Last night a little after 9:00 pm, there was a rolling reminder that living in California means I live in Earthquake Country.
It was one of those kind of quakes that was long and rolling. Not a jolt at all. It was enough to wake up the doggies (no, they did not warn us in advance!) and make Mrs. RVFTLC say a nice "Oh oh!"
I just sat in my recliner realizing it was not going to be much larger.
As it turned out, it was originally graded a 5.4 quake. About a half-hour later it was downgraded to a 5.1. And it did cause some damage and there were a lot of aftershocks. Most importantly, no one was killed.
But it is a stark reminder that pretty much the whole West coast of the United States, Canada and especially Alaska is part of the Pacific Ring Of Fire in which earthquakes and volcanoes are a regular part of life.
The fact is that at some point, possibly in my life time, there will be a severe and major earthquake that will hit in the Los Angeles area. It will be more than likely catastrophic. It will be the worst natural disaster to hit the United States. It could happen in San Diego. Or San Francisco. Possibly Portland, Oregon. A real doozy would be if it happened in or near Seattle.
But while there will be widespread carnage, mayhem, buildings collapsed, fires beyond control, water main breaks, gas lines exploded, and many dead and injured, many more will survive.
It is how we survive and what we can and should do to be prepared that I want to write about here.
While I will be emphasising earthquakes, much of this can be for any event such as a hurricane, tornado or any other natural and even non-natural calamity.
The most important thing to do is to always be familiar with your surroundings. A big quake could happen while you are at work or possibly at a sporting event whether at an indoor arena or outdoor stadium. But the overwhelming chances are that it will happen while you are at home.
So let's start with what to do for home preparedness.
This is very important but make sure that you know where your gas line is and turn it off immediately. Do the same for your water. If you are an apartment dweller, make sure that everyone knows where all of that important stuff is.
Since this is based on you and loved ones being at your abode, make sure all are accounted for and all right. Same thing for your pets. That is why it is preferable to keep your pets indoors.
Once you have done that, more than likely your power will be out. Again, we are talking WCS-worst case scenario. If it is at night, it is imperative to make sure to have both a big supply of candles and working flashlights. While you will have done steps one and two, now you must check to see if there is any structural damage. More than likely, you will have cracks in the walls at the very least. But your home could be off the foundation and that means get the hell out of Dodge. It is very much unsafe at that point. If you do an quick but thorough assessment and all is relatively OK, here is step four.
Find your Earthquake (or other disaster) Survival Kit.
It is very important to have your kit, or kits and I will explain kits in a bit, in an easily accessible place. You will need it or them quickly after disaster strikes.
So you ask, what do I need in my kit(s)? How long should I prepare for having no power, phone or gas services?
Here is what I recommend.
While this website does recommend to have food, supplies and water for at least 72 hours, I recommend at least one week. If you think that is too long, may I point out the disaster that was Hurricane Katrina? You are dealing with a WCS. All the government services will be stretched as soon as disaster strikes.
And I think that while there are excellent kits available at retailers and online, it is better to build your own kit.
So the Federal Emergency and Management Agency recommends to have at least these in your kit. I think that most of what is listed is all good to have. But some of it should be separated out.
I really recommend that you should have a separate pet kit. We have two dogs and both are healthy. But I think that if you have both people and dog emergency stuff in one bag, it creates more work than necessary. This is very helpful information provided by the ASPCA. The most important thing that is not on their list but the most obvious is food and water. Try to have a week's supply of their regular dog food and water, probably err on the side of more water and even food if necessary. They will be nervous because they will not be in their usual routine and dogs especially are creatures of habit.
So, what about that people kit? What about food and water for us? And what about our medications?
Let's start with the medicine first. Try to get your doctor and insurance company to provide at least an extra week's worth. If the insurance is informed that it is for emergency preparedness, that should not be a problem. But, here is something dicey. What if you have medicine that needs to be kept cool like insulin? In reality, you can keep insulin at room temperature for at least 28 days. So more than likely once the disaster happens and the power goes out, one of the last things to do is to check the fridge and get the kind of stuff like insulin out and put with the other medicines in your kit.
So the food that one should have is probably some freeze-dried, high protein food. Again, it should be enough to last at least a week. The infamous MREs or Meals Ready to Eat are available at Amazon.com. Also there is camping/freeze dried food usually available at a sporting goods store. Sports Chalet is a good one in the So Cal area. But if you don't mind a wait there is a fully prepared option available at Cheaper Than Dirt. I like this option because it covers at least a week and beyond.
That is why I believe building your own kit is best. Because you can tailor-make it to suit your needs.
And make sure to have at least water, enough for two weeks no matter what. And the same for the medical supplies portion.
Definitely have all different sizes of Band-aids, a couple of rolls of gauze, scissors, anti-biotic cream, wet-wipes that will clean an area where you may be cut. This is a good guide to build on or if you choose to buy.
I noted that you should have at least a kit for people and a kit for pets. But you should also have at least a rudimentary emergency kit in your car. That can be the 72 hour one. You can and should also have the pet stuff in that one. If you are all out in the car when disaster strikes, it may take quite a while to get home.
All of this is not meant to panic anyone. This is the reality of living in Earthquake Country. We all must be prepared. And we have to be realistic. That means do not count on the fire department, paramedics and or police and or National Guard to get to your area. And here is something to keep in mind. If you live in a higher-income area, that will be where they go. Also to the business districts. If you live in a lower-class area or Lower Slobovia, more than likely you already have the survival instinct in you. THAT is where people will survive. But long-term survival means adding supplies to make sure you are not a total victim.
Last night was a reminder that we all need to be prepared. This is a little reminder and a hope that someone will think about it and get ready.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Reason 3,242,951 Why Homeschooling Is Better
It seems like there is at least a story a day that makes me, a product of public education, reject that time-honored American institution and this story is no different.
Yes, it is the crime of the century what this nine-year old girl did.
She, she . . .shaved her head to support her friend who is battling cancer.
But the educrats, well the educrats have rules against any form of individuality. Even if it is in this case, to show love and support for a friend. It's not some new punker-chick look. It's showing solidarity.
Understand that Caprock Academy is a public charter school. This is not some private school that can implement rules willy-nilly. So this is the school dress code for the gals and the point of the transgression:
Ladies’ Hair: Should be neatly combed or styled. No shaved heads. Hair accessories must be red, white, navy, black or brown. Neat barrettes, headbands and “scrunchies” are permissible. Hair should not be arranged or colored so as to draw undue attention to the student. Hair must be natural looking and conservative in its color. Radical changes in hair color during the school year are unacceptable
I understand that the rules are in place for a reason. And yes, we can't make exceptions all the time. But I should think that in this case, the school should have not been so hard and in fact so punitive as to make her stand on the playground. Why that will teach her to do the most horrible, most horrible thing as to shave her head, with her parent's permission, to show love and support for a friend who is going through the most awful thing any nine-year old can go through.
When you read the whole mind-numbing rules for the gals, there is actually a simple approach that the school can take that would sort of make such an issue moot.
Just have a standard uniform.
Many private schools, especially Roman Catholic schools, and quite a few public schools do have school uniforms.
But that is another issue for another post.
This case owes the probable positive outcome to social media.
This story went viral and no doubt puts a great school in the most unpositive light.
Without a doubt, this would not have been an issue if the school did not dissmiss the fact that the mother of Kamryn (no last name provided) sent an e-mail that she did give permission and why it was done. A great deal of latitude was needed. But nooooo! The rules are the rules. No exceptions.
More than likely after a meeting of the school board today, they will make the exception and allow Kamryn to be in school and show solidarity with her friend, Delaney, who will be undergoing chemotherapy.
This is the madness of public education.
A set of rules are put in place for the students so that the overall educational experience will be good for the students, teachers, administrators and the parents.
But sometimes, situational awareness and good judgement needs to be used. This was one where that should have come in the picture.
The problem is that the rules are used to exonerate those in charge from having to actually think out of the box. Thus all that is given is "rules are rules and there are no exceptions" when a little investigating should have made this a non issue. In fact, in lefty, educratspeak, this should have been a teachable moment.
What is the teachable moment?
It is what Delaney said to the Fox 31 Denver reporter:
“I was really excited I would have somebody to support me and I wouldn’t be alone with people always laughing at me. I would at least have somebody to go through it all.”
Can you imagine that Delaney, all of nine-years old not only has to face the ravages of chemotherapy, but will be mocked at because of the hair loss that is connected with chemotherapy.
In reality, the school board should encourage other students, boys and girls, to show support if their parents allowed and they wanted to do so by shaving their heads.
Now, let me suggest that if the girls were home schooled, this would never be an issue.
When we aggregate so many issues that occur in public schools all over the United States, it seems to solidify the case for homeschooling. Or at the very least private education alternatives.
Again, as a product of public education, it is painful to write such a thing. But so much has changed in the 32 years since I graduated Schurr High School in Montebello, California. And the changes strike me as not a positive thing.
School should not be like a prison. It should be where young people are taught not what to think but how to think. Not to fall back on rules when problem solving is sometimes more correct.
But in the modern Educrat Industrial Complex, rules are important at the expense of students. And that is why I keep leaning to homeschooling as a serious alternative.
Yes, it is the crime of the century what this nine-year old girl did.
She, she . . .shaved her head to support her friend who is battling cancer.
But the educrats, well the educrats have rules against any form of individuality. Even if it is in this case, to show love and support for a friend. It's not some new punker-chick look. It's showing solidarity.
Understand that Caprock Academy is a public charter school. This is not some private school that can implement rules willy-nilly. So this is the school dress code for the gals and the point of the transgression:
Ladies’ Hair: Should be neatly combed or styled. No shaved heads. Hair accessories must be red, white, navy, black or brown. Neat barrettes, headbands and “scrunchies” are permissible. Hair should not be arranged or colored so as to draw undue attention to the student. Hair must be natural looking and conservative in its color. Radical changes in hair color during the school year are unacceptable
I understand that the rules are in place for a reason. And yes, we can't make exceptions all the time. But I should think that in this case, the school should have not been so hard and in fact so punitive as to make her stand on the playground. Why that will teach her to do the most horrible, most horrible thing as to shave her head, with her parent's permission, to show love and support for a friend who is going through the most awful thing any nine-year old can go through.
When you read the whole mind-numbing rules for the gals, there is actually a simple approach that the school can take that would sort of make such an issue moot.
Just have a standard uniform.
Many private schools, especially Roman Catholic schools, and quite a few public schools do have school uniforms.
But that is another issue for another post.
This case owes the probable positive outcome to social media.
This story went viral and no doubt puts a great school in the most unpositive light.
Without a doubt, this would not have been an issue if the school did not dissmiss the fact that the mother of Kamryn (no last name provided) sent an e-mail that she did give permission and why it was done. A great deal of latitude was needed. But nooooo! The rules are the rules. No exceptions.
More than likely after a meeting of the school board today, they will make the exception and allow Kamryn to be in school and show solidarity with her friend, Delaney, who will be undergoing chemotherapy.
This is the madness of public education.
A set of rules are put in place for the students so that the overall educational experience will be good for the students, teachers, administrators and the parents.
But sometimes, situational awareness and good judgement needs to be used. This was one where that should have come in the picture.
The problem is that the rules are used to exonerate those in charge from having to actually think out of the box. Thus all that is given is "rules are rules and there are no exceptions" when a little investigating should have made this a non issue. In fact, in lefty, educratspeak, this should have been a teachable moment.
What is the teachable moment?
It is what Delaney said to the Fox 31 Denver reporter:
“I was really excited I would have somebody to support me and I wouldn’t be alone with people always laughing at me. I would at least have somebody to go through it all.”
Can you imagine that Delaney, all of nine-years old not only has to face the ravages of chemotherapy, but will be mocked at because of the hair loss that is connected with chemotherapy.
In reality, the school board should encourage other students, boys and girls, to show support if their parents allowed and they wanted to do so by shaving their heads.
Now, let me suggest that if the girls were home schooled, this would never be an issue.
When we aggregate so many issues that occur in public schools all over the United States, it seems to solidify the case for homeschooling. Or at the very least private education alternatives.
Again, as a product of public education, it is painful to write such a thing. But so much has changed in the 32 years since I graduated Schurr High School in Montebello, California. And the changes strike me as not a positive thing.
School should not be like a prison. It should be where young people are taught not what to think but how to think. Not to fall back on rules when problem solving is sometimes more correct.
But in the modern Educrat Industrial Complex, rules are important at the expense of students. And that is why I keep leaning to homeschooling as a serious alternative.
Another Reason Why I Love The Book Of Common Prayer
This past Sunday, I attended the early service at my church.
And by early, I mean 7:45am. Yes that is very early to me, but the two reasons I went is because that service is done in Rite I form. And because Mrs. RVFTLC was away on a church retreat, I went alone because I really like that service over the more contemporary service we both attend later on Sunday mornings.
Before I go one, a little Anglican/Episcopal primer.
The current BCP is known at the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. It all but has replaced the 1928 BCP. While I do not have objection to more contemporary language, I just find the 1928 BCP to speak to me more. In a compromise that probably will go the way of the buffalo in the next BCP revision in the Episcopal Church, and there will be one more than likely in my lifetime, A lot of the 1928 BCP was put in the 1979 BCP. Hence, there are two rites, Rite I and the contemporary Rite II.
Essentially the 1928 BCP is the last one that uses the traditional, Elizabethan language. It really does not fit in the Politically Correct modern Episcopal Church. But some, like my own parish, realize that there is still a significant number that love the old language and the overall flow of the service.
In the current 1979 BCP, as in the 1928 version, there is a prayer right before the congregation proceeds to the altar to receive the Holy Communion. It is known as the Prayer of Humble Access and this is it:
WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
It is totally Politically Incorrect.
Why is that?
