It appears that 40 years doing his earnest to socialize the United States is enough and Congressman Henry Waxman is not going to run for reelection and leaving congress.
It is not enough that Rep. Waxman was one of the major architects of the so-called Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. The act that is working its damnedest to destroy the private health insurance industry and lead to the true goal, single-payer government run health care.
No, the list of horrors of Rep. Waxman is long and heroic to his left-wing base.
Rep. Waxman expanded Medicare coverage alright. Too bad that Medicare is going to be bankrupt pretty soon. And those that are signing up for health coverage now are disproportionately signing up for Medicare.
There are many others in the linked article that make Rep. Waxman sound so wonderful.
What Rep. Waxman has done is made a career out of making the federal government larger and thus forcing states to somehow pay for a lot of the expanding largess.
Mr. Waxman was first elected to the California state assembly in 1968 when one Ronald Reagan was governor. In the middle of his first term. From there he won election to the House of Representatives in 1974 when Gerald R. Ford was president. And he has not left since then. Mr. Waxman has been an elected official since he was 31 years old. He is now 74. Meaning the dude has spent almost all of his adult life in elected office.
What Mr. Waxman has created is being the poster child for term limits.
We do not need people to think that they have to spend their life in elected office. After all, our constitutional fathers did not envision that people would spend their life being a senator, congressman, governor, state official. Whatever. It should be a bipartisan issue. There are way too many Republicans who feel that they have to spend their life in elected office.
The founding fathers did not envision these kind of politicians that would make it a whole life-time career.
The hope of the founders was that people, yes at the time property-owning White men, would run for office, meet for a short time during the year and approve or reject legislation then go home and live under those laws and or rules they have set forth for the people.
Now its a profession. And it is often a revolving door as politicians get elected, leave office and then become lobbyists to affect legislation to whoever they work for.
In the case of Rep. Waxman, he never left office of any kind until now.
So, we should welcome this retirement on one hand but resolve to pursue term limits on all elected officials at all levels. We should not have congressmen be in Washington so much that they forget their state and or congressional districts. They should be in Washington part time and have to live under the very laws that they foist on us, the peons.
Henry Waxman is leaving congress and maybe at 74 years of age, he will get a real job.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
My State Of The Union? It Sucks!
One of the reasons I have been away from the blog is that I am intensely on the job hunt.
It has been seven months since I was unceremoniously asked to leave my last place of employment. I was not fired for anything but a company cutback and being the highest paid member of the staff after our branch manager.
I have been collecting unemployment during this time, but it is about to run out. In the meantime, I will probably have to resort to doing temp work, which is OK, but not wonderful.
So last night was the State of the Union speech by the Dear Leader, President Obama.
I admit, I did not watch the speech nor the official Republican response from Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wa.). I did not watch any other response either.
For you see, none of them asked me how the state of the union is. In fact, none of them know the RVFTLC abode's state of the union is. So I will answer that if they really care.
IT SUCKS!
I noted that I have been on unemployment and did get a fairly decent severance package from my past employer. But even with that combined, I essentially took a seven dollar an hour pay cut. And I am fortunate that Mrs. RVFTLC is still employed. But that means a lot less coming in monthly and the bills, surprisingly, do not go away. Nor are they cutting back what is owed due to the present RVFTLC situation.
The last time my employment situation was this bad was in the mid 1990s. I had to work temp jobs for about three years before I gained a permanent position and spent the last 15 years in the same industry for two different companies.
The reality is that in that era, there did become a stronger job market in the late 1990s. Thus while I was on a temporary assignment, I impressed the branch manager enough to attain a permanent position. That was being in the right place at the right time.
But now, even temp assignments do not get one's foot in the door. More and more companies use temps and do not hire them. For having a long or very long-term temp still cuts down on a company's overall costs vs. hiring a temp. It is why many employees have little if any loyalty to their companies and vice-versa.
It is easy to say that it is government policies that is the cause of this stubbornly high unemployment. Only to a point is that true. A lot of it is that in many cases, companies are doing things that seem to fly in the face of such a goal as customer service.
That is the case in my previous company.
We did medical exams for people applying for life, health and or disability insurance. We would get an order to complete medical requirements, send a California state licensed phlebotimist to collect the information and usually a blood draw and urine sample collection. Occasionally an additional requirement would include an electrocardiogram or EKG. Sometimes due to the age and amount an applicant was applying for, we would have to coordinate with an actual MD.
So first, our company thought, say, why don't we set up a system in which a computer would contact the applicant and if it was during business hours connect the applicant to a live person to schedule the appointment. Surprisingly, most of the time people complained because they did not like a computer generated call. And also, when prompted to connect, why it would disconnect the applicant rather than connect. The bottom line is that most people felt that we were harassing them like a bill collector. And yet whenever this issue was brought up to management, it was totally downplayed and we were assured that oh no, most of our agents and applicants love the system. Sorry, but that was not true.
Then they came up with another customer service idea.
