because it, too, is unexpected. Further, reducing the cost of prenatal testing through public policies is not necessarily problematic. But if prenatal testing is to be offered at no-cost, why is there not a corresponding mandate to provide all of the information necessary for an expectant mother to make an informed decision?

To say that a genetic condition should be prevented, with the only means of that prevention being abortion, is morally objectionable. It hearkens back to the eugenics atrocities of the last century. To further have that goal stated by a federal regulation is grossly objectionable and, one would hope, unexpected by our elected officials, as it very likely was when the regulations were passed.
Supreme Court Unexpectedly Upholds Regulatory Elimination of Down Syndrome July 12, 2012 By Amy Julia Becker

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
The Place of Women on the Court By EMILY BAZELON Published: July 7, 2009

Friday, July 27, 2012

how is this not racism?

The order created a “President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans.” It will include senior officials from several federal agencies — including the Departments of Education, Justice and Labor — which have gained increased power over state education policies since 2009.

The progressives campaign for race-based discipline policies also won a victory in Maryland July 24.

The state’s board of education established a policy demanding that each racial or ethnic group receive roughly proportional level of school penalties, regardless of the behavior by members of each group.

The board’s decision requires that “the state’s 24 school systems track data to ensure that minority and special education students are not unduly affected by suspensions, expulsions and other disciplinary measures,” said a July 25 Washington Post report.
emphasis added

maybe i'm reading this wrong, but this means with two schools, one predominantly african-american, the other predominantly non-black (i.e. asian, latino, caucasian), where one school is vandalized, both schools must suspend or discipline an equal number of students, even though no vandalism ("regardless of the behavior") took place at the other school.

does this make ANY sense?

Obama backs race-based school discipline policies | The Daily Caller

Chick-Fil-A Sandwiches Become Political Symbol

research... do some.

"Another rumor related to Chick-fil-A that is currently in the media is related to the Jim Henson Kid's Meal prizes. We want to set the facts straight. Chick-fil-A made the choice to voluntarily withdraw the Jim Henson Kid's Meal puppets for potential safety concerns for our customers on Thursday, July 19. On July 20, Chick-fil-A was notified of the Jim Henson Company's decision to no longer partner with us on future endeavors."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Rover for Romney

Voter-registration forms being mailed to Virginia residents are addressed to dead relatives, children, family members in other states, non-U.S. citizens, people with similar names, existing registered voters and residents' cats and dogs.

The errant forms are among tens of thousands being distributed in Virginia by a national voter-registration group that pre-populates the documents with key information, including names and addresses of prospective voters.

The mailings have become a source of confusion among many who receive them and are creating headaches for local registrar offices, which must spend time in a busy presidential election year investigating which of the forms are legitimate.

The mailings also can create opportunities for voter fraud, election officials say.

Although some of the mailings have gone to Virginia residents who are already registered — causing confusion about their voting eligibility — state election officials are more concerned about ineligible people receiving the forms, such as felons, non-citizens and "non-humans," said Justin Riemer, the state Board of Elections' deputy secretary.

Riemer provided these examples:

An application was sent to an 8-month-old child several months after the infant died.
A mother received an application for a daughter who has never lived in Virginia.
A wife received an application for her dead husband.
A non-citizen received an application.
A resident received an application for his mother, who died in 1988 and never lived at the Virginia address where the mailing was sent.
State election officials aren't sure how many of the 5 million registration forms distributed across the country by the Voter Participation Center have made it to Virginia.

Pets, deceased receive forms to vote in Va., fueling complaints

crazy is as crazy does

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) took an opposing view, arguing that had someone else in the Aurora theater been carrying a weapon, “maybe, maybe they could have prevented some of those deaths, some of those injuries, and that’s just the truth.”
Feinstein retorted: “And maybe you could have had a fire fight and killed many more people.”
not "many more"... just ONE more.

gun control is being able to hit your target the first time.

Few signs Colorado shooting will make gun control a campaign issue -

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

save energy... die of cancer

New research funded by the National Science Foundation has scientists warning consumers about the potentially harmful effects energy-saving CFL light bulbs can have on skin.

The warning comes based on a study conducted by Stony Brook University and New York State Stem Cell Science — published in the June issue of Photochemistry and Photobiology — which looked at whether and how the invisible UV rays CFL bulbs emit affect the skin.

Based on the research, scientists concluded that CFL light bulbs can be harmful to healthy skin cells.

“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation,” said lead researcher Miriam Rafailovich, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Stony Brook University, in New York, in a statement. “Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure.”

According to Rafailovich, with or without TiO2 (a chemical found in sunblock), incandescent bulbs of the same light intensity had zero effects on healthy skin.

Read more: Energy-efficient CFL bulbs cause skin damage, say researchers

PLUS, you get the wonderful side effect of adding mercury to landfills everywhere!

Study: Exposure to CFL bulbs harms healthy skin cells | The Daily Caller