Because it reminds the Christian that we can not and should not trust in our own ways but to trust God. It also is a stark reminder that even when one accepts Jesus Christ into their life, no matter what tradition, we are sinners.
We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table.
Left to our own devices, the above is true. When we turn away from God, we are not worthy. But there is hope.
But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy.
Yes, God is merciful. And the point of the above prayer, as I come to understand it, is because of our own ways, we usually get into trouble of some kind. The opportunity is to ask God, through Jesus Christ, to have mercy. It is an invitation to repent of the bad things that we have done and or not done quite yet.
The Prayer of Humble Access is a reminder that we are sinners. And a reminder of my favorite Christian bumper sticker:
Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.
And it offers a chance of repentance before one partakes of the Holy Communion. To me it is serious stuff.
The sad part is that there is nothing quite like this in the Rite II forms. And of course it is by design. Because this prayer to many in charge even then, this kind of prayer is rather "judgemental". I mean, it basically tells us that we are not worthy to even eat the crumbs of bread from the altar. Yet what seems to be ignored is that the prayer is all about repentance and redemption. But without acknowledging our sinful nature, there can not be the chance for the communicant to repent and seek God's redemption.
It is sad that the current leadership in The Episcopal Church does not realize how powerful this prayer is and should be used, with contemporary language and not unisex, meaningless drivel, in all forms of the Holy Communion prayers.
As the current 1979 BCP still has some semblance of the appreciation of tradition and traditional language, there is always a chance to worship at a Rite I service and to say such a powerful prayer as the Prayer of Humble Access is. To fully appreciate the meaning of the Holy Communion, that is another reason that the Book of Common Prayer is the greatest Christian worship book ever written.
And by early, I mean 7:45am. Yes that is very early to me, but the two reasons I went is because that service is done in Rite I form. And because Mrs. RVFTLC was away on a church retreat, I went alone because I really like that service over the more contemporary service we both attend later on Sunday mornings.
Before I go one, a little Anglican/Episcopal primer.
The current BCP is known at the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. It all but has replaced the 1928 BCP. While I do not have objection to more contemporary language, I just find the 1928 BCP to speak to me more. In a compromise that probably will go the way of the buffalo in the next BCP revision in the Episcopal Church, and there will be one more than likely in my lifetime, A lot of the 1928 BCP was put in the 1979 BCP. Hence, there are two rites, Rite I and the contemporary Rite II.
Essentially the 1928 BCP is the last one that uses the traditional, Elizabethan language. It really does not fit in the Politically Correct modern Episcopal Church. But some, like my own parish, realize that there is still a significant number that love the old language and the overall flow of the service.
In the current 1979 BCP, as in the 1928 version, there is a prayer right before the congregation proceeds to the altar to receive the Holy Communion. It is known as the Prayer of Humble Access and this is it:
WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
It is totally Politically Incorrect.
Why is that?
Because it reminds the Christian that we can not and should not trust in our own ways but to trust God. It also is a stark reminder that even when one accepts Jesus Christ into their life, no matter what tradition, we are sinners.
We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table.
Left to our own devices, the above is true. When we turn away from God, we are not worthy. But there is hope.
But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy.
Yes, God is merciful. And the point of the above prayer, as I come to understand it, is because of our own ways, we usually get into trouble of some kind. The opportunity is to ask God, through Jesus Christ, to have mercy. It is an invitation to repent of the bad things that we have done and or not done quite yet.
The Prayer of Humble Access is a reminder that we are sinners. And a reminder of my favorite Christian bumper sticker:
Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.
And it offers a chance of repentance before one partakes of the Holy Communion. To me it is serious stuff.
The sad part is that there is nothing quite like this in the Rite II forms. And of course it is by design. Because this prayer to many in charge even then, this kind of prayer is rather "judgemental". I mean, it basically tells us that we are not worthy to even eat the crumbs of bread from the altar. Yet what seems to be ignored is that the prayer is all about repentance and redemption. But without acknowledging our sinful nature, there can not be the chance for the communicant to repent and seek God's redemption.
It is sad that the current leadership in The Episcopal Church does not realize how powerful this prayer is and should be used, with contemporary language and not unisex, meaningless drivel, in all forms of the Holy Communion prayers.
As the current 1979 BCP still has some semblance of the appreciation of tradition and traditional language, there is always a chance to worship at a Rite I service and to say such a powerful prayer as the Prayer of Humble Access is. To fully appreciate the meaning of the Holy Communion, that is another reason that the Book of Common Prayer is the greatest Christian worship book ever written.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
A Jolly Good Night In Florida
The first big electoral test for Republicans came Tuesday night in a special election for the Florida 13th congressional district and it was a success for the GOP.
Former congressional aide David Jolly won a very contested election to finish the term of the late Congressman C. W. Bill Young. Mr. Jolly defeated Democrat candidate Alex Sink in a close race. A race made closer by a Libertarian party spoiler candidate, Lucas Overby.
The results of the election were as follows:
Jolly (R) 89,099 48%
Sink (D) 85,642 47%
Overby (L) 8,893 5%
So what is the spin the Dems are putting on this loss?
First, a couple of things about this district.
It is a marginal Republican district. The late incumbent, Mr. Young, won the last election in 2012 with 58% of the vote. It was his second worst showing in his 42 years in congress. This same district voted for the Dear Leader, President Obama, in both 2008 and 2012. So it can at this point be called a swing district. In fact, the Democrat candidate, Jessica Erlich, ran 12 points better than the Democrat candidate in the 2010 mid-term election. So it can easily go Democrat at any point.
Now, for the unreal spin from the Democrats.
DNC chair, Congressman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, one of the dimmest bulbs to service in public office, tried to spin the loss this way:
“Republican special interest groups poured in millions to hold onto a Republican congressional district that they’ve comfortably held for nearly 60 years. Tonight, Republicans fell short of their normal margin in this district because the agenda they are offering voters has a singular focus – that a majority of voters oppose – repealing the Affordable Care Act that would return us to the same old broken health care system.”
OK. Sure, Dim Debbie, go with that.
Consider a few things before buying that spin.
The Democrat party in Florida and Washington D. C. forced a local Democrat pol out of the race so that Mrs. Sink could run. The party and outside groups spent $5,400,000 on the Sink campaign. This is a congressional district that went for the Dear Leader, President Obama, in both his presidential campaigns. Essentially the Democrats used the Obama formula to try to win this seat and they lost.
Oh yeah, Mrs. Sink ran for Florida governor in 2010 as a Democrat. She won this district in that race as well, Yet she also lost that race to the current governor, Rick Scott by a similar close margin.
I throw this out there for the public.
Is it possible that Mrs. Sink is an overrated candidate and she actually sucked here and in the governor's race?
Mr. Jolly was a lobbyist and an obscure aide to the late congressman, Mr. Young. He is going through a divorce and is dating a gal quite a bit younger than he is. Not really an ideal Republican candidate, right?
I would agree that he is not the best candidate in either party.
But guess what?
Mr. Jolly was relentless on one issue.
Obamacare, or as it is referred to on this blog as O-Care.
Mr. Jolly drove home the point that he wanted to vote to repeal O-Care and replace it.
And it worked.
For all the money that was spent by the Democrats and their allies in this race, Mrs. Sink only garnered 46% of the vote. And that is only a four-point gain over the previous election in which the Dear Leader, President Obama, won. And if we take out the Libertarian candidate and assume most of his votes, not all but most, would have been for Mr. Jolly, he probably would have gotten roughly about 53% of the vote.
The thing about these seemingly outlier elections is that there will be momentum for the party that wins these elections.
Take Texas.
They recently had their primaries and Republican voters outnumbered Democrat voters by a more than two-to-one margin. Yes, it is a pretty Red state. But there was the Democrat savior, state Senator Wendy Davis on the ballot. And her and her opponent did not manage more than about 600,000 votes. Republicans saw roughly about 1,600,000 for their primary.
That is reason alone to think that Republicans will have a good night the first Tuesday in November.
That will be a Jolly good night for the United States.
Former congressional aide David Jolly won a very contested election to finish the term of the late Congressman C. W. Bill Young. Mr. Jolly defeated Democrat candidate Alex Sink in a close race. A race made closer by a Libertarian party spoiler candidate, Lucas Overby.
The results of the election were as follows:
Jolly (R) 89,099 48%
Sink (D) 85,642 47%
Overby (L) 8,893 5%
So what is the spin the Dems are putting on this loss?
First, a couple of things about this district.
It is a marginal Republican district. The late incumbent, Mr. Young, won the last election in 2012 with 58% of the vote. It was his second worst showing in his 42 years in congress. This same district voted for the Dear Leader, President Obama, in both 2008 and 2012. So it can at this point be called a swing district. In fact, the Democrat candidate, Jessica Erlich, ran 12 points better than the Democrat candidate in the 2010 mid-term election. So it can easily go Democrat at any point.
Now, for the unreal spin from the Democrats.
DNC chair, Congressman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, one of the dimmest bulbs to service in public office, tried to spin the loss this way:
“Republican special interest groups poured in millions to hold onto a Republican congressional district that they’ve comfortably held for nearly 60 years. Tonight, Republicans fell short of their normal margin in this district because the agenda they are offering voters has a singular focus – that a majority of voters oppose – repealing the Affordable Care Act that would return us to the same old broken health care system.”
OK. Sure, Dim Debbie, go with that.
Consider a few things before buying that spin.
The Democrat party in Florida and Washington D. C. forced a local Democrat pol out of the race so that Mrs. Sink could run. The party and outside groups spent $5,400,000 on the Sink campaign. This is a congressional district that went for the Dear Leader, President Obama, in both his presidential campaigns. Essentially the Democrats used the Obama formula to try to win this seat and they lost.
Oh yeah, Mrs. Sink ran for Florida governor in 2010 as a Democrat. She won this district in that race as well, Yet she also lost that race to the current governor, Rick Scott by a similar close margin.
I throw this out there for the public.
Is it possible that Mrs. Sink is an overrated candidate and she actually sucked here and in the governor's race?
Mr. Jolly was a lobbyist and an obscure aide to the late congressman, Mr. Young. He is going through a divorce and is dating a gal quite a bit younger than he is. Not really an ideal Republican candidate, right?
I would agree that he is not the best candidate in either party.
But guess what?
Mr. Jolly was relentless on one issue.
Obamacare, or as it is referred to on this blog as O-Care.
Mr. Jolly drove home the point that he wanted to vote to repeal O-Care and replace it.
And it worked.
For all the money that was spent by the Democrats and their allies in this race, Mrs. Sink only garnered 46% of the vote. And that is only a four-point gain over the previous election in which the Dear Leader, President Obama, won. And if we take out the Libertarian candidate and assume most of his votes, not all but most, would have been for Mr. Jolly, he probably would have gotten roughly about 53% of the vote.
The thing about these seemingly outlier elections is that there will be momentum for the party that wins these elections.
Take Texas.
They recently had their primaries and Republican voters outnumbered Democrat voters by a more than two-to-one margin. Yes, it is a pretty Red state. But there was the Democrat savior, state Senator Wendy Davis on the ballot. And her and her opponent did not manage more than about 600,000 votes. Republicans saw roughly about 1,600,000 for their primary.
That is reason alone to think that Republicans will have a good night the first Tuesday in November.
That will be a Jolly good night for the United States.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
A Couple Of Reasons Why Americans Hate Politics AND Politicians
As if you did not realize it, the American political class really sucks these days.
There are numerous reasons why.
One is that the very people we elect to office at the multiple levels are becoming far removed from the people that they are supposed to serve.
There are two cases here of the political class suckage that is, at a level, just draining the ability of the average American voter to even care what happens in their cities, counties, states and the federal government.
Case number one is this special kind of stupid in the person of New York state assemblyman William Boyland, Jr.
Mr. Boyland was convicted last week of openly soliciting bribes for political favors. There were 21 counts and he was found guilty on all of them. Why he is so stupid, the judge would not even wait to sentence him. Federal judge Sandra Townes remanded him immediately as he was texting witnesses and lying about his whereabouts.
Nice.
The jurors on this case heard some of the most immortal words spoken by a politician regarding his $79,500 annual salary. Here they are:
“How the hell are you gonna live off of that?”
Good Lord in heaven!
How can he say that with a straight face?
Maybe he should not have made his comment in a well-known Manhattan steakhouse. Keen's Steakhouse to be exact. Now I link the menu because you should take a peek at the prices. Maybe he could live on $79,500 if he wasn't eating at such a place on the taxpayer's dime. I'm not saying he should be dining at McDonald's, but for crying out loud, is there nothing in between? And he does represent a Brooklyn district. Maybe, just maybe he could find decent dinning in his actual district.
But, Mr. Boyland explains that his paltry salary barely pays for his son's tuition and gas. Again, in the fateful words of our special kind of stupid:
“What the hell. That’s maybe my son’s tuition and maybe I pay for some gas, you know?
So, again, how can he eat even lunch at Keen's Steakhouse?
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Let's see, according to Empire Center, a New York state assembly member makes that $79,500 annual salary and a $171 per day per diem when the assembly is in session and $61 for a half day. And New York state is a full-time legislature. Most states have part-time legislatures. But not New York.
I will concede that the cost of living is higher in the Metro New York City area. But really, Mr. Boyland can't live on that?
Hmm, let's see if one breaks down Mr. Boyland's salary to an hourly rate, he would be making $41.41c an hour in an eight-hour day.
Maybe if Mr. Boyland did a little something called financial planning, he could afford his son's tuition. The article does not indicate if the son is in college or secondary school.
Needless to say, Mr. Boyland is a Democrat. When it comes to these kind of corruption cases, it usually involves a Democrat. For some reason, big-city Dems have the market on corruption. Not to say that the long arm of corruption does not extend to Republicans. It sure does. One of the most infamous cases involves former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Cal.). To me, he was the GOP version of this Boyland dude. Creepy from the get-go. And Mr. Boyland is not a rookie to all of this. His father and uncle served in the state assembly and a sister is on the New York City city council.