That was to "encourage" people we were scheduling appointments for to come to a local office to complete the exam. Now we had four branch offices in Southern California. Those offices could do anything. But we also had satellite offices which were limited to collecting the blood, urine and completing basic physical measurements. Again, most people did not find it convenient to come to one of our branch and or satellite offices. Why should they when almost all of the time they were told we will be sending someone to their home and or work? Again, it was pointed out to management how hard it was to meet our quota but well, if one office can do it, all of us can.
The point that I am making is that what we were really trying to do is save money. Nothing wrong with it. But the way it was being done took away the customer service aspect of our business. And that is why I think are having problems in this nation in a field that can and should be vastly improved.
Technology is a wonderful thing. Advances are wonderful as well. But to have great customer service, you can't depend on automation. A company cannot keep outsourcing customer service jobs to India and expect people to be happy when calling and getting the feeling that person really doesn't care about your situation.
I'm not a Luddite about this. But there needs to be a balance that corporate America cannot seem to wrap their head around. That people make customer service. Until that is recognized by corporate America, people will not feel loyal to use that company. The employees will not feel loyalty if they are not seen as assets but a warm body. And the very people depending on technology to somehow be the best customer service, corporate America, will cause more and more resentment.
Thus it is harder to attain that kind of job today. But mine is not the only industry facing such things. Many others are as well. And many in many different fields.
When there is a balance of such things, then jobs will be easier for most Americans to attain.
Until then, for me, my State of the Union just sucks!
It has been seven months since I was unceremoniously asked to leave my last place of employment. I was not fired for anything but a company cutback and being the highest paid member of the staff after our branch manager.
I have been collecting unemployment during this time, but it is about to run out. In the meantime, I will probably have to resort to doing temp work, which is OK, but not wonderful.
So last night was the State of the Union speech by the Dear Leader, President Obama.
I admit, I did not watch the speech nor the official Republican response from Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wa.). I did not watch any other response either.
For you see, none of them asked me how the state of the union is. In fact, none of them know the RVFTLC abode's state of the union is. So I will answer that if they really care.
IT SUCKS!
I noted that I have been on unemployment and did get a fairly decent severance package from my past employer. But even with that combined, I essentially took a seven dollar an hour pay cut. And I am fortunate that Mrs. RVFTLC is still employed. But that means a lot less coming in monthly and the bills, surprisingly, do not go away. Nor are they cutting back what is owed due to the present RVFTLC situation.
The last time my employment situation was this bad was in the mid 1990s. I had to work temp jobs for about three years before I gained a permanent position and spent the last 15 years in the same industry for two different companies.
The reality is that in that era, there did become a stronger job market in the late 1990s. Thus while I was on a temporary assignment, I impressed the branch manager enough to attain a permanent position. That was being in the right place at the right time.
But now, even temp assignments do not get one's foot in the door. More and more companies use temps and do not hire them. For having a long or very long-term temp still cuts down on a company's overall costs vs. hiring a temp. It is why many employees have little if any loyalty to their companies and vice-versa.
It is easy to say that it is government policies that is the cause of this stubbornly high unemployment. Only to a point is that true. A lot of it is that in many cases, companies are doing things that seem to fly in the face of such a goal as customer service.
That is the case in my previous company.
We did medical exams for people applying for life, health and or disability insurance. We would get an order to complete medical requirements, send a California state licensed phlebotimist to collect the information and usually a blood draw and urine sample collection. Occasionally an additional requirement would include an electrocardiogram or EKG. Sometimes due to the age and amount an applicant was applying for, we would have to coordinate with an actual MD.
So first, our company thought, say, why don't we set up a system in which a computer would contact the applicant and if it was during business hours connect the applicant to a live person to schedule the appointment. Surprisingly, most of the time people complained because they did not like a computer generated call. And also, when prompted to connect, why it would disconnect the applicant rather than connect. The bottom line is that most people felt that we were harassing them like a bill collector. And yet whenever this issue was brought up to management, it was totally downplayed and we were assured that oh no, most of our agents and applicants love the system. Sorry, but that was not true.
Then they came up with another customer service idea.
That was to "encourage" people we were scheduling appointments for to come to a local office to complete the exam. Now we had four branch offices in Southern California. Those offices could do anything. But we also had satellite offices which were limited to collecting the blood, urine and completing basic physical measurements. Again, most people did not find it convenient to come to one of our branch and or satellite offices. Why should they when almost all of the time they were told we will be sending someone to their home and or work? Again, it was pointed out to management how hard it was to meet our quota but well, if one office can do it, all of us can.
The point that I am making is that what we were really trying to do is save money. Nothing wrong with it. But the way it was being done took away the customer service aspect of our business. And that is why I think are having problems in this nation in a field that can and should be vastly improved.
Technology is a wonderful thing. Advances are wonderful as well. But to have great customer service, you can't depend on automation. A company cannot keep outsourcing customer service jobs to India and expect people to be happy when calling and getting the feeling that person really doesn't care about your situation.