The disease known as greed is why some people get involved in politics in the first place. With all the anti-corruption laws in place throughout the United States, somehow there are a boat load of pols that seek ways to get around them and become a William Boyland, Jr.
The second case of annoying and or corrupt politicians leads to one of my favs, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain and his stirring defense of the GOP trifecta of losing presidential candidates. That trifecta is former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Sen. "F--- You" McCain himself and the 2012 loser, former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romeny.
Last week at the annual Conservative Political Action Committee annual conference, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.) was explaining that he thought three out of the last four Republican presidential candidates did not do such a great job in their runs for the White House. In Sen. Cruz' comments, he said that they were not really conservative enough and seemed too squishy for his taste.
So, Sen. "F--- You" McCain did not like that Sen. Cruz mentioned his friend, former Sen. Dole. Fine, whatever. But here is where Sen. "F--- You" McCain saved his venom, as he often does, for fellow Republicans. Here ya go:
I wonder if he thinks that Bob Dole stood for principle on that hilltop in Italy when he was so gravely wounded and left part of his body there fighting for our country?
Now as Allahpundit over at Hotair.com notes, Sen. Cruz said that all three were good and decent men. And they are. And especially former Sen. Dole.
But the cheap shot from Sen. "F--- You" McCain is to indicate that one cannot criticize anyone who served their nation in war time. Before I continue, here is Sen. Cruz entire speech to CPAC:
I would say to watch for yourself and see if Sen. Cruz is somehow criticizing former Sen. Dole for his service to our nation. He is not. And Allahpundit is spot on about how, especially in the cases of both former Sen. Dole and Sen "F--- You" McCain, they totally ran their campaigns on their biography which included their war service. When it came to articulating the differences they had with their respected Democrat opponents, they did have a hard time. No question that their handlers, as well as Mr. Romney's, were going to not get into the weeds about the differences in ideology. That is a fact.
And what Sen. Cruz was saying is without a contrast, voters were going to vote for the incumbent or the other guy. Again a fact.
I think that Sen. Cruz needs to really turn his attention from fellow Republicans to Democrats especially with the mid-term elections coming in November.
But this is standard fare for Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Wonder why he is known here as Sen. "F--- You" McCain?
I have explained before, but new readers probably do not know.
During the heat of the 2007 debate over so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx) objected to Sen. McCain trying to ram the bill through. The dialogue went like this:
"Wait a second here. I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line," to which McCain replied, "Fuck you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room."
Charming.
The problem that Sen. Cruz does not want to have hanging on him is that he saves his venom for fellow Republicans. That is what has happened over the years with Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Why do I loathe Sen. "F--- You" McCain, even though I voted for the 2008 GOP presidential candidate?
Because he has been a congressman and senator since 1986. He will have spent 30 years in Washington by the time his current senate term ends in 2016. He is a creature of Washington. He speaks Washingtonese.He himself almost became embroiled in the Keating Five scandal of the late 1980s. He was lucky that he came out of it relatively unscathed. He talks about the earmarks that almost all congressmen do as if most Americans understand what that means. It is something that is barely a full one percent of the federal budget. It makes him seem to be a hawk on government spending. He talks about all the pals he has in the senate. And his intransigent stand on foreign military endeavors and so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform do remove him from those that elected him time and time again.
That is what Sen. Cruz was articulating. That one should stick to what they believe and not get caught up in the Washington Beltway nonsense. Clearly over the years, former Sen. Dole and Sen. "F--- You" McCain became Washington.
What do these two things have to do with each other?
One pol thinks that he should find illegal ways for additional income because he can't live like, well probably most of his constituents.
The other gets caught up in the years he has spent in government and forgets why he claimed to run in the first place.
Both feel a certain sense of entitlement because they are politicians. They have made a career of politics.
The Founding Father's intent was that people would run for office and serve in a part-time capacity. That they would go back when they weren't legislating to their careers and be part of the people that they serve.
But now, politics has become a career. It is truly bipartisan. Does not matter if one is a Republican or a Democrat. They see themselves as an entitled class and the voters as saps to vote for them in the first place.
These are but two reasons why a lot of the American people hate politics and politicians.
There are numerous reasons why.
One is that the very people we elect to office at the multiple levels are becoming far removed from the people that they are supposed to serve.
There are two cases here of the political class suckage that is, at a level, just draining the ability of the average American voter to even care what happens in their cities, counties, states and the federal government.
Case number one is this special kind of stupid in the person of New York state assemblyman William Boyland, Jr.
Mr. Boyland was convicted last week of openly soliciting bribes for political favors. There were 21 counts and he was found guilty on all of them. Why he is so stupid, the judge would not even wait to sentence him. Federal judge Sandra Townes remanded him immediately as he was texting witnesses and lying about his whereabouts.
Nice.
The jurors on this case heard some of the most immortal words spoken by a politician regarding his $79,500 annual salary. Here they are:
“How the hell are you gonna live off of that?”
Good Lord in heaven!
How can he say that with a straight face?
Maybe he should not have made his comment in a well-known Manhattan steakhouse. Keen's Steakhouse to be exact. Now I link the menu because you should take a peek at the prices. Maybe he could live on $79,500 if he wasn't eating at such a place on the taxpayer's dime. I'm not saying he should be dining at McDonald's, but for crying out loud, is there nothing in between? And he does represent a Brooklyn district. Maybe, just maybe he could find decent dinning in his actual district.
But, Mr. Boyland explains that his paltry salary barely pays for his son's tuition and gas. Again, in the fateful words of our special kind of stupid:
“What the hell. That’s maybe my son’s tuition and maybe I pay for some gas, you know?
So, again, how can he eat even lunch at Keen's Steakhouse?
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Let's see, according to Empire Center, a New York state assembly member makes that $79,500 annual salary and a $171 per day per diem when the assembly is in session and $61 for a half day. And New York state is a full-time legislature. Most states have part-time legislatures. But not New York.
I will concede that the cost of living is higher in the Metro New York City area. But really, Mr. Boyland can't live on that?
Hmm, let's see if one breaks down Mr. Boyland's salary to an hourly rate, he would be making $41.41c an hour in an eight-hour day.
Maybe if Mr. Boyland did a little something called financial planning, he could afford his son's tuition. The article does not indicate if the son is in college or secondary school.
Needless to say, Mr. Boyland is a Democrat. When it comes to these kind of corruption cases, it usually involves a Democrat. For some reason, big-city Dems have the market on corruption. Not to say that the long arm of corruption does not extend to Republicans. It sure does. One of the most infamous cases involves former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Cal.). To me, he was the GOP version of this Boyland dude. Creepy from the get-go. And Mr. Boyland is not a rookie to all of this. His father and uncle served in the state assembly and a sister is on the New York City city council.
The disease known as greed is why some people get involved in politics in the first place. With all the anti-corruption laws in place throughout the United States, somehow there are a boat load of pols that seek ways to get around them and become a William Boyland, Jr.
The second case of annoying and or corrupt politicians leads to one of my favs, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain and his stirring defense of the GOP trifecta of losing presidential candidates. That trifecta is former Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Sen. "F--- You" McCain himself and the 2012 loser, former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romeny.
Last week at the annual Conservative Political Action Committee annual conference, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.) was explaining that he thought three out of the last four Republican presidential candidates did not do such a great job in their runs for the White House. In Sen. Cruz' comments, he said that they were not really conservative enough and seemed too squishy for his taste.
So, Sen. "F--- You" McCain did not like that Sen. Cruz mentioned his friend, former Sen. Dole. Fine, whatever. But here is where Sen. "F--- You" McCain saved his venom, as he often does, for fellow Republicans. Here ya go:
I wonder if he thinks that Bob Dole stood for principle on that hilltop in Italy when he was so gravely wounded and left part of his body there fighting for our country?
Now as Allahpundit over at Hotair.com notes, Sen. Cruz said that all three were good and decent men. And they are. And especially former Sen. Dole.
But the cheap shot from Sen. "F--- You" McCain is to indicate that one cannot criticize anyone who served their nation in war time. Before I continue, here is Sen. Cruz entire speech to CPAC:
I would say to watch for yourself and see if Sen. Cruz is somehow criticizing former Sen. Dole for his service to our nation. He is not. And Allahpundit is spot on about how, especially in the cases of both former Sen. Dole and Sen "F--- You" McCain, they totally ran their campaigns on their biography which included their war service. When it came to articulating the differences they had with their respected Democrat opponents, they did have a hard time. No question that their handlers, as well as Mr. Romney's, were going to not get into the weeds about the differences in ideology. That is a fact.
And what Sen. Cruz was saying is without a contrast, voters were going to vote for the incumbent or the other guy. Again a fact.
I think that Sen. Cruz needs to really turn his attention from fellow Republicans to Democrats especially with the mid-term elections coming in November.
But this is standard fare for Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Wonder why he is known here as Sen. "F--- You" McCain?
I have explained before, but new readers probably do not know.
During the heat of the 2007 debate over so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tx) objected to Sen. McCain trying to ram the bill through. The dialogue went like this:
"Wait a second here. I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line," to which McCain replied, "Fuck you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room."
Charming.
The problem that Sen. Cruz does not want to have hanging on him is that he saves his venom for fellow Republicans. That is what has happened over the years with Sen. "F--- You" McCain.
Why do I loathe Sen. "F--- You" McCain, even though I voted for the 2008 GOP presidential candidate?
Because he has been a congressman and senator since 1986. He will have spent 30 years in Washington by the time his current senate term ends in 2016. He is a creature of Washington. He speaks Washingtonese.He himself almost became embroiled in the Keating Five scandal of the late 1980s. He was lucky that he came out of it relatively unscathed. He talks about the earmarks that almost all congressmen do as if most Americans understand what that means. It is something that is barely a full one percent of the federal budget. It makes him seem to be a hawk on government spending. He talks about all the pals he has in the senate. And his intransigent stand on foreign military endeavors and so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform do remove him from those that elected him time and time again.
That is what Sen. Cruz was articulating. That one should stick to what they believe and not get caught up in the Washington Beltway nonsense. Clearly over the years, former Sen. Dole and Sen. "F--- You" McCain became Washington.
What do these two things have to do with each other?
One pol thinks that he should find illegal ways for additional income because he can't live like, well probably most of his constituents.
The other gets caught up in the years he has spent in government and forgets why he claimed to run in the first place.
Both feel a certain sense of entitlement because they are politicians. They have made a career of politics.
The Founding Father's intent was that people would run for office and serve in a part-time capacity. That they would go back when they weren't legislating to their careers and be part of the people that they serve.
But now, politics has become a career. It is truly bipartisan. Does not matter if one is a Republican or a Democrat. They see themselves as an entitled class and the voters as saps to vote for them in the first place.
These are but two reasons why a lot of the American people hate politics and politicians.
The Mystery Of Malaysian Air Flight MH370
Yes it is a mystery that an airliner seemingly disappear into thick air.
It is a mystery how Malaysian Air flight MH370 just went off the radar screens last Friday evening on a flight from Kuala Lumpar to Beijing.
But let's get some things out of the way.
Unless this is Stephen King's The Langoliers, the plane crashed. When I keep hearing the media of all stripes refer to this as a disaperince, it is beyond foolish. But the problem is that there is at this writing no wreckage to be found. So there is this meme that the plane disappeared. But, there was the case of Air France Flight 447 flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris in 2009. It took five days to find the plane wreckage over the Atlantic ocean. But it took two years to find the Black Box that contains the flight data recorder. The subsequent investigation essentially said that the crash was due to an accident.
Well of course all kinds of theories are out there as to what happened.
Of course the most logical explanation is that there was some kind of malfunction that caused the plane to crash. In fact, that is what my pal believes over at Social Extinction. He totally rules out a possible terrorist plot that went off.
But there is the possibility of terrorism. Of course that would most likely be Islamofacist terrorism. But then again, if it is terrorism, it is possible a local terrorist group. Or something of the here-to-fore unknown variety.
Of course the paranormal crowd is getting into the mix.
One of my friends on Facebook gave his thoughts on the possibility of something out of this world occurring. I'm sure that it is burning up the nighttime airwaves on Coast To Coast AM.
In the 24/7 media world, there is the "We want answers and we need them now!" mentality. However, because of where the plane went down, apparently in a deep body of water (although this late report in The Daily Telegraph indicates it was 200 miles off course which raises the possibility that it may have crashed on land in a remote area), it makes it difficult to ascertain where the wreckage possibly is.
I remind all that it took five days to find the Air France flight 447 wreckage on the Atlantic ocean.
Until then, yes it is a mystery but will be solved at least in the sense wreckage will be found. The families of the 227 passengers will have some kind of closure. But the reminder is how fragile our lives really are.
It is a mystery how Malaysian Air flight MH370 just went off the radar screens last Friday evening on a flight from Kuala Lumpar to Beijing.
But let's get some things out of the way.
Unless this is Stephen King's The Langoliers, the plane crashed. When I keep hearing the media of all stripes refer to this as a disaperince, it is beyond foolish. But the problem is that there is at this writing no wreckage to be found. So there is this meme that the plane disappeared. But, there was the case of Air France Flight 447 flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris in 2009. It took five days to find the plane wreckage over the Atlantic ocean. But it took two years to find the Black Box that contains the flight data recorder. The subsequent investigation essentially said that the crash was due to an accident.
Well of course all kinds of theories are out there as to what happened.
Of course the most logical explanation is that there was some kind of malfunction that caused the plane to crash. In fact, that is what my pal believes over at Social Extinction. He totally rules out a possible terrorist plot that went off.
But there is the possibility of terrorism. Of course that would most likely be Islamofacist terrorism. But then again, if it is terrorism, it is possible a local terrorist group. Or something of the here-to-fore unknown variety.