I'm not a Luddite about this. But there needs to be a balance that corporate America cannot seem to wrap their head around. That people make customer service. Until that is recognized by corporate America, people will not feel loyal to use that company. The employees will not feel loyalty if they are not seen as assets but a warm body. And the very people depending on technology to somehow be the best customer service, corporate America, will cause more and more resentment.
Thus it is harder to attain that kind of job today. But mine is not the only industry facing such things. Many others are as well. And many in many different fields.
When there is a balance of such things, then jobs will be easier for most Americans to attain.
Until then, for me, my State of the Union just sucks!
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
The DirecTV Weather Wars Heating Up
At the end of December, I wrote a post about a war of sorts between DirecTV and The Weather Channel over the proverbial rates that a network wants the provider to pay them to carry their network.
DirecTV responded with offering a network called Weather Nation and it has been on the air since about the week before Christmas.
As noted, The Weather Channel is now partially owned by NBCUniversal. And it is very personality driven. And there is not as much actual weather and a lot of filler programming.
Weather Nation is, essentially, what The Weather Channel was. All weather, all the time.
Now how do I know that The Weather Channel is scared?
Friend them on Facebook.
Here at this link, you can see that they are begging fans to call DirecTV to also beg them to keep The Weather Channel on the satellite provider. The Facebook post was done on Saturday and as of this posting, 2,472 liked it and 418 comments have been logged. I made a couple of them. I totally urge you to take a peek because if the comments are anything, there is not as much love for The Weather Channel as one would think.
And as of this morning, it is full blown war as DirectTV is not showing The Weather Channel.
Of course, The Weather Channel is saying that DirecTV "dropped" them. DirecTV says that they will not cave in to their demands to pay more for carrying The Weather Channel and having to pass it on to the consumer.
And get this.
David Kenny, CEO of parent company The Weather Co., wants congress to intervene to force DirecTV to put it back on the air. And the reason? Because it claims that it is the only source for 20,000,000 for emergency weather information.
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Sorry, I just spilled my coffee on that one.
It really is not at all.
As noted in this article, DirecTV spokesman Robert Mercer, points out that since there are local channels, they provide weather in an emergency. They also use special channels in the event of a major weather emergency and I know that first hand watching it during Katrina and other major hurricanes.
Mr. Mercer also noted the reason they put Weather Nation on in the first place is because viewers were complaining about the excess of shows vs. weather on The Weather Channel.
Again, judging by the numerous comments left on Facebook, many people will not care if The Weather Channel comes back in its current form.
The fact is that NBCUniversal screwed it up in the first place.
In reality they created personalities in many of the weather reporters such as Jim Cantore. And once they cut back on actual weather programming, many people (myself included) did not like it. Even the so-called Local On The 8's was jumbled and often not all that local. Again, The Weather Channel is citing local coverage as a reason DirecTV needs to get them back on the air.
In the end, The Weather Channel will have to back down if they want to get back on DirecTV. Many DirecTV viewers have given Weather Nation two-thumbs up, myself included. The longer this dispute goes on, the less likely The Weather Channel will recover once it comes back on.
The other aspect is as Weather Nation gains in popularity, other cable/satellite providers may take a look at it and get that as a part of their channel line-up. Those of us that have come to like Weather Nation over The Weather Channel will be very upset if DirecTV dumps them if they do get The Weather Channel back. Again as I noted in my earlier post on the subject, if all works out and The Weather Channel returns, it should be in competition with Weather Nation. Again, there are three news networks. Two sports networks. With competition, The Weather Channel may return to its roots. If not, they will think that we like all the shows and really don't care about the weather.
In the meantime, it is an all out weather war between The Weather Channel and Weather Nation.
Pass the popcorn for this one!
DirecTV responded with offering a network called Weather Nation and it has been on the air since about the week before Christmas.
As noted, The Weather Channel is now partially owned by NBCUniversal. And it is very personality driven. And there is not as much actual weather and a lot of filler programming.
Weather Nation is, essentially, what The Weather Channel was. All weather, all the time.
Now how do I know that The Weather Channel is scared?
Friend them on Facebook.
Here at this link, you can see that they are begging fans to call DirecTV to also beg them to keep The Weather Channel on the satellite provider. The Facebook post was done on Saturday and as of this posting, 2,472 liked it and 418 comments have been logged. I made a couple of them. I totally urge you to take a peek because if the comments are anything, there is not as much love for The Weather Channel as one would think.
And as of this morning, it is full blown war as DirectTV is not showing The Weather Channel.
Of course, The Weather Channel is saying that DirecTV "dropped" them. DirecTV says that they will not cave in to their demands to pay more for carrying The Weather Channel and having to pass it on to the consumer.
And get this.
David Kenny, CEO of parent company The Weather Co., wants congress to intervene to force DirecTV to put it back on the air. And the reason? Because it claims that it is the only source for 20,000,000 for emergency weather information.
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
Sorry, I just spilled my coffee on that one.
It really is not at all.
As noted in this article, DirecTV spokesman Robert Mercer, points out that since there are local channels, they provide weather in an emergency. They also use special channels in the event of a major weather emergency and I know that first hand watching it during Katrina and other major hurricanes.
Mr. Mercer also noted the reason they put Weather Nation on in the first place is because viewers were complaining about the excess of shows vs. weather on The Weather Channel.
Again, judging by the numerous comments left on Facebook, many people will not care if The Weather Channel comes back in its current form.
The fact is that NBCUniversal screwed it up in the first place.
In reality they created personalities in many of the weather reporters such as Jim Cantore. And once they cut back on actual weather programming, many people (myself included) did not like it. Even the so-called Local On The 8's was jumbled and often not all that local. Again, The Weather Channel is citing local coverage as a reason DirecTV needs to get them back on the air.
In the end, The Weather Channel will have to back down if they want to get back on DirecTV. Many DirecTV viewers have given Weather Nation two-thumbs up, myself included. The longer this dispute goes on, the less likely The Weather Channel will recover once it comes back on.
The other aspect is as Weather Nation gains in popularity, other cable/satellite providers may take a look at it and get that as a part of their channel line-up. Those of us that have come to like Weather Nation over The Weather Channel will be very upset if DirecTV dumps them if they do get The Weather Channel back. Again as I noted in my earlier post on the subject, if all works out and The Weather Channel returns, it should be in competition with Weather Nation. Again, there are three news networks. Two sports networks. With competition, The Weather Channel may return to its roots. If not, they will think that we like all the shows and really don't care about the weather.
In the meantime, it is an all out weather war between The Weather Channel and Weather Nation.
Pass the popcorn for this one!
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Hey Conservatives, Don't Worry But Bridgegate Is Not The Reason Chris Christie Will Not Be President
Yes, it is the absolute scandal of the 21st century that a New Jersey politician and or underlings might create a traffic nightmare on one of the most travelled bridges in the United States.
Why it is such a scandal, The Politico website is providing this handy dandy guide to what is being now dubbed "Bridgegate"
And the reason that this has risen to such unreal proportions is because there is speculation that the Republican governor, Chris Christie, was the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll force behind "Bridgegate".
And a little primer on Gov. Christie.
He is a Republican governor in pretty Blue New Jersey. He squeaked out a victory in 2009 over then scandal-plagued Democrat governor, John Corzine. But last year, a popular Gov. Christie won a reelection landslide over Democrat state senator, Barbara Buono. And even before that he was touted, especially by Republican insiders and RINO* types to be the savior for the GOP in the 2016 presidential race. And secretly, some Democrats kind of like him too.
For those of us on the conservative side, we see that as a shot across the bow. The great, endless battle between the RINOs and the True Believer conservatives.
But this Bridgegate, should it be able to be traced back to Gov. Christie's direct knowledge if not OK, that is it for his chances should he choose to run for the GOP nomination.
Well, no matter the outcome for Gov. Christie and or the New Jersey GOP, he will not be the Republican nominee for president in 2016.
I can assure that fact because the only reason he has any lead at this point is because of the leftywhore media attention that was favorable until now.
Most Republicans are no different than most Democrats in the respect that they do not like being told who will be or not the nominee.
If you do not believe me on that, how's President Hillary Clinton doin? Yep, I thought so.
Republicans don't like being told, but the right can not unite behind one candidate in enough time to stop the perceived RINO. That worked to both Sen. John "F--- You" McCain's advantage and former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, as well.
After two disappointing elections, Republicans look to unite behind a solid, winning conservative next time around. Sure there are as many as 20 names being bandied about at this point. But after the 2014 mid-term elections, count on that list being winnowed down to probably about 10 or less that are viable enough to even mount much of a campaign. I do believe that this time the right is not going to let a media favorite get the nomination again.
I received an e-mail from the Republican National Committee yesterday asking for the top three I would like to see win the GOP nomination. There were 32 names. Thirty frickin two names. And my top three surprised me. One, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), two, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) and Gov. Mike Pence (R-In.).
Gov. Mike Pence?!
I surprised myself on that one. But his record is awesome in Indiana. And he, unlike many in the race, can handle a hostile leftywhore media.
I have been thinking that overall, Gov. Jindal is the best of the governors. He is totally reform minded and has been able to carry out some reform in Louisiana. He has also made the GOP the governing party in Louisiana.
A lot of people suspect that Sen. Rubio is a RINO in the making, but not I.
Give him a break on seeking so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform, OK? I was one that wrote on more than one occasion this is an issue that I thought he would do well on. But he could not break through RINOs Sens. Lindsay Goober Graham and "F--- You" McCain that want what amounts to open borders. What counts is that in the end, he balked and walked away.
He is not a RINO in the making. He has a solid conservative record in the senate. Last that I checked, a 100% ACU rating is as good as it gets.
Now before anyone thinks the RINOs are going to line up behind Gov. Christie, they have other candidates so they are not all that united as one thinks. A lot like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. I actually overall like him. But sorry, the 2016 clarion call has to be No More Bushes!