Of course the paranormal crowd is getting into the mix.
One of my friends on Facebook gave his thoughts on the possibility of something out of this world occurring. I'm sure that it is burning up the nighttime airwaves on Coast To Coast AM.
In the 24/7 media world, there is the "We want answers and we need them now!" mentality. However, because of where the plane went down, apparently in a deep body of water (although this late report in The Daily Telegraph indicates it was 200 miles off course which raises the possibility that it may have crashed on land in a remote area), it makes it difficult to ascertain where the wreckage possibly is.
I remind all that it took five days to find the Air France flight 447 wreckage on the Atlantic ocean.
Until then, yes it is a mystery but will be solved at least in the sense wreckage will be found. The families of the 227 passengers will have some kind of closure. But the reminder is how fragile our lives really are.
Thursday, March 06, 2014
Tattoo Culture Has Gone To The Dogs
Oh no, really the tattoo culture I have written about here and a variation of here has gone to the dogs.
If you don't believe me, meet Zion from New York City.
If you think that your eyes deceive you, they do not.
Poor Zion has a tattoo on his right front leg.
That is courtesy of a certifiable douchebrain "Mistah Metro" who according to this article is also known as Alex and also known as Orangutan Joe.
First, this dude needs to get his damn name straight.
While I commented about this clear case of animal abuse on my Facebook page, a friend of mine thought it was no big deal.
So this is a part of why I think that this was not only animal abuse but something that can extend to children and even babies.
Of course I find it abhorrent that someone would not just do this, but do this while the poor dog was sedated for the removal of it's spleen.
What the hell is up with a veterinarian to let this whatever his name is tatt his dog up while he has already endured a serious operation?
According to the article, that is indeed what happened.
But apparently tatting an animal after an operation is done. But according to an unidentified spokesman for the local ASPCA, it is minimal and simply an identifier.
“It helps animal-welfare professionals clearly identify animals that have been altered . . . The incident in question is not at all comparable. ”
No kidding it is not comparable.
As I point out in my Facebook thread, it is one thing for human beings with the capacity to understand to decide whether or not to get a tatt. But a dog or any other animal, they do not have a choice.
Oh, I know, someone will ask about branding cattle.
Again, that is not for some kind of sick pleasure but to identify cattle for the purposes of the possibility of getting off the land, stolen or anything of that nature. It is not for being cool.
And whatever his name is believes that his dog is now sooo cool.
Here is what the douchebrain wrote on his now deleted Instagram account:
“My dog is cooler than yours!”
If you define being cool as being tatted against his will, sure. But he is not cool because of your own way over sized ego.
If you thought it was something so cool, why didn't you tatt him up when he was not under anesthesia and just had a serious operation?
And why, pray tel, if you are not proud did you delete all of your social media sites? Huh? We who find this disgusting want to know the answers.
Oh, I just thought of another question.
What does Mel, your wife, think of this?
I alluded to the possibility of parents deciding one day, hey lets tatt our baby. Do you not think it will not happen? If it has not happened already?
I sure do.
People that do not think this have their heads buried very, very deep in the sand.
One of the problems I have with tatt fiends is that they get their body full of tatts. They fill them up so much that in many cases they run out of room for anymore. It is odd to see someone walking from a distance and they look like they are wearing a long-sleeved shirt. Get a little closer and it is not a long sleeve shirt but two arms full of tatts.
What I suspect is that whats his name looks pretty much like that. Probably Mel, the wife, too. So they probably look at their dog as some kind of accessory rather than a best companion/friend. And that is the problem. No doubt in my mind is that they would look at a child in the same way.
I do believe that whats his name needs to be prosecuted but so should the vet that allowed it to happen. It is animal abuse and can not be tolerated.
The sad reality is that tattoo culture has gone to the dogs.
If you don't believe me, meet Zion from New York City.
Poor Zion has a tattoo on his right front leg.
That is courtesy of a certifiable douchebrain "Mistah Metro" who according to this article is also known as Alex and also known as Orangutan Joe.
First, this dude needs to get his damn name straight.
While I commented about this clear case of animal abuse on my Facebook page, a friend of mine thought it was no big deal.
So this is a part of why I think that this was not only animal abuse but something that can extend to children and even babies.
Of course I find it abhorrent that someone would not just do this, but do this while the poor dog was sedated for the removal of it's spleen.
What the hell is up with a veterinarian to let this whatever his name is tatt his dog up while he has already endured a serious operation?
According to the article, that is indeed what happened.
But apparently tatting an animal after an operation is done. But according to an unidentified spokesman for the local ASPCA, it is minimal and simply an identifier.
“It helps animal-welfare professionals clearly identify animals that have been altered . . . The incident in question is not at all comparable. ”
No kidding it is not comparable.
As I point out in my Facebook thread, it is one thing for human beings with the capacity to understand to decide whether or not to get a tatt. But a dog or any other animal, they do not have a choice.
Oh, I know, someone will ask about branding cattle.
Again, that is not for some kind of sick pleasure but to identify cattle for the purposes of the possibility of getting off the land, stolen or anything of that nature. It is not for being cool.
And whatever his name is believes that his dog is now sooo cool.
Here is what the douchebrain wrote on his now deleted Instagram account:
“My dog is cooler than yours!”
If you define being cool as being tatted against his will, sure. But he is not cool because of your own way over sized ego.
If you thought it was something so cool, why didn't you tatt him up when he was not under anesthesia and just had a serious operation?
And why, pray tel, if you are not proud did you delete all of your social media sites? Huh? We who find this disgusting want to know the answers.
Oh, I just thought of another question.
What does Mel, your wife, think of this?
I alluded to the possibility of parents deciding one day, hey lets tatt our baby. Do you not think it will not happen? If it has not happened already?
I sure do.
People that do not think this have their heads buried very, very deep in the sand.
One of the problems I have with tatt fiends is that they get their body full of tatts. They fill them up so much that in many cases they run out of room for anymore. It is odd to see someone walking from a distance and they look like they are wearing a long-sleeved shirt. Get a little closer and it is not a long sleeve shirt but two arms full of tatts.
What I suspect is that whats his name looks pretty much like that. Probably Mel, the wife, too. So they probably look at their dog as some kind of accessory rather than a best companion/friend. And that is the problem. No doubt in my mind is that they would look at a child in the same way.
I do believe that whats his name needs to be prosecuted but so should the vet that allowed it to happen. It is animal abuse and can not be tolerated.
The sad reality is that tattoo culture has gone to the dogs.
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
A New Front On The Indian Mascot Wars
Take a good look at the photo of the hat below.
Look at the hat really close.
It is . . .it is . . .an INDIAN head! And worse, and Indian with a feather sticking from the back of his head.
Meet the logo of the Cleveland Indians.
His name is Chief Wahoo.
He has been the logo of the Cleveland Indians baseball team for over 60 years. And there have been different variations of Chief Wahoo. Below is the original look of Chief Wahoo.
OK, I will admit, the original Chief Wahoo, by today's standards, does look like a horrible charicture Ad like anything else, it had been updated to what it looks like today.
The reason that this is an issue is that the local Cleveland fish wrap, The Plain Dealer, wrote a recent editorial saying that the Chief Wahoo logo, well it is time to go.
So brave of them.
The usual canard reason was given.
That it is offensive to Indians. Or if others want to be politically correct, Native Americans. I am not politically correct, so I refer to them as Indians.
And at the end of the day, that is what this boils down to.
Political correctness.
Understand that this is the logo of a team named Indians. What else can they use? The current Chief Wahoo is supposed to be fun. Not insulting to Indians. It is a smiling Indian, not a menacing one say as the Washington Redskins logo. Which is also an Indian head.
Here is the part of the editorial that you will not read.
That if they were to get rid of the logo, what about the team name? They did not address that because I believe the answer is obvious.
Today, Chief Wahoo. Tomorrow the nickname.
Because in the politically correct world, the Indian Victim Industrial Complex will not rest until all, and yes all, Indian nicknamed sports teams are banished.
The fallacy of those self-appointed "leaders" is that these nicknames are all so demeaning to the Indian. They will give some wild examples of teams named after Blacks. Asians. Jews. Name the group, I suppose.
It is the demeaning nature of these names, if I understand that right, hurts the Indians. Makes them feel less than human. And believe me, the top of the bad list is the Washington Redskins.
What I would like to ask is this.
Can anyone name a situation when an Indian claimed that the demeaning nature of some sports team nicknames is the cause of their alcoholism? Drug addiction? Lack of education? The inability to leave the Indian reservations?
The crickets will chirp until the end of time and after on that one.
These self-appointed leaders have made many Indians feel that they have to take the armor of victim hood rather than lay blame for many of the problems they have on the backs of the same "leaders".
Back to Chief Wahoo.
The logo and the team name, the Indians, is not meant to demean Indians but to suggest that they do have a fighting spirit. Many teams choose to adopt different types of names. Indians, Braves, Redskins, Black Hawks, Fighting Sioux to name some Indian-themed nicknames. They are meant to strike some sort of fear. Not literal, but in the sense of competitive sports. The Chief Wahoo logo is different from when it first came out in 1947. In fact there is the logo below.
It is . . .it is . . .an INDIAN head! And worse, and Indian with a feather sticking from the back of his head.
Meet the logo of the Cleveland Indians.
His name is Chief Wahoo.
He has been the logo of the Cleveland Indians baseball team for over 60 years. And there have been different variations of Chief Wahoo. Below is the original look of Chief Wahoo.
The reason that this is an issue is that the local Cleveland fish wrap, The Plain Dealer, wrote a recent editorial saying that the Chief Wahoo logo, well it is time to go.
So brave of them.
The usual canard reason was given.
That it is offensive to Indians. Or if others want to be politically correct, Native Americans. I am not politically correct, so I refer to them as Indians.
And at the end of the day, that is what this boils down to.
Political correctness.
Understand that this is the logo of a team named Indians. What else can they use? The current Chief Wahoo is supposed to be fun. Not insulting to Indians. It is a smiling Indian, not a menacing one say as the Washington Redskins logo. Which is also an Indian head.
Here is the part of the editorial that you will not read.
That if they were to get rid of the logo, what about the team name? They did not address that because I believe the answer is obvious.
Today, Chief Wahoo. Tomorrow the nickname.
Because in the politically correct world, the Indian Victim Industrial Complex will not rest until all, and yes all, Indian nicknamed sports teams are banished.
The fallacy of those self-appointed "leaders" is that these nicknames are all so demeaning to the Indian. They will give some wild examples of teams named after Blacks. Asians. Jews. Name the group, I suppose.
It is the demeaning nature of these names, if I understand that right, hurts the Indians. Makes them feel less than human. And believe me, the top of the bad list is the Washington Redskins.
What I would like to ask is this.
Can anyone name a situation when an Indian claimed that the demeaning nature of some sports team nicknames is the cause of their alcoholism? Drug addiction? Lack of education? The inability to leave the Indian reservations?
The crickets will chirp until the end of time and after on that one.
These self-appointed leaders have made many Indians feel that they have to take the armor of victim hood rather than lay blame for many of the problems they have on the backs of the same "leaders".
Back to Chief Wahoo.
The logo and the team name, the Indians, is not meant to demean Indians but to suggest that they do have a fighting spirit. Many teams choose to adopt different types of names. Indians, Braves, Redskins, Black Hawks, Fighting Sioux to name some Indian-themed nicknames. They are meant to strike some sort of fear. Not literal, but in the sense of competitive sports. The Chief Wahoo logo is different from when it first came out in 1947. In fact there is the logo below.
The above is the swinging Chief Wahoo that once was part of the sign in the old Cleveland Stadium. What I like is that he is swinging the bat. It clearly shows that he is a baseball player.
Some say that the whole thing is a caricature. But isn't that what all sports nicknames are at one level?
I think that this is one more of those "causes" that make some self-appointed "leaders" and their White Guilt allies feel that they are "doing something" even if it is nonsensical.
I made the point that the Chief Wahoo logo is very popular. I live in a very multicultural part of California. Many of the people that I see wearing the Indians Chief Wahoo baseball hat are Hispanic. Probably Mestizo. And Mestizo's trace their heritage back to being Indians. Since I don't think that they are really thinking all that much about it, is wearing that hat a variation of self-hate? I don't think so. I think it is just that most people either like it, hate it or have no real opinion of it.
I think that The Plain Dealer is wrong on this. I don't think that it would do any good to drop the Chief Wahoo logo. Certainly not good to force a team nickname change. And it would do the self-appointed Indian "leaders" stirring this up to actually do something real and genuine to improve conditions on the Indian reservations.
Monday, March 03, 2014
Matthew McConaughey, God And Hollywood
I continued my Academy Award hate and did not watch the 86th installment of the secular bacchanalia.
I am sorry, however, to have missed this speech by the Best Actor, Matthew McConaughey in which he started off by thanking not his agent, not his family, or the adoring fans.
Matthew McConaughey thanked GOD for his achievement.
WOW! WOW! WOW!
Below is the actual short, yet heartfelt acceptance speech.
I am sorry, however, to have missed this speech by the Best Actor, Matthew McConaughey in which he started off by thanking not his agent, not his family, or the adoring fans.
Matthew McConaughey thanked GOD for his achievement.
WOW! WOW! WOW!
Below is the actual short, yet heartfelt acceptance speech.
It's not the first time that an actor or actress has thanked God for the accomplishments he or she has had in their acting career. If memory serves me right, and it is not from watching but reading and watching news reports about it, Denzel Washington was pretty quick to thank God for winning a Best Actor award a few years ago. But Mr. Washington is Black and I guess the secular crowd that is Hollywood thought it was OK. You know, a Black American Christian. Maybe he attends something like the Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago, the former home church of our Dear Leader, President Obama.
But a regular White guy? Not just thanking God but realizing that while he has grown in his profession, the gift of his acting is a gift from Almighty God?
Watch the video because it is striking what gets the biggest cheer from the audience. Let's just stipulate it is not thanking God. Or his daddy. Or his mom. Or his wife. It's only about two minutes and thirty-three seconds long.
Many good people get involved in acting and or entertainment. But there is just something that seems to happen when they make it big.
Some shed the thing that made them pursue acting and or entertaining.
That is their belief in God.
I can only imagine how bad that can be for an actual Christian believer. So many that do spout off about religion in general and Christianity in general show abject ignorance. And downright hatred towards religion.
I suspect that the secular crowd that dominates every aspect of Hollywood are insular enough not to know many, if any, Christian believers. like any thing else, we are not all the same. The talents and gifts that God gives us takes us the time to understand. Some of them are direct spiritual gifts, as Paul addressed here in 1 Corinthians: 12. I'm not sure if Mr. McConaughey's acting falls into particular spiritual gifts, but I must admit I usually enjoy the movies that I see him in. But that he thanked God for where he is shows that he gets the overall Christian message in this respect.
That all we do, good or bad, is from God. Whether we understand that or not is a lifelong journey.
But back to the Hollywood secularists.
My feeling is that their "knowledge" of Christians is probably the Fred Phelps' types and the Westboro Baptist "Church". Or some of the more silly comments made by such evangelists as the Rev. Pat Robertson. In other words, they will look at the extreme, more fundamentalist people in Christianity and think, that is what it's all about.
Too bad that the Hollywood secular crowd does not look at such Christians as the Rev. Billy Graham, his son, the Rev. Franklin Graham, and the wonderful work of Samaritan's Purse. Or how about the Salvation Army and all the good that they have done? Nah, in the closed minds of Hollywood secularists, most Christians are no good and really, they want nothing to do with them.
How sad.
For all the talk of diversity and thought, when it comes to religion in general, and Christianity in particular, the Hollywood secularist mind closes tighter than a vise.
Take the new movie Non Stop starring Liam Neeson.
Skip the next paragraph if you do not want to know anything about the plot. You have been warned!
See, Hollywood thinks that a family member of a victim of the 9/11 terrorist attacks would get some military dude to essentially hijack a plane, electronically, and that one of the heroes of the flight is an Islamic doctor, dressed in full garb and bearded.
Islam is not Christian and it is picked on and misunderstood. And really, if they do bad things it is probably the fault of the United States and especially Christianity. And don't forget them there Crusades.
So I do believe that when Hollywood is exposed to a person like Matthew McConaughey, they are essentially left speechless. They do not get that people really, really believe that there is something bigger than what is in this world. That God is important enough to thank more than anything shows an amazing thing that Mr. McConaughey probably did not think much about because he spoke from his heart. And his heart is with God.
Hollywood needs to free its secular mind and welcome Christian believers and not seek to change them into soulless secularists. Learn from them. Learn that they are not a threat but a person that believes in God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost (Spirit). And that if they share with you, just be open, not dismissive.
Many Christians, myself and Mrs. RVFTLC, like movies. I am more discriminating than Mrs. RVFTLC. Or in her mind, not so much. We pay money to see movies. We don't like to feel unwelcome but some in Hollywood are so narrow that they comment derisively on what we believe without any real knowledge of us.
I am thankful that Matthew McConaughey spoke so eloquently last night. Hollywood should listen to all that he said.
Saturday, March 01, 2014
Michelle Obama To America's Food Shopping Moms: You're Stupid!
Well how else can one take what Mrs. Dear Leader, First Lady Michelle Obama, is saying in this article?
First, I would like to speak for all the food shopping dads out there and point out how sexist this whole presentation is. I mean, men do food shopping. I do. Most of the time with Mrs. RVFTLC, but in the past I have done all the shopping.
But the condescending approach that Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama takes to justify the now big-print nutrition information is so, so maddening. I can't believe that an American shopping mom would buy into this crap.
But trust me, they do.
Here is a short video of the announcement. Watch if you so choose.
But here is a question for those who advocate nutrition labels in the first place.
How did we, as a society, live to good, ripe old ages without the big hand of the government giving us all this information in the first place?
I think that for most of us, we did quite alright, thank you very much. Like anything else, some nutritional guidelines have changed over the years and that is important to know. And one of the positives of the labels, yes there are, is that someone like Mrs. RVFTLC can figure out how to adjust her insulin pump with the carbohydrate information provided.
But read this and tell me that the average American mom doing the weekly shopping really does this:
"So there you stood, alone in some aisle in a store, the clock ticking away at the precious little time remaining to complete your weekly grocery shopping, and all you could do was scratch your head, confused and bewildered, and wonder, is there too much sugar in this product? Is 50 percent of the daily allowance of riboflavin a good thing or a bad thing? And how on Earth could this teeny little package contain five whole servings?"
The only thing that I agree with Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama, is about the servings. I believe that pygmy people were used to figure that serving count.
Sorry for the digression.
Yes you gals, you are all alone in that aisle at the local Ralph's or Vons supermarket. And especially alone at any given Costco. And that clock, no not the biological one, but the clock on the wall, is ticking away. You have an item in your hand and you are, you are scratching your head in confusion. OMG! Is there too much sugar?! What, what about that riboflavin?! What is the right amount?! Are they kidding about the serving amount?!
Are you serious Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama? Have you ever, ever done that in your life as a human being?
I'm just gonna say it.
Hell no!
Oh but ladies, it goes on:
"This stream of questions and worries running through your head when all you really wanted to know was, should I be eating this or not? Is this good for my kids or not? And if it is healthy, how much of it should I be eating? But unless you had a thesaurus, a calculator, a microscope, or a degree in nutrition, you were out of luck. So you felt defeated, and you just gave up and went back to buying the same stuff you always buy."
Yes Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama, all most people want to know is whether or not any given food item is good, and hopefully good for you. And the whole damn point of the nutrition information WAS to make life supposedly easier for the American food shopping mom. For in her world, dads never shop. Sexist! And most gals that do the weekly family shopping feel defeated because of what they are buying as much as how damn expensive it is!
But ladies, please don't think that Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama is done. Of course not! She goes on:
"And that's a familiar scenario for far too many families and parents trying to do the right thing for their kids -- and it's simply not acceptable."
What is not acceptable? That some gals don't know how to shop?
I know that it has been 32 years-OUCH!-since I left high school, but I remember that it was required that both the boys and girls had to take an home economics class. In fact, I had to take one called Contemporary Living. More like Contemptible Living. Hell, I even had to be married and if memory serves me right, we even had a child. Anyhow, in home ec, we learned something called shopping for food and how to do so on a budget and even how to get healthy food on that budget. Amazingly, that can be done and one can even attain such items at the 99c Store.
So, have high schools across the United States given up on that? Seriously, I want to know. Because if that is the case, then no wonder there are problems with obesity in the United States.
Good Lord, this woman never stops because WAIT! There's more:
"As consumers and as parents, we have a right to understand what's in the food we're feeding our families. Because that's really the only way that we can make informed choices -- by having clear, accurate information."
Oddly, I am in agreement with Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama, on that one. Yes we do need to have that information. And most people can actually figure that out. Really, they can.
As I pointed out, Mrs. RVFTLC is a type I diabetic. She really, really has to watch what she eats. And as I noted she has to be especially careful about carbs. The whole concept of the nutrition label is for someone like her. And amazingly, she does not have a problem figuring all of that out.
Unlike our First Lady, I really give people more credit than she does. I think that most of those that do the family shopping can figure the nutrition label information out. And yes, it is really up to parents to deal with portion control. They should not base it on a label but on their children and there ability to maintain healthy eating and the ability to burn off excess metabolism.
I mean, updating aspects of the label is probably a good thing. Really on the servings. But leave it to the First Lady to make a possible good thing a way to insult and needlessly lecture the moms (and dads even if she won't say it!) and make them sound brain dead.
I don't think that it is a bad thing being done, but be positive about it, Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama. Don't make a time to make us all sound like yokels. Just point out that it is something to update and allow for revision where it has been needed.
But no, not at all.
For this is what the Obama's live for.
To make it seem like life in these United States is sooooo bad that the heavy hand of government is always needed as a way to make something, something in our dreadful lives easier.
I'm cutting through the crap to let you gals and guys know that Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama, thinks you are stupid!
First, I would like to speak for all the food shopping dads out there and point out how sexist this whole presentation is. I mean, men do food shopping. I do. Most of the time with Mrs. RVFTLC, but in the past I have done all the shopping.
But the condescending approach that Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama takes to justify the now big-print nutrition information is so, so maddening. I can't believe that an American shopping mom would buy into this crap.
But trust me, they do.
But here is a question for those who advocate nutrition labels in the first place.
How did we, as a society, live to good, ripe old ages without the big hand of the government giving us all this information in the first place?
I think that for most of us, we did quite alright, thank you very much. Like anything else, some nutritional guidelines have changed over the years and that is important to know. And one of the positives of the labels, yes there are, is that someone like Mrs. RVFTLC can figure out how to adjust her insulin pump with the carbohydrate information provided.
But read this and tell me that the average American mom doing the weekly shopping really does this:
"So there you stood, alone in some aisle in a store, the clock ticking away at the precious little time remaining to complete your weekly grocery shopping, and all you could do was scratch your head, confused and bewildered, and wonder, is there too much sugar in this product? Is 50 percent of the daily allowance of riboflavin a good thing or a bad thing? And how on Earth could this teeny little package contain five whole servings?"
The only thing that I agree with Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama, is about the servings. I believe that pygmy people were used to figure that serving count.
Sorry for the digression.
Yes you gals, you are all alone in that aisle at the local Ralph's or Vons supermarket. And especially alone at any given Costco. And that clock, no not the biological one, but the clock on the wall, is ticking away. You have an item in your hand and you are, you are scratching your head in confusion. OMG! Is there too much sugar?! What, what about that riboflavin?! What is the right amount?! Are they kidding about the serving amount?!
Are you serious Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama? Have you ever, ever done that in your life as a human being?
I'm just gonna say it.
Hell no!
Oh but ladies, it goes on:
"This stream of questions and worries running through your head when all you really wanted to know was, should I be eating this or not? Is this good for my kids or not? And if it is healthy, how much of it should I be eating? But unless you had a thesaurus, a calculator, a microscope, or a degree in nutrition, you were out of luck. So you felt defeated, and you just gave up and went back to buying the same stuff you always buy."
Yes Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama, all most people want to know is whether or not any given food item is good, and hopefully good for you. And the whole damn point of the nutrition information WAS to make life supposedly easier for the American food shopping mom. For in her world, dads never shop. Sexist! And most gals that do the weekly family shopping feel defeated because of what they are buying as much as how damn expensive it is!
But ladies, please don't think that Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama is done. Of course not! She goes on:
"And that's a familiar scenario for far too many families and parents trying to do the right thing for their kids -- and it's simply not acceptable."
What is not acceptable? That some gals don't know how to shop?
I know that it has been 32 years-OUCH!-since I left high school, but I remember that it was required that both the boys and girls had to take an home economics class. In fact, I had to take one called Contemporary Living. More like Contemptible Living. Hell, I even had to be married and if memory serves me right, we even had a child. Anyhow, in home ec, we learned something called shopping for food and how to do so on a budget and even how to get healthy food on that budget. Amazingly, that can be done and one can even attain such items at the 99c Store.
So, have high schools across the United States given up on that? Seriously, I want to know. Because if that is the case, then no wonder there are problems with obesity in the United States.
Good Lord, this woman never stops because WAIT! There's more:
"As consumers and as parents, we have a right to understand what's in the food we're feeding our families. Because that's really the only way that we can make informed choices -- by having clear, accurate information."
Oddly, I am in agreement with Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama, on that one. Yes we do need to have that information. And most people can actually figure that out. Really, they can.
As I pointed out, Mrs. RVFTLC is a type I diabetic. She really, really has to watch what she eats. And as I noted she has to be especially careful about carbs. The whole concept of the nutrition label is for someone like her. And amazingly, she does not have a problem figuring all of that out.
Unlike our First Lady, I really give people more credit than she does. I think that most of those that do the family shopping can figure the nutrition label information out. And yes, it is really up to parents to deal with portion control. They should not base it on a label but on their children and there ability to maintain healthy eating and the ability to burn off excess metabolism.
I mean, updating aspects of the label is probably a good thing. Really on the servings. But leave it to the First Lady to make a possible good thing a way to insult and needlessly lecture the moms (and dads even if she won't say it!) and make them sound brain dead.
I don't think that it is a bad thing being done, but be positive about it, Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama. Don't make a time to make us all sound like yokels. Just point out that it is something to update and allow for revision where it has been needed.
But no, not at all.
For this is what the Obama's live for.
To make it seem like life in these United States is sooooo bad that the heavy hand of government is always needed as a way to make something, something in our dreadful lives easier.
I'm cutting through the crap to let you gals and guys know that Mrs. Dear Leader, Mrs. Obama, thinks you are stupid!
Friday, February 28, 2014
Michael Gerson, The GOP Establishment And The Tea Party
One of The Washington Post's supposed conservative writers, Michael Gerson, just simply does not get the Tea Party whatever.
That is why he writes dreck like this.
First its the choice of establishment Republicans like Mr. Gerson to beat up on Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx) and rocker Ted Nugent. But the long knife is always out there for the former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin. Note this line from the column:
(save Sarah Palin, who finally lost her long, sad struggle with ideological delirium)
Actually, Mrs. Palin is much more in touch with many Americans than is Mr. Gerson, now a total captive of the Washington Beltway.
Well, right after that gem from Mr. Gerson, here is this paragraph:
No political movement can persuade a great democracy without displaying a measure of democratic grace. And any ideological movement that claims to be inspired by faith and morality is discredited by language that dehumanizes its opponents.