Now I think Gov. Christie is a good governor for New Jersey. And as a Republican about as good as it gets. But the problem is that the base of the GOP is no longer the Northeast and or New York and or New Jersey. It is not a base that sweeps social issues under the rug. It could not with Rudy Giuliani, much as some tried, and is not here. But tone does matter.
In an epic 107 minute press conference this past Thursday, Gov. Christie numerous times had to say that he was not a bully. One of the reasons is that at times, he put people in their place that were, yes, asking the governor leading questions and the like.
My friends, THAT is why Gov. Christie will not be the Republican nominee in 2016. Like it or not, people will not vote for a candidate that is seen as blustery or even a bully in politically correct America, 2014 and certainly 2016.
One of the things that the '08 campaign exposed in varying degrees is that Sen. "F--- You" McCain was not a nice guy. You just got the feeling that he was ready to explode at any moment. And sometimes the sarcastic answers were a release. Sen. "F--- You" McCain was the charecteture of the hostile, angry White man. Add an extra 150 pounds, give or take, and there is Gov. Christie.
Again, those theatrics work in New Jersey to a certain degree. And yes, quite possibly some over zealous aides would coordinate some lane closures in a town that the mayor, a Democrat, decided he would not back Gov. Christie's reelection last year. There is something just so mafioso about whoever is in the governor's office there. Sorry, I'm not denigrating Italians broadly. I mean the tactics politicians use for their own means to an end.
So I don't think that Republicans should get all worked up over this kerfuffle with Gov. Christie. He will survive Bridgegate. But he will not be the GOP presidential nominee in 2016.
*RINO-Republican In Name Only.
Why it is such a scandal, The Politico website is providing this handy dandy guide to what is being now dubbed "Bridgegate"
And the reason that this has risen to such unreal proportions is because there is speculation that the Republican governor, Chris Christie, was the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll force behind "Bridgegate".
And a little primer on Gov. Christie.
He is a Republican governor in pretty Blue New Jersey. He squeaked out a victory in 2009 over then scandal-plagued Democrat governor, John Corzine. But last year, a popular Gov. Christie won a reelection landslide over Democrat state senator, Barbara Buono. And even before that he was touted, especially by Republican insiders and RINO* types to be the savior for the GOP in the 2016 presidential race. And secretly, some Democrats kind of like him too.
For those of us on the conservative side, we see that as a shot across the bow. The great, endless battle between the RINOs and the True Believer conservatives.
But this Bridgegate, should it be able to be traced back to Gov. Christie's direct knowledge if not OK, that is it for his chances should he choose to run for the GOP nomination.
Well, no matter the outcome for Gov. Christie and or the New Jersey GOP, he will not be the Republican nominee for president in 2016.
I can assure that fact because the only reason he has any lead at this point is because of the leftywhore media attention that was favorable until now.
Most Republicans are no different than most Democrats in the respect that they do not like being told who will be or not the nominee.
If you do not believe me on that, how's President Hillary Clinton doin? Yep, I thought so.
Republicans don't like being told, but the right can not unite behind one candidate in enough time to stop the perceived RINO. That worked to both Sen. John "F--- You" McCain's advantage and former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, as well.
After two disappointing elections, Republicans look to unite behind a solid, winning conservative next time around. Sure there are as many as 20 names being bandied about at this point. But after the 2014 mid-term elections, count on that list being winnowed down to probably about 10 or less that are viable enough to even mount much of a campaign. I do believe that this time the right is not going to let a media favorite get the nomination again.
I received an e-mail from the Republican National Committee yesterday asking for the top three I would like to see win the GOP nomination. There were 32 names. Thirty frickin two names. And my top three surprised me. One, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), two, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) and Gov. Mike Pence (R-In.).
Gov. Mike Pence?!
I surprised myself on that one. But his record is awesome in Indiana. And he, unlike many in the race, can handle a hostile leftywhore media.
I have been thinking that overall, Gov. Jindal is the best of the governors. He is totally reform minded and has been able to carry out some reform in Louisiana. He has also made the GOP the governing party in Louisiana.
A lot of people suspect that Sen. Rubio is a RINO in the making, but not I.
Give him a break on seeking so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform, OK? I was one that wrote on more than one occasion this is an issue that I thought he would do well on. But he could not break through RINOs Sens. Lindsay Goober Graham and "F--- You" McCain that want what amounts to open borders. What counts is that in the end, he balked and walked away.
He is not a RINO in the making. He has a solid conservative record in the senate. Last that I checked, a 100% ACU rating is as good as it gets.
Now before anyone thinks the RINOs are going to line up behind Gov. Christie, they have other candidates so they are not all that united as one thinks. A lot like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. I actually overall like him. But sorry, the 2016 clarion call has to be No More Bushes!
Now I think Gov. Christie is a good governor for New Jersey. And as a Republican about as good as it gets. But the problem is that the base of the GOP is no longer the Northeast and or New York and or New Jersey. It is not a base that sweeps social issues under the rug. It could not with Rudy Giuliani, much as some tried, and is not here. But tone does matter.
In an epic 107 minute press conference this past Thursday, Gov. Christie numerous times had to say that he was not a bully. One of the reasons is that at times, he put people in their place that were, yes, asking the governor leading questions and the like.