For a moment, I thought that he was describing the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the current Democrat party.
But no, Mr. Gerson is in his mind describing the current state of the Republican party as he sees it.
One of the reason's there is a Tea Party movement is because the feeling among many Americans that the politicians just do not listen to them about anything. That there is a disconnect between the people and the politicians. And the evidence is much more on the Tea Party side than Mr. Gerson's side.
Now I do agree with the fact that we do have to have candidates that can win in November. And yes, some Tea Party candidates have not been all that. And yes sometimes conservatives to show how much they are against the establishment will back clear losers to the bitter end. Yes, Christine O'Donnell comes to mind in Delaware.
But that does not mean that long-time incumbents should never be challenged. If that did not happen in Utah for example, there would not be a Sen. Mike Lee. In Texas it was an open seat that now Sen. Cruz was running for. The establishment GOP in Texas was lining up behind the Lt. Governor, David Dewhurst, against now Sen. Cruz. And not only did he win the two-stage primary (a candidate has to get at least 40% in the first round, which neither did) but easily win the election for his seat. In Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio was a little-known state legislator that took on the worst of the GOP establishment in that state, former Gov. Charlie Crist. Of course the establishment all lined up for Mr. Crist. But Mr. Rubio not only prevailed but won the general election in a landslide. Oh, and lets not forget that Mr. Crist is now a Democrat running for his old job as governor in Florida. Good luck to that.
As I look at it this time around, the same thing is happening but the candidates are not as good as was in the 2010 and 2012 election cycle.
But it shows desperation when the GOP establishment seems more hellbent on beating up the upstarts over the potential Democrat challenger.
One of the clear realities of the Tea Party movement is that there is not one unifying leader to it. Thus it does lead to some things being done right and some being done wrong.
And thus we see that while Sen. Cruz is right on the overall point that O-Care needs to be repealed, doing so will not happen until there are more Republicans elected. And they need two things at the federal level. To win the senate, which they should be able to do this election in November, and the White House, which is a good possibility in 2016. I would really like to see Sen. Cruz work to get Republicans elected who can lead to that. Until then, we will still have this abomination known as O-Care.
The problem is that Mr. Gerson does not get why people aligned with the Tea Party movement on the right and the Occupy movement on the left is that it is the very groups as the United States Chamber of Commerce and big money donors on the Republican side that do not want the real change the Tea Party seeks. The big money donors are pretty much our crony capitalists. They just want the federal government to help them out and not the American people as a whole. When the United States Chamber of Commerce seem more interested in legalizing 10,000,000 illegal aliens over having a strong economy where American citizens get the jobs, it is just wrong. These two groups have narrow interests that the Tea Party is against.
Mr. Gerson is totally right in what this little fight among friends is all about:
Republicans are sorting through what kind of populists they hope to be.
The problem is that big money and establishment groups within the GOP are not exactly prone to populist notions. They are almost always perceived, and usually rightly so, as always willing to cut a bad deal especially with Democrats. Democrats that are like Lucy Van Pelt pulling that football away just as Charlie Brown gets that foot up to kick it. In that sense, many of us see Sen. Cruz as one who will at least fight, albeit not always smartly.
So here is something I look at in one race. That for the senate seat in Kentucky.
The incumbent is Sen. Mitch McConnell and the challenger is Matt Bevin. I wrote about it here. I know some people will suggest that I am everything like a RINO* and sellout and all the bromides that some can muster. But Mr. Bevin is not a good candidate. He can't explain why he was for TARP before he was against it. That is a big issue for Tea Party people. He wants Tea Party support and some will sink with him to show how much they don't like Sen. McConnell. If he can't do well against Sen. McConnell, imagine if he does win the primary and how he will do against the Democrat candidate, most likely to be Allison Grimes? Look, Sen. McConnell's biggest problem? He can't explain things in simple English when he goes on the radio or especially television. He sounds like he is speaking Washington double-talk, gobbly-gook. That is kind of why he is being challenged. But in this case, I would have to go with Sen. McConnell. Because in the end, I want to keep this seat in the Republican column, and that only has a chance with Sen. McConnell. Really.
Unlike Mr. Gerson, there is nothing, not one thing, wrong with having a challenge. There is nothing wrong with the party having to have an open debate on the issues. But we must absolutely unify when the primaries are over and get the winning candidate elected. Whether it is an establishment or Tea Party candidate. We can't have whiners like a Charlie Crist. Or a Mike Castle in Delaware. Or a Richard Lugar in Indiana. We can't have losers act like losers and not support the Republican candidate. That, more than anything is why we will lose any given election.
Without the Tea Party in the GOP orbit, there will not be major victories. With the establishment not being with Main Street instead of Wall Street, there will not be GOP victories. With people like Michael Gerson, we will be a minority party when we should be the majority party throughout the United States. The key is how to work together to get to those wins. That is what primaries are for.
*RINO-Republican In Name Only
That is why he writes dreck like this.
First its the choice of establishment Republicans like Mr. Gerson to beat up on Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx) and rocker Ted Nugent. But the long knife is always out there for the former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin. Note this line from the column:
(save Sarah Palin, who finally lost her long, sad struggle with ideological delirium)
Actually, Mrs. Palin is much more in touch with many Americans than is Mr. Gerson, now a total captive of the Washington Beltway.
Well, right after that gem from Mr. Gerson, here is this paragraph:
No political movement can persuade a great democracy without displaying a measure of democratic grace. And any ideological movement that claims to be inspired by faith and morality is discredited by language that dehumanizes its opponents.
For a moment, I thought that he was describing the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the current Democrat party.
But no, Mr. Gerson is in his mind describing the current state of the Republican party as he sees it.
One of the reason's there is a Tea Party movement is because the feeling among many Americans that the politicians just do not listen to them about anything. That there is a disconnect between the people and the politicians. And the evidence is much more on the Tea Party side than Mr. Gerson's side.
Now I do agree with the fact that we do have to have candidates that can win in November. And yes, some Tea Party candidates have not been all that. And yes sometimes conservatives to show how much they are against the establishment will back clear losers to the bitter end. Yes, Christine O'Donnell comes to mind in Delaware.
But that does not mean that long-time incumbents should never be challenged. If that did not happen in Utah for example, there would not be a Sen. Mike Lee. In Texas it was an open seat that now Sen. Cruz was running for. The establishment GOP in Texas was lining up behind the Lt. Governor, David Dewhurst, against now Sen. Cruz. And not only did he win the two-stage primary (a candidate has to get at least 40% in the first round, which neither did) but easily win the election for his seat. In Florida, Sen. Marco Rubio was a little-known state legislator that took on the worst of the GOP establishment in that state, former Gov. Charlie Crist. Of course the establishment all lined up for Mr. Crist. But Mr. Rubio not only prevailed but won the general election in a landslide. Oh, and lets not forget that Mr. Crist is now a Democrat running for his old job as governor in Florida. Good luck to that.
As I look at it this time around, the same thing is happening but the candidates are not as good as was in the 2010 and 2012 election cycle.
But it shows desperation when the GOP establishment seems more hellbent on beating up the upstarts over the potential Democrat challenger.
One of the clear realities of the Tea Party movement is that there is not one unifying leader to it. Thus it does lead to some things being done right and some being done wrong.
And thus we see that while Sen. Cruz is right on the overall point that O-Care needs to be repealed, doing so will not happen until there are more Republicans elected. And they need two things at the federal level. To win the senate, which they should be able to do this election in November, and the White House, which is a good possibility in 2016. I would really like to see Sen. Cruz work to get Republicans elected who can lead to that. Until then, we will still have this abomination known as O-Care.
The problem is that Mr. Gerson does not get why people aligned with the Tea Party movement on the right and the Occupy movement on the left is that it is the very groups as the United States Chamber of Commerce and big money donors on the Republican side that do not want the real change the Tea Party seeks. The big money donors are pretty much our crony capitalists. They just want the federal government to help them out and not the American people as a whole. When the United States Chamber of Commerce seem more interested in legalizing 10,000,000 illegal aliens over having a strong economy where American citizens get the jobs, it is just wrong. These two groups have narrow interests that the Tea Party is against.
Mr. Gerson is totally right in what this little fight among friends is all about:
Republicans are sorting through what kind of populists they hope to be.
The problem is that big money and establishment groups within the GOP are not exactly prone to populist notions. They are almost always perceived, and usually rightly so, as always willing to cut a bad deal especially with Democrats. Democrats that are like Lucy Van Pelt pulling that football away just as Charlie Brown gets that foot up to kick it. In that sense, many of us see Sen. Cruz as one who will at least fight, albeit not always smartly.
So here is something I look at in one race. That for the senate seat in Kentucky.
The incumbent is Sen. Mitch McConnell and the challenger is Matt Bevin. I wrote about it here. I know some people will suggest that I am everything like a RINO* and sellout and all the bromides that some can muster. But Mr. Bevin is not a good candidate. He can't explain why he was for TARP before he was against it. That is a big issue for Tea Party people. He wants Tea Party support and some will sink with him to show how much they don't like Sen. McConnell. If he can't do well against Sen. McConnell, imagine if he does win the primary and how he will do against the Democrat candidate, most likely to be Allison Grimes? Look, Sen. McConnell's biggest problem? He can't explain things in simple English when he goes on the radio or especially television. He sounds like he is speaking Washington double-talk, gobbly-gook. That is kind of why he is being challenged. But in this case, I would have to go with Sen. McConnell. Because in the end, I want to keep this seat in the Republican column, and that only has a chance with Sen. McConnell. Really.
Unlike Mr. Gerson, there is nothing, not one thing, wrong with having a challenge. There is nothing wrong with the party having to have an open debate on the issues. But we must absolutely unify when the primaries are over and get the winning candidate elected. Whether it is an establishment or Tea Party candidate. We can't have whiners like a Charlie Crist. Or a Mike Castle in Delaware. Or a Richard Lugar in Indiana. We can't have losers act like losers and not support the Republican candidate. That, more than anything is why we will lose any given election.
Without the Tea Party in the GOP orbit, there will not be major victories. With the establishment not being with Main Street instead of Wall Street, there will not be GOP victories. With people like Michael Gerson, we will be a minority party when we should be the majority party throughout the United States. The key is how to work together to get to those wins. That is what primaries are for.
*RINO-Republican In Name Only
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Sen. Marco Rubio Speaks Truth About Red Cuba
I meant to write about this awesome speech on the senate floor by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in which he schools commie sympathizer, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Ia.) about his recent trip to Red Cuba and touting the socialist medicine as people like Sen. Harkin are wont to do.
Sen. Harkin gave a speech on the senate floor touting how wonderful life is in Red Cuba. No surprise there really. And what do you think was the starting point of life in Red Cuba?
What else but the wonders of government-ran and controlled health care. Remember, not only is health care "free", but so is medical school.
Quick thought here. The late Venezuela dictator President Hugo Chavez went to Red Cuba for medical treatment for his cancer that eventually killed him. I guess you get what you pay for with "free" health care.
I do not know how many more times I have to do this, but once again I must refer you to this post that I wrote way back in 2009 about the left's claim that health care is a "right". In that post I went to explain the truth of "free", government-controlled health care the real Cuban citizen has to endure. And also once again, I will link you to The Real Cuba and explaining what the real average Cuban citizen has to deal with in their paradisaical health care system.
I know that there are enough people saying that I am those who oppose the Castro family and their reign of terror are basically full of it. People like Sen. Harkin would probably be one of those. So I would ask those people and Sen. Harkin is this.
Am I really seeing a hospital or clinic that the average Cuban would get to go to? I have found this web site that shows this as the conditions most Cubans endure in health care delivery. What of it? Are there really separate facilities for the foreigners and the Communist party elite?
They are legitimate questions if you really want to know. See how the hosts respond and act accordingly.
I highlight the health care argument that the Castro-enablers like Sen. Harkin always trot out as a way to get chummy with the Red Cubans. We who oppose government-ran health care also point this out as an argument against such a program.
But I do recommend that you actually watch Sen. Rubio eviscerate the likes of Sen. Harkin right on the senate floor. If you can not, then do read the speech here at Hotair.com.
I know, I know, many of my fellow conservatives will cite Sen. Rubio and his role in trying to get something done on so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. That is enough to turn you against him. Normally I would agree. But I think there was something for him to try to be a part of the negotiations. He, knowingly or unknowingly, showed the flaws of the so-called reform and he was the only one that wanted to try to get stricter enforcement. Without that, he walked away. Rightfully so. On that, I give him a pass for it has not come up again and that too is because he has not pushed it.
The speech shows the passion that is why Sen. Rubio caught my eye way back in 2010 when he announced his campaign for the United States senate. He was backed by the Tea Party and still today this is one of the best wins we had that year. The GOP establishment backed one Charlie Christ and poo-pooed Mr. Rubio. Oh yeah, note that Mr. Christ did not win the GOP nomination and ran and "independent" campaign for the senate seat. And lost. Mr. Rubio had 49% of the vote in a three-man race. And today, surprise, Mr. Christ is running for the Democrat nomination for governor.
Sen. Rubio gave one of the best speeches on the senate floor in years. No, it was not a filibuster or a long oratorical session. It was less than 15 minutes with minimal notes but facts on his side.
Sen. Rubio spoke the truth about Red Cuba and is a great voice for America in the United States senate.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Say, Did You Know That There Is A Revolution In Venezuela
Yes, we have seen the people's revolution in The Ukraine pretty much unabated. The cameras roll as the people forced out pseudo-President Viktor Yanukovich and turned the capital city, Kiev, into semi-anarchy.
But did you know that there is a revolution in Venezuela as well?
No, you didn't?
Hmm, maybe one of the reasons is that the dictator, President Nicolas Maduro, cancelled the press credentials of four of CNN's journalists covering the revolution. After all, the dictator, President Maduro, has pretty much taken over all media in Venezuela. Sorry Howard Stern, but dictator President Maduro is the King of All Media. At least in Venezuela. And for good measure, dictator President Maduro wants CNN en Espanol to "rectify" it's coverage of the revolution for it, well it just undermines his reign of terror.
The dictator President Maduro took power when the previous dictator, Hugo Chavez, died of cancer. At least President Chavez had some charisma and a solid following. President Chavez was a high-brow thug. Dictator President Maduro, well he is lower than a low-brow thug.
Want an example?
How about the murder of former beauty queen Genesis Carmona? She was not a political person according to an uncle, Jose Gil. But a former Miss Tourism state of Carabobo, Miss Carmona was tired of the economic deprivation caused by the insane socialist policies caused by Caudilo Maduro. Those policies have led to food shortages. Shortages of basic staples such as bread, and milk. Oh, and throw in baby food too.
According to witnesses at the protest, a group of roughly 50 thugs on motorcycles armed with handguns and that they fired into the crowd. Miss Carmona was shot in the head and later died at the hospital. And do you know that the government "investigators" are suggesting that one of those that were protesting with her did the deed. What makes this ridiculous is that Venezuela has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world.
Now there are many more examples that I can provide about what is going on in Venezuela that our venerable American leftywhore media is ignoring. But a great source of information is Fausta's Blog. It is a clearing house of information that is primarily from non-American news sources.
Why is the American leftywhore media ignoring this story?
Well, Ed Morrissey over at Hotair.com has some interesting observations, courtesy of The Wall Street Journal:
From Mexico to Brazil, most Latin American governments have remained impassive as the Venezuelan government violently cracks down on growing protests, arrests opposition leaders and censors most of the country’s media.
Yep, it is clear that South American nations that have freely elected left-wing governments, kind of sort of like the fact that the dictator President Maduro is not letting go of power. For it is defending the left-wing ideas that is important to these governments.
Basic human rights? Fuget bout it!
In fact, again courtesy of Hotair, an advisor to the Argentine president, Cristina Kirchner, Luis D'Elia, tweeted this in reference to opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez and his arrest by Venezuela police (he surrendered peacefully):
(Mr. Lopez) should be shot by a firing squad as an agent of the CIA.
Oh yeah. This is an advisor to President Kirchner. I would love to know what she thinks.
But back to the lack of coverage from the American leftywhore media.
According to Mr. Morrissey's post, here is a breakdown of the big three networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) and what is on their websites:
ABC had no new information on their website as of 12noon, EST today. The last update was February 19. That is this past Wednesday.
CBS did report something on this last night but in a comparison of coverage between The Ukraine and Venezuela, two nations facing revolution in the streets.
NBC has 15 mentions regarding The Ukraine on the front of the news web page. And what about Venezuela? Not a mention.
Does our so-called news media not even care about a revolution less than 500 miles off the United States? One has to wonder because it has not stopped. It is only getting larger. It could be that they are afraid to report and or try to get on the ground coverage since the overt threats of the dictator President Maduro. So what? It is their job to report on a real news story. This is a real news story whether they choose to minimize coverage or not. They are ceding ground to foreign outlets that will do anything for the story.
If you do go to Fausta's Blog, scroll down because you will see photos of hundreds of thousands if not millions out in the streets taking on the dictator President Maduro. Does that not rate for some more than cursory reportage from the American leftywhore media?
Or is it that our media overlords do not want to make the dictator President Maduro look bad and keep making Venezuela sound like heaven on earth? After Red Cuba, of course!
I think that it is a combination of things. Yes the American leftywhore media does tacitly support the leftism that permeates in Venezuela. But I also think that they are too scared to send reporters in and or depend on local media contacts. They do not want blood on their hands.
But despite the lack of coverage, the revolution will continue in Venezuela. And maybe at some point, our media will do some real reporting on it.
But did you know that there is a revolution in Venezuela as well?
No, you didn't?
Hmm, maybe one of the reasons is that the dictator, President Nicolas Maduro, cancelled the press credentials of four of CNN's journalists covering the revolution. After all, the dictator, President Maduro, has pretty much taken over all media in Venezuela. Sorry Howard Stern, but dictator President Maduro is the King of All Media. At least in Venezuela. And for good measure, dictator President Maduro wants CNN en Espanol to "rectify" it's coverage of the revolution for it, well it just undermines his reign of terror.
The dictator President Maduro took power when the previous dictator, Hugo Chavez, died of cancer. At least President Chavez had some charisma and a solid following. President Chavez was a high-brow thug. Dictator President Maduro, well he is lower than a low-brow thug.
Want an example?
How about the murder of former beauty queen Genesis Carmona? She was not a political person according to an uncle, Jose Gil. But a former Miss Tourism state of Carabobo, Miss Carmona was tired of the economic deprivation caused by the insane socialist policies caused by Caudilo Maduro. Those policies have led to food shortages. Shortages of basic staples such as bread, and milk. Oh, and throw in baby food too.
According to witnesses at the protest, a group of roughly 50 thugs on motorcycles armed with handguns and that they fired into the crowd. Miss Carmona was shot in the head and later died at the hospital. And do you know that the government "investigators" are suggesting that one of those that were protesting with her did the deed. What makes this ridiculous is that Venezuela has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world.
Now there are many more examples that I can provide about what is going on in Venezuela that our venerable American leftywhore media is ignoring. But a great source of information is Fausta's Blog. It is a clearing house of information that is primarily from non-American news sources.
Why is the American leftywhore media ignoring this story?
Well, Ed Morrissey over at Hotair.com has some interesting observations, courtesy of The Wall Street Journal:
From Mexico to Brazil, most Latin American governments have remained impassive as the Venezuelan government violently cracks down on growing protests, arrests opposition leaders and censors most of the country’s media.
Ideological affinity with Venezuela’s leftist government and economic interests, including the country’s oil largess, have complicated the response—or lack thereof—in the region. “The silence has been deafening,” said Michael Shifter, the president of the Washington-based think tank, the Inter-American Dialogue.
That lack of condemnation gives Mr. Maduro a lot of political leeway to increase the pressure on his opponents, according to former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda. “There is no Latin American government that is going to lift a finger,” he said.
Yep, it is clear that South American nations that have freely elected left-wing governments, kind of sort of like the fact that the dictator President Maduro is not letting go of power. For it is defending the left-wing ideas that is important to these governments.
Basic human rights? Fuget bout it!
In fact, again courtesy of Hotair, an advisor to the Argentine president, Cristina Kirchner, Luis D'Elia, tweeted this in reference to opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez and his arrest by Venezuela police (he surrendered peacefully):
(Mr. Lopez) should be shot by a firing squad as an agent of the CIA.
Oh yeah. This is an advisor to President Kirchner. I would love to know what she thinks.
But back to the lack of coverage from the American leftywhore media.
According to Mr. Morrissey's post, here is a breakdown of the big three networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) and what is on their websites:
ABC had no new information on their website as of 12noon, EST today. The last update was February 19. That is this past Wednesday.
CBS did report something on this last night but in a comparison of coverage between The Ukraine and Venezuela, two nations facing revolution in the streets.
NBC has 15 mentions regarding The Ukraine on the front of the news web page. And what about Venezuela? Not a mention.
Does our so-called news media not even care about a revolution less than 500 miles off the United States? One has to wonder because it has not stopped. It is only getting larger. It could be that they are afraid to report and or try to get on the ground coverage since the overt threats of the dictator President Maduro. So what? It is their job to report on a real news story. This is a real news story whether they choose to minimize coverage or not. They are ceding ground to foreign outlets that will do anything for the story.
If you do go to Fausta's Blog, scroll down because you will see photos of hundreds of thousands if not millions out in the streets taking on the dictator President Maduro. Does that not rate for some more than cursory reportage from the American leftywhore media?
Or is it that our media overlords do not want to make the dictator President Maduro look bad and keep making Venezuela sound like heaven on earth? After Red Cuba, of course!
I think that it is a combination of things. Yes the American leftywhore media does tacitly support the leftism that permeates in Venezuela. But I also think that they are too scared to send reporters in and or depend on local media contacts. They do not want blood on their hands.
But despite the lack of coverage, the revolution will continue in Venezuela. And maybe at some point, our media will do some real reporting on it.
Friday, February 21, 2014
This Tea Party Candidate Can Not Be Supported
Matt Bevin is running for the Republican nomination in Kentucky for the senate seat currently held by senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell.
Mr. Bevin is being supported by the Tea Party.
But two reasons come to the surface that make me believe Mr. Bevin is not the candidate for Kentucky.
Before I continue, anyone that has read this blog with any regularity knows that I am a solid conservative. I supported Sen. Marco Rubio in 2010 before anyone knew who he was. I thought that Christine O'Donnell in Delaware was getting a raw deal in her race against then congressman Rep. Mike Castle. I backed Sharon Angle in Nevada and she actually ran a great campaign.
The point is that this is not the kind of post I want to write. I am a Tea Party Republican.
But what are Mr. Bevin's two sins?
Let's start with his support of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP. TARP essentially bailed out the big banks that over extended themselves during the housing boom and essentially lended money to anyone with a pulse. Mr. Bevin was the president of am investment firm known as Veracity Funds. And in a letter to investors, it appears that Mr. Bevin signed it and in the letter it supports TARP. This link to Breitbart explains the now tortured reasoning Mr. Bevin is giving in signing the letter. The bottom line is that Mr. Bevin was for TARP before he was against it. Here is an excerpt from that letter. The excerpt that I believe damages Mr. Bevin's credibility:
Most of the positive developments [in the market this quarter] have been government led, such as the effective nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the passage of the $700 billion TARP (don't call it a bailout) and the Federal Reserve's intention to invest in commercial paper. These moves should help to stabilize asset prices and help to ease liquidity constraints in the financial system. We have yet to see significant improvement in lending spreads (for the most part the opposite is true), but are hopeful that the groundwork has been laid.
OK, the letter essentially says that the wonders of TARP is what has been the positive development in that particular quarter. At the end of the paragraph it essentially says that thanks to TARP, the groundwork is laid to see improvements to lending spreads.
When one puts a signature on any letter, at least they should take a cursory peek at what was written. I think that Mr. Bevin is speaking out of all sides of his mouth. First he refers to the document as an "investment commentary" then as a prospectus. Now he denies both claims. According to this article from Breitbart, Mr. Bevin claimed that he had to sign the disputed document by law. However, if you read on, Mr. Bevin did not sign a similar letter in 2009.
Yes, this is in the weeds but goes to credibility as to what Mr. Bevin really believes and if he does deserve the support of the Tea Party folks. If Mr. Bevin is really going John Kerry on the Republican voters of Kentucky, being for something before he was against it, then as a supporter/member of the Tea Party, I could not support Mr. Bevin.
The second reason is this wonderful commentary as to Mr. Bevin's opposition to same-sex marriage.
Yep, Mr. Bevin essentially said that same-sex marriage could lead to parents marrying their children for some kind of tax benefit.
I give you the particular paragraph from the Janet Meffered program:
If it's alright to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage-because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there's other repercussions and things that come with it-so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on that certain things to that child financially and otherwise.
UGH!
Really, why did Mr. Bevin go there? To make the sheer suggestion that say a mom could marry her daughter for tax purposes. And otherwise? Why did Mr. Bevin have to add those two words? And otherwise.
What the hell does that mean?
I think it is open to interpretation. But one is already being done by the left. And that is suggesting that incest could be what he meant.
This is where inexperience comes to rear it's ugly head.
This could be Mr. Bevin's Todd Akin moment. And because of it, Sen. McConnell will probably cruise to winning the GOP nomination.
Republican candidates have to grasp this in discussing same-sex marriage. And that is don't go down the road of "because of this, fill-in-the-blank will occur". Why not do that? Because the leftywhore media and the Democrats, I know redundant, huh?, will make that candidate sound like a total whack job.
Mr. Bevin actually had a great point about the tax benefits same-sex couples would have equivalent of married couples. As a supporter of the flat-tax and no deductions, it would eliminate the tax code being used for social engineering. And it is done by the right and the left. It's really pretty bipartisan if you ask me. Taxes should only be an evil necessity to fund the government, period. That is a better argument.
Another point that Mr. Bevin could have made is that he is not in favor of redefining marriage. Because same-sex marriage does redefine marriage. The proponents have to be honest about that. All that Mr. Bevin could add is that the traditional definition of marriage, one man to one woman, has been the bulwark of Western society for roughly 2,000 years. And there is the inconvenient truth that Utah was not admitted to the Union as a state until it stopped polygamy. And a revelation came to the then president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that stopped polygamy and then Utah became a state.
I believe that if any candidate is running to try and stem the tide of same-sex marriage, they should speak with a bit of eloquence and no throw in bromides that will turn off the great middle that any candidate needs to win a general election. Then mere suggestion that same-sex marriage can lead to parents marrying children is beyond a bromide. The reason is that opponents have tried the worst-case scenario and people, even some conservatives that do favor same-sex marriage, find it out of bounds. And if we want to win elections and maintain principles, our side better damn well do so but with a lot more savvy.
The things are that the Tea Party is about curtailing excessive government spending and intrusion into our lives. When a candidate claims he opposed one of the fundamental reasons for the Tea Party's being, TARP. and it turns out that is not true, it seems like said candidate is going to be stuck spending a lot of time on defense. That would be Mr. Bevin. When a candidate expresses opposition to same-sex marriage and goes into one of the most bizarre reasons why, it sounds more that said candidate is not always opposed to big government. That would be Mr. Bevin, again.
If a Tea Party candidate is having these problems in the primary and somehow wins the GOP nomination, unseating Sen. McConnell, realize that this will be the left's number one seat to take. And it will be easier because of what is happening now.