My friends, THAT is why Gov. Christie will not be the Republican nominee in 2016. Like it or not, people will not vote for a candidate that is seen as blustery or even a bully in politically correct America, 2014 and certainly 2016.
One of the things that the '08 campaign exposed in varying degrees is that Sen. "F--- You" McCain was not a nice guy. You just got the feeling that he was ready to explode at any moment. And sometimes the sarcastic answers were a release. Sen. "F--- You" McCain was the charecteture of the hostile, angry White man. Add an extra 150 pounds, give or take, and there is Gov. Christie.
Again, those theatrics work in New Jersey to a certain degree. And yes, quite possibly some over zealous aides would coordinate some lane closures in a town that the mayor, a Democrat, decided he would not back Gov. Christie's reelection last year. There is something just so mafioso about whoever is in the governor's office there. Sorry, I'm not denigrating Italians broadly. I mean the tactics politicians use for their own means to an end.
So I don't think that Republicans should get all worked up over this kerfuffle with Gov. Christie. He will survive Bridgegate. But he will not be the GOP presidential nominee in 2016.
*RINO-Republican In Name Only.
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
Men, In Case You Missed It, We Are ALL Rapists
As I mentioned in my previous new year post, this is a sign of societal devolution, but according to Radical Wind, aka Witch Wind, we male of the human species are ALL rapists.
In the link, Miss Witch Wind starts off with the obvious:
Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.
Uh, what is PIV you asked?
OK I think its actually safe for work.
Penis in vagina.
Until I read the blog post last week, I sort of heard about this way, way, way over at the beyond fever swamps. And yet, thanks to Miss Witch Wind, its has moved just to the way over beyond the fever swamp.
Oh, how am I certain to refer to her as Miss Witch Wind? Come on, you really have to ask?
But she actually does raise some interesting thoughts.
Do we men really coerce a girl from the earliest of ages possible that having sexual relations with a male is wonderful? Well, according to Miss Witch Wind, why that is exactly what us eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll men do:
There's a reason men need to groom us into it: and why this grooming takes so long-because it is grossly violating an traumitising that we would otherwise never submit to intercourse. The only reason we may now not feel or have the impression that we desired or initiated PIV, is because men broke down our barriers very skillfully and progressively from birth, breaking down our natural defences to pain and invasion, our confidence in our own perceptions and sensations of fear and disgust that tell us male sexual invasion painful, harmful and traumatic.
I suspect that Miss Witch Wind is English judging by her use of the Queen's English in the above.
Yes, we eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll men have from the beginning of time have essentially lied to women to get our rocks off, to be blunt.
There is a lot to ask here.
So, Miss Witch Wind, how should a woman engage in sex? I am to assume that only with each other. Because there is absolutely no way that a woman-to-woman relationship would be painful, harmful and or traumatic, right?
Sorry for the graphicness, but a question for Miss Witch Wind and her followers.
Is there never any insertion into the vagina in woman-to-woman sex? Do women not use hands, fingers, sexual toys? And if there is, well does it not cause pain? Is not potentially harmful? And if it is with the wrong woman, can it not be traumatic?
Let me backup and let Miss Witch Wind explain why it is awful, just awful for women to engage in sex with men:
First, well sex is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the the unilateral penetration of the penis in the woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not - which is the definition of rape: that he will do it anyway and that he uses as a recepticle, in all circumstances - it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments of penetration, and women are dehumanized by this act. It is an act of violence.
UGH! Where, where to begin?
My serious thought is that Miss Witch Wind was really raped and that traumatized her about sex for the rest of her life. But I do not know for she does not state anything like that in this piece. So I guess I can't write that with certainty.
So let me try some other things to figure this out.
Miss Witch Wind clearly does not grasp real rape. Yes, sex is not rape as Miss Witch Wind describes it.
Here is the Oxford dictionary definition of rape (as a verb):
(especially of a man) force (another person) with the offender against their will.
Note a couple of things.
While it does define rape as especially done by men, it is not limited to men. It is not limited to gender. It against the other person's will.
Sorry Miss Witch Wind, whether it is through the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll men "grooming" from a young age women or just the natural reality of something along the lines of procreation and or yes, sexual gratification, most women, heterosexual, homosexual, trannies, like and enjoy sex so long as they are not forced to do any act that they do not want to. The blanket statement in the beginning, that all penis-in-vagina sex is rape is kind of, no totally, stupid. Does Miss Witch Wind not realize that men in prison rape other men? And it is almost always rape. It is not sexual in so much as it is about power. The big guys in the prison need to continue their aggressive behavior and they look for what they suspect is a weak link. Once they figure it out, they get their mark and, against that man's will, forcibly penetrate him. Oh, and women can do the same thing to other women and yes, men.
Miss Witch Wind goes on to realize, grudgingly, that some women want that penis to penetrate them. Yet those women are just not aware that, well no matter what they are being raped. The women, that claims to enjoy it, well if you only knew.