I must admit, I am not a big fan of Sen. McConnell. He is way too cozy in the Washington Ways. Seems to always be willing to cut bad deals with the Democrats. But on one issue, Sen. McConnell was spot on and that was his principled opposition to so-called campaign finance reform. Especially the dreaded McCain-Feingold debacle. I would have no problem giving Sen. McConnell a primary if the candidate actually knew what he was talking about. Mr. Bevin does not.
The Tea Party has to realize this. What is more important is to have a credible candidate in November. And like it or not, Sen. McConnell is a credible candidate and Mr. Bevin is not. I don't want this to be a waste of time, money and energy.
Therefore I can not, in good conscience, suggest to people in Kentucky to vote for Matt Bevin for the Republican nomination for senate. And I am not endorsing Sen. McConnell. But Matt Bevin is one Tea Party candidate I can not support and should not be supported.
Mr. Bevin is being supported by the Tea Party.
But two reasons come to the surface that make me believe Mr. Bevin is not the candidate for Kentucky.
Before I continue, anyone that has read this blog with any regularity knows that I am a solid conservative. I supported Sen. Marco Rubio in 2010 before anyone knew who he was. I thought that Christine O'Donnell in Delaware was getting a raw deal in her race against then congressman Rep. Mike Castle. I backed Sharon Angle in Nevada and she actually ran a great campaign.
The point is that this is not the kind of post I want to write. I am a Tea Party Republican.
But what are Mr. Bevin's two sins?
Let's start with his support of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP. TARP essentially bailed out the big banks that over extended themselves during the housing boom and essentially lended money to anyone with a pulse. Mr. Bevin was the president of am investment firm known as Veracity Funds. And in a letter to investors, it appears that Mr. Bevin signed it and in the letter it supports TARP. This link to Breitbart explains the now tortured reasoning Mr. Bevin is giving in signing the letter. The bottom line is that Mr. Bevin was for TARP before he was against it. Here is an excerpt from that letter. The excerpt that I believe damages Mr. Bevin's credibility:
Most of the positive developments [in the market this quarter] have been government led, such as the effective nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the passage of the $700 billion TARP (don't call it a bailout) and the Federal Reserve's intention to invest in commercial paper. These moves should help to stabilize asset prices and help to ease liquidity constraints in the financial system. We have yet to see significant improvement in lending spreads (for the most part the opposite is true), but are hopeful that the groundwork has been laid.
OK, the letter essentially says that the wonders of TARP is what has been the positive development in that particular quarter. At the end of the paragraph it essentially says that thanks to TARP, the groundwork is laid to see improvements to lending spreads.
When one puts a signature on any letter, at least they should take a cursory peek at what was written. I think that Mr. Bevin is speaking out of all sides of his mouth. First he refers to the document as an "investment commentary" then as a prospectus. Now he denies both claims. According to this article from Breitbart, Mr. Bevin claimed that he had to sign the disputed document by law. However, if you read on, Mr. Bevin did not sign a similar letter in 2009.
Yes, this is in the weeds but goes to credibility as to what Mr. Bevin really believes and if he does deserve the support of the Tea Party folks. If Mr. Bevin is really going John Kerry on the Republican voters of Kentucky, being for something before he was against it, then as a supporter/member of the Tea Party, I could not support Mr. Bevin.
The second reason is this wonderful commentary as to Mr. Bevin's opposition to same-sex marriage.
Yep, Mr. Bevin essentially said that same-sex marriage could lead to parents marrying their children for some kind of tax benefit.
I give you the particular paragraph from the Janet Meffered program:
If it's alright to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage-because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there's other repercussions and things that come with it-so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on that certain things to that child financially and otherwise.
UGH!
Really, why did Mr. Bevin go there? To make the sheer suggestion that say a mom could marry her daughter for tax purposes. And otherwise? Why did Mr. Bevin have to add those two words? And otherwise.
What the hell does that mean?
I think it is open to interpretation. But one is already being done by the left. And that is suggesting that incest could be what he meant.
This is where inexperience comes to rear it's ugly head.
This could be Mr. Bevin's Todd Akin moment. And because of it, Sen. McConnell will probably cruise to winning the GOP nomination.
Republican candidates have to grasp this in discussing same-sex marriage. And that is don't go down the road of "because of this, fill-in-the-blank will occur". Why not do that? Because the leftywhore media and the Democrats, I know redundant, huh?, will make that candidate sound like a total whack job.
Mr. Bevin actually had a great point about the tax benefits same-sex couples would have equivalent of married couples. As a supporter of the flat-tax and no deductions, it would eliminate the tax code being used for social engineering. And it is done by the right and the left. It's really pretty bipartisan if you ask me. Taxes should only be an evil necessity to fund the government, period. That is a better argument.
Another point that Mr. Bevin could have made is that he is not in favor of redefining marriage. Because same-sex marriage does redefine marriage. The proponents have to be honest about that. All that Mr. Bevin could add is that the traditional definition of marriage, one man to one woman, has been the bulwark of Western society for roughly 2,000 years. And there is the inconvenient truth that Utah was not admitted to the Union as a state until it stopped polygamy. And a revelation came to the then president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that stopped polygamy and then Utah became a state.
I believe that if any candidate is running to try and stem the tide of same-sex marriage, they should speak with a bit of eloquence and no throw in bromides that will turn off the great middle that any candidate needs to win a general election. Then mere suggestion that same-sex marriage can lead to parents marrying children is beyond a bromide. The reason is that opponents have tried the worst-case scenario and people, even some conservatives that do favor same-sex marriage, find it out of bounds. And if we want to win elections and maintain principles, our side better damn well do so but with a lot more savvy.
The things are that the Tea Party is about curtailing excessive government spending and intrusion into our lives. When a candidate claims he opposed one of the fundamental reasons for the Tea Party's being, TARP. and it turns out that is not true, it seems like said candidate is going to be stuck spending a lot of time on defense. That would be Mr. Bevin. When a candidate expresses opposition to same-sex marriage and goes into one of the most bizarre reasons why, it sounds more that said candidate is not always opposed to big government. That would be Mr. Bevin, again.
If a Tea Party candidate is having these problems in the primary and somehow wins the GOP nomination, unseating Sen. McConnell, realize that this will be the left's number one seat to take. And it will be easier because of what is happening now.
I must admit, I am not a big fan of Sen. McConnell. He is way too cozy in the Washington Ways. Seems to always be willing to cut bad deals with the Democrats. But on one issue, Sen. McConnell was spot on and that was his principled opposition to so-called campaign finance reform. Especially the dreaded McCain-Feingold debacle. I would have no problem giving Sen. McConnell a primary if the candidate actually knew what he was talking about. Mr. Bevin does not.
The Tea Party has to realize this. What is more important is to have a credible candidate in November. And like it or not, Sen. McConnell is a credible candidate and Mr. Bevin is not. I don't want this to be a waste of time, money and energy.
Therefore I can not, in good conscience, suggest to people in Kentucky to vote for Matt Bevin for the Republican nomination for senate. And I am not endorsing Sen. McConnell. But Matt Bevin is one Tea Party candidate I can not support and should not be supported.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Are My Fellow Californians Really This Stupid?
Really, are you, my fellow California citizens, whatever that means nowadays, this stupid to back warning labels and higher taxes on sodas?
It appears according to this Field Poll, you really are this moronic.
I can tell you something without the benefit of a warning label and or higher taxes.
Soda is bad for you. No really, any kind of soda is bad for you. It has a lot of sugar and or sugar substitutes and can make you fat and have teeth problems up to and as bad as losing said teeth.
Why I gave that advice to you for free.
But I guess my fellow Californians will believe anything. Anything as long as it's for the kiddies.
I never thought that I would write such a thing but screw the kiddies.
I mean it. If you are a parent and can not show simple restraint in what your children put into their bodies, your parenting can come into questioning. If you are an adult as most of those reading this are, and you don't know this, then you are stupid.
The most appalling aspect of this poll is the breakdown as far as support.
Overall, 74% of registered voters polled support warning labels on soda products. Not surprisingly, 80% of Democrats support it. And 75% of independents also show support of the warning labels. But 64% of Republicans support warning labels on soda products.
Sixty-four percent of Republicans?!
What happened to adults making their own decisions based on the facts presented to them? I guess There is a bunch of Republicans that don't care anymore.
The group known as the California Endowment, which supports pretty much any left-wing cause including the warning labels, paid for this poll and hired the Field Poll because it has a reputation of being tacitly non-partisan.
Here is what a proposed warning label would say:
Studies show that daily consumption of sodas and other sugary drinks contribute to diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay.
No, really?! I am so shocked that I need the government to tell the soda makers that they have to inform the so sheltered public that there are potential risks of consuming their products.
Of course I am not shocked! I have heard much of this since I was a wee tyke back in the late 1960s and 70s when I was growing up. And it is pretty much a known fact that these are the potential side effects of excessive, and that is the key, excessive soda consumption.
Have we fallen so bad on using our common sense that we need government interference? Are we that gullible to think that an essential 24c tax on 12 ounces of soda will really go to the kiddies? Well, that is what we were sold on the state lottery. If that was the case, every school in the state would be fully funded, teachers would be paid more awesome salaries than they already are and we would be producing the best educated kids in the United States.
Now when questioned about the actual soda tax, the number actually goes down to 67% in the poll. And it is noted that similar legislation failed in the city of Richmond, California and in polling in San Francisco, it is short of the 67% that it would need to pass the voters if put on the local ballot later this year.
Clearly, while a majority seem to support the tax idea in theory, when it comes down to voting on it, there is a failure to get two-thirds a vote that is needed to raise such taxes.
But understand why it has such a high number is that thescam idea is that as long as the money is spent on supposed programs to to help childhood programs regarding this issue.
I have a novel idea.
Why is this not part of the school curriculum? Right from first grade children should be taught about such dangers as excessive soda consumption and general hygiene such as dental care and the importance of brushing and flossing their teeth. If that is done, we don't need such silliness as another tax that will, more than likely, be squandered and not do what it is supposed to.
This is for my fellow Californians from a place of seriousness.
Parents, it is up to you to teach your children about what is good and not good for them to drink and eat. You already know that soda is probably not good for them to consume. You need to exert control. You do not need the government to do it for you.
Adults, I repeat, soda is not good for you. you do no need the government to force soda makers to make you aware of that fact. Also, do not think that a separate program that is suppose to help "educate" the kiddies will do what it claims will work. Do not be fooled into supporting higher taxes because, well its for the kiddies.
In other words my fellow Californians, don't be stupid and fall for this new act of government intrusion into our private lives and decisions. Say no to warning labels and taxes against sodas!
It appears according to this Field Poll, you really are this moronic.
I can tell you something without the benefit of a warning label and or higher taxes.
Soda is bad for you. No really, any kind of soda is bad for you. It has a lot of sugar and or sugar substitutes and can make you fat and have teeth problems up to and as bad as losing said teeth.
Why I gave that advice to you for free.
But I guess my fellow Californians will believe anything. Anything as long as it's for the kiddies.
I never thought that I would write such a thing but screw the kiddies.
I mean it. If you are a parent and can not show simple restraint in what your children put into their bodies, your parenting can come into questioning. If you are an adult as most of those reading this are, and you don't know this, then you are stupid.
The most appalling aspect of this poll is the breakdown as far as support.
Overall, 74% of registered voters polled support warning labels on soda products. Not surprisingly, 80% of Democrats support it. And 75% of independents also show support of the warning labels. But 64% of Republicans support warning labels on soda products.
Sixty-four percent of Republicans?!
What happened to adults making their own decisions based on the facts presented to them? I guess There is a bunch of Republicans that don't care anymore.
The group known as the California Endowment, which supports pretty much any left-wing cause including the warning labels, paid for this poll and hired the Field Poll because it has a reputation of being tacitly non-partisan.
Here is what a proposed warning label would say:
Studies show that daily consumption of sodas and other sugary drinks contribute to diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay.
No, really?! I am so shocked that I need the government to tell the soda makers that they have to inform the so sheltered public that there are potential risks of consuming their products.
Of course I am not shocked! I have heard much of this since I was a wee tyke back in the late 1960s and 70s when I was growing up. And it is pretty much a known fact that these are the potential side effects of excessive, and that is the key, excessive soda consumption.
Have we fallen so bad on using our common sense that we need government interference? Are we that gullible to think that an essential 24c tax on 12 ounces of soda will really go to the kiddies? Well, that is what we were sold on the state lottery. If that was the case, every school in the state would be fully funded, teachers would be paid more awesome salaries than they already are and we would be producing the best educated kids in the United States.
Now when questioned about the actual soda tax, the number actually goes down to 67% in the poll. And it is noted that similar legislation failed in the city of Richmond, California and in polling in San Francisco, it is short of the 67% that it would need to pass the voters if put on the local ballot later this year.
Clearly, while a majority seem to support the tax idea in theory, when it comes down to voting on it, there is a failure to get two-thirds a vote that is needed to raise such taxes.
But understand why it has such a high number is that the
I have a novel idea.
Why is this not part of the school curriculum? Right from first grade children should be taught about such dangers as excessive soda consumption and general hygiene such as dental care and the importance of brushing and flossing their teeth. If that is done, we don't need such silliness as another tax that will, more than likely, be squandered and not do what it is supposed to.
This is for my fellow Californians from a place of seriousness.
Parents, it is up to you to teach your children about what is good and not good for them to drink and eat. You already know that soda is probably not good for them to consume. You need to exert control. You do not need the government to do it for you.
Adults, I repeat, soda is not good for you. you do no need the government to force soda makers to make you aware of that fact. Also, do not think that a separate program that is suppose to help "educate" the kiddies will do what it claims will work. Do not be fooled into supporting higher taxes because, well its for the kiddies.
In other words my fellow Californians, don't be stupid and fall for this new act of government intrusion into our private lives and decisions. Say no to warning labels and taxes against sodas!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)