Here is something for Miss Witch Wind.
Let's see, I will assume that you were conceived in the traditional way. A manraped penetration a woman and the sperm hit the egg and nine months later, you came into this world. Well, we are mammals. As mammals, the only way, until about 30 years ago, to procreate the species was to have sex. A penis had to penetrate a vagina and, well you know the rest. Only the human mammal has the ability to control whether or no children are the result of sex. There is birth control. There is abortion. There is now artificial insemination. If we followed Miss Witch Wind's logic, it would not take long for the human species, woman and men, go the way of the dinosaur.
But wait! Miss Witch Wind does have a suggestion for that icky penis penetration for pregnancy.
Unfortunately, you have to read in the sycophantic comments to find her solution, but I'll save you the trouble:
For instance, putting sperm on the vulva is enough to become pregnant.
And this is just funny:
Women, if they wanted to become pregnant, could just ask a man for sperm and apply it herself.
Yeah, I'm sure a woman is just gonna go to some guy, maybe a close friend, and ask, "Say,
So, she seems to be down with artificial insemination. But again, she's not down with being pregnant. And I think you just need to read that yourselves in the comments.
Oh, darn! Once this post exploded on the conservative blogosphere, Miss Witch Wind decided to close the comments. But go ahead and read em anyhow. They are as mind bending as the post itself.
Miss Witch Wind defines herself as a radical feminist or radfem. No, really?!
To me, this is the end result of what radfem leads to. The total hatred of men. The thought that the male of the species is so conspiratorial that we could have pulled this off. Of course there is the ignorance of the mammal aspect that allowed her to be a part of this world in the first place.
What is totally missing from this screed is what I believe is important in all relationships to one degree or another.
Love.
Sure, Miss Witch Wind talks about the mechanics only. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yet as a Christian, this biblical verse explains the meaning of love between a man and a woman.
In the gospel of Mark (10:8), Jesus Christ explains that a man will leave his family, marry a woman and that the two become one. There is no differences of gender. While historically, men have abused this, through studying of the Holy Bible we come to realize that men and women are equal. Genetically, they are not. But if a man and woman is in a mutually loving relationship, ideally marriage, then sexual relations are not some act of violence but a man and a woman showing true to to each other. If it is a mutually loving relationship, if a woman does not want a man to do something in the sexual act, the man will not do so.
What I fear is that many women who attend college will be influenced by such quackery. Do not think it does not happen. It is not serious thinking but fear-mongering. Fear-mongering that can not be totally dealt with by men but by women. Thus I appeal to thinking women to counter this quackery.
For I speak for most men. We are not rapists!
In the link, Miss Witch Wind starts off with the obvious:
Just to recall a basic fact: Intercourse/PIV is always rape, plain and simple.
Uh, what is PIV you asked?
OK I think its actually safe for work.
Penis in vagina.
Until I read the blog post last week, I sort of heard about this way, way, way over at the beyond fever swamps. And yet, thanks to Miss Witch Wind, its has moved just to the way over beyond the fever swamp.
Oh, how am I certain to refer to her as Miss Witch Wind? Come on, you really have to ask?
But she actually does raise some interesting thoughts.
Do we men really coerce a girl from the earliest of ages possible that having sexual relations with a male is wonderful? Well, according to Miss Witch Wind, why that is exactly what us eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll men do:
There's a reason men need to groom us into it: and why this grooming takes so long-because it is grossly violating an traumitising that we would otherwise never submit to intercourse. The only reason we may now not feel or have the impression that we desired or initiated PIV, is because men broke down our barriers very skillfully and progressively from birth, breaking down our natural defences to pain and invasion, our confidence in our own perceptions and sensations of fear and disgust that tell us male sexual invasion painful, harmful and traumatic.
I suspect that Miss Witch Wind is English judging by her use of the Queen's English in the above.
Yes, we eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll men have from the beginning of time have essentially lied to women to get our rocks off, to be blunt.
There is a lot to ask here.
So, Miss Witch Wind, how should a woman engage in sex? I am to assume that only with each other. Because there is absolutely no way that a woman-to-woman relationship would be painful, harmful and or traumatic, right?
Sorry for the graphicness, but a question for Miss Witch Wind and her followers.
Is there never any insertion into the vagina in woman-to-woman sex? Do women not use hands, fingers, sexual toys? And if there is, well does it not cause pain? Is not potentially harmful? And if it is with the wrong woman, can it not be traumatic?
Let me backup and let Miss Witch Wind explain why it is awful, just awful for women to engage in sex with men:
First, well sex is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the the unilateral penetration of the penis in the woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not - which is the definition of rape: that he will do it anyway and that he uses as a recepticle, in all circumstances - it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments of penetration, and women are dehumanized by this act. It is an act of violence.
UGH! Where, where to begin?
My serious thought is that Miss Witch Wind was really raped and that traumatized her about sex for the rest of her life. But I do not know for she does not state anything like that in this piece. So I guess I can't write that with certainty.
So let me try some other things to figure this out.
Miss Witch Wind clearly does not grasp real rape. Yes, sex is not rape as Miss Witch Wind describes it.
Here is the Oxford dictionary definition of rape (as a verb):
(especially of a man) force (another person) with the offender against their will.
Note a couple of things.
While it does define rape as especially done by men, it is not limited to men. It is not limited to gender. It against the other person's will.
Sorry Miss Witch Wind, whether it is through the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll men "grooming" from a young age women or just the natural reality of something along the lines of procreation and or yes, sexual gratification, most women, heterosexual, homosexual, trannies, like and enjoy sex so long as they are not forced to do any act that they do not want to. The blanket statement in the beginning, that all penis-in-vagina sex is rape is kind of, no totally, stupid. Does Miss Witch Wind not realize that men in prison rape other men? And it is almost always rape. It is not sexual in so much as it is about power. The big guys in the prison need to continue their aggressive behavior and they look for what they suspect is a weak link. Once they figure it out, they get their mark and, against that man's will, forcibly penetrate him. Oh, and women can do the same thing to other women and yes, men.
Miss Witch Wind goes on to realize, grudgingly, that some women want that penis to penetrate them. Yet those women are just not aware that, well no matter what they are being raped. The women, that claims to enjoy it, well if you only knew.
Here is something for Miss Witch Wind.
Let's see, I will assume that you were conceived in the traditional way. A man
But wait! Miss Witch Wind does have a suggestion for that icky penis penetration for pregnancy.
Unfortunately, you have to read in the sycophantic comments to find her solution, but I'll save you the trouble:
For instance, putting sperm on the vulva is enough to become pregnant.
And this is just funny:
Women, if they wanted to become pregnant, could just ask a man for sperm and apply it herself.
Yeah, I'm sure a woman is just gonna go to some guy, maybe a close friend, and ask, "Say,
So, she seems to be down with artificial insemination. But again, she's not down with being pregnant. And I think you just need to read that yourselves in the comments.
Oh, darn! Once this post exploded on the conservative blogosphere, Miss Witch Wind decided to close the comments. But go ahead and read em anyhow. They are as mind bending as the post itself.
Miss Witch Wind defines herself as a radical feminist or radfem. No, really?!
To me, this is the end result of what radfem leads to. The total hatred of men. The thought that the male of the species is so conspiratorial that we could have pulled this off. Of course there is the ignorance of the mammal aspect that allowed her to be a part of this world in the first place.
What is totally missing from this screed is what I believe is important in all relationships to one degree or another.
Love.
Sure, Miss Witch Wind talks about the mechanics only. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yet as a Christian, this biblical verse explains the meaning of love between a man and a woman.
In the gospel of Mark (10:8), Jesus Christ explains that a man will leave his family, marry a woman and that the two become one. There is no differences of gender. While historically, men have abused this, through studying of the Holy Bible we come to realize that men and women are equal. Genetically, they are not. But if a man and woman is in a mutually loving relationship, ideally marriage, then sexual relations are not some act of violence but a man and a woman showing true to to each other. If it is a mutually loving relationship, if a woman does not want a man to do something in the sexual act, the man will not do so.
What I fear is that many women who attend college will be influenced by such quackery. Do not think it does not happen. It is not serious thinking but fear-mongering. Fear-mongering that can not be totally dealt with by men but by women. Thus I appeal to thinking women to counter this quackery.
For I speak for most men. We are not rapists!
Monday, January 06, 2014
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
OK, I know that I am six days late with it, but seeing that this is the first full work week of 2014, why not?
This is going to be a very interesting year in many ways.
For one, God willing, I will attain gainful employment. I will let you know that progress.
Another is that this will continue to be another year, I am afraid, of societal devolution.
Yeah, I know that Rush Limbaugh refers to it as societal evolution, but when you read what follows, I am sure that most of you will agree that devolution is more like it.
Politics is going to be as it has become. 24/7/365. Sadly. Because this is the last mid-term elections of the reign of the Dear Leader, President Obama, it will be what focuses the nation. One way or another, change is going to occur and I will be there to pontificate.
No, no predictions this year. What is the point? It seems that I am possibly just thinking predictions are going to come to pass about 3.5 out of 10 times. And how many times can I do the "I told you so"?
So here is to a Happy and Prosperous New Year for all.
This is going to be a very interesting year in many ways.
For one, God willing, I will attain gainful employment. I will let you know that progress.
Another is that this will continue to be another year, I am afraid, of societal devolution.
Yeah, I know that Rush Limbaugh refers to it as societal evolution, but when you read what follows, I am sure that most of you will agree that devolution is more like it.
Politics is going to be as it has become. 24/7/365. Sadly. Because this is the last mid-term elections of the reign of the Dear Leader, President Obama, it will be what focuses the nation. One way or another, change is going to occur and I will be there to pontificate.
No, no predictions this year. What is the point? It seems that I am possibly just thinking predictions are going to come to pass about 3.5 out of 10 times. And how many times can I do the "I told you so"?
So here is to a Happy and Prosperous New Year for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)