The basis of religion is faith. Faith is belief in the existence of something that can't be seen, touched, heard, or felt.
I recently watched a video of children being propagandized by a group of Obama supporters. They sang about Obama leading the way to a better America and world. The lyrics were eerily similar to religious hymns, filled with messages of believing, acceptance, love, and faith.
We the People endured over a year of political campaigning, ads and rhetoric. Billions of words were written about the candidates, their accomplishments, the company they kept, and the periphery surrounding it all. Some was accurate, some was speculative, some taken out of context, and some was flat out BS.
When the smoke cleared after the general election, Obama won.
Pretty typical process during an election in this country. Right?
What isn't typical is the faith demonstrated by a majority of We the People in voting for Barack Hussein Obama to lead our country and essentially, the free world.
Prior to his election, he worked in Chicago as a community organizer. Eventually he got into politics, and served less than one term as the junior senator from Illinois. While serving in this capacity, he voted "present" 130 times. Many of these "present" votes were on significant issues such as abortion, protection of rape victims, and juvenile offenders in Illinois.
He was relatively passive and ineffective during his short career in the senate, authoring only 152 bills with only 16 passed into law. While the significance of these bills is debatable, the fact that he was a sponsor or co-sponsor of 427 puts it into perspective. That's him saying "yeah, that sounds good, I'll put my name on that" 427 times, rather than taking a leadership role in crafting legislation himself.
The bottom line is that one can visit some of the most rabid Obama supporters and ask, "What did Obama accomplish prior to his presidency?" and get nothing but blank stares.
And leading up to the election, we hear that Obama faithfully attended the same church for 20 years where the pastor Rev. Wright loudly "God damn"ed the country that Obama aspired to lead. Then, Obama wants us to believe he wasn't aware of his pastor's sentiments.
We learned that other associates of Obama's during his career as an organizer and politician include Bill Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground, who bombed a federal building and is unrepentant to this day. Then there is the convicted felon Tony Rezko, a shady real estate mogul who "helped" Obama buy a house.
These aren't mere acquaintances or benign associations. Rev Wright married the Obamas. The political career of Obama was launched in Ayers' living room during a fundraiser Ayers organized for him.
Yet despite all of this, a good portion of We the People have faith that Obama is America's savior.
We can see, hear, touch, or feel absolutely no evidence of his ability to save anything, but We the People have faith, baby.
Welcome to the Obama religion. Tithe up, bitches!
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Letter From a Citizen
This is a great letter!
I am Janet Contreras, a concerned, home-grown American citizen. I am 53, and I have been a registered Democrat all of my adult life. Before the last Presidential election, I registered Republican because I no longer feel the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. I now no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me.
There must be someone, please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me you are there and are willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please do it now.
You might ask yourselves what my views and issues are that I would feel so horribly disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me? These are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:
* Illegal Immigration—I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S. I am not a racist. This not to be confused with legal immigration.
* TARP Bill—I want it repealed and no further funding supplied to it. We told you “NO!” but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze! Repeal!
* Czars—I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the Czars. No more Czars. Government officials answer to the process not the President. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.
* Cap & Trade—the debate on global warming is NOT over, there IS more to say.
* Universal Health Care—I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don’t you dare pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!
* Growing Government Control—I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Please mind your own business; you have enough to do with your REAL obligations. Let’s start there.
* ACORN—I do not want ACORN or its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them on every real estate deal that closes. Stop all funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audit and investigation. I do not trust them with the taking of the census or with taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before the taxpayers get any further involved with them. It walks like a duck and talks like a duck—hello… stop protecting political buddies. You work for the people. Investigate.
* Redistribution of Wealth—No. If I work for it, it is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth I support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do want me to hate my employers? What do your have against shareholders making a profit?
* Charitable Contributions—although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities where we know our needs best and can use local talent and resources. Butt out, please. We want to do this ourselves.
* Corporate Bail Outs—knock it off! Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we will be better off just getting to it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful, like ripping off a band aid. We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us a chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.
* Transparency and Accountability—how about it? No really, let’s have it. Let’s say we give the “buzz” words a rest and have some straight, honest talk. Please stop trying to manipulate and appease me with cleaver wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.
* Unprecedented Quick Spending—stop it, now. Take a breath. Listen to “The People.”
Let’s just slow down and get some more input from some “non-politicians” on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law.
I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant nor a violent person. I am a mother and grandmother. I am a working woman. I am busy, busy, busy and tired, tired, tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawns and wash our cars on weekends, and be responsible, contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same, all the while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.
I entrusted you with upholding our Constitution and believed in the checks and balances to keep you from getting too far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think that I find humor in hiring a speed reader to unintelligibly ramble through a bill you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not! It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face! I am not laughing—the arrogance!
Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it, but you expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children? We did not want that TARP bill. We said “NO!” We would repeal it if we could. I am not sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all the recent spending. From my perspective, it seems that you have all gone insane.
I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back!
You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington.
http://glennbeck.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/17/an-open-letter-to-our-nations-leadership/#more-503
I am Janet Contreras, a concerned, home-grown American citizen. I am 53, and I have been a registered Democrat all of my adult life. Before the last Presidential election, I registered Republican because I no longer feel the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. I now no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me.
There must be someone, please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me you are there and are willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please do it now.
You might ask yourselves what my views and issues are that I would feel so horribly disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me? These are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:
* Illegal Immigration—I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S. I am not a racist. This not to be confused with legal immigration.
* TARP Bill—I want it repealed and no further funding supplied to it. We told you “NO!” but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze! Repeal!
* Czars—I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the Czars. No more Czars. Government officials answer to the process not the President. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.
* Cap & Trade—the debate on global warming is NOT over, there IS more to say.
* Universal Health Care—I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don’t you dare pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!
* Growing Government Control—I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Please mind your own business; you have enough to do with your REAL obligations. Let’s start there.
* ACORN—I do not want ACORN or its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them on every real estate deal that closes. Stop all funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audit and investigation. I do not trust them with the taking of the census or with taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before the taxpayers get any further involved with them. It walks like a duck and talks like a duck—hello… stop protecting political buddies. You work for the people. Investigate.
* Redistribution of Wealth—No. If I work for it, it is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth I support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do want me to hate my employers? What do your have against shareholders making a profit?
* Charitable Contributions—although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities where we know our needs best and can use local talent and resources. Butt out, please. We want to do this ourselves.
* Corporate Bail Outs—knock it off! Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we will be better off just getting to it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful, like ripping off a band aid. We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us a chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.
* Transparency and Accountability—how about it? No really, let’s have it. Let’s say we give the “buzz” words a rest and have some straight, honest talk. Please stop trying to manipulate and appease me with cleaver wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.
* Unprecedented Quick Spending—stop it, now. Take a breath. Listen to “The People.”
Let’s just slow down and get some more input from some “non-politicians” on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law.
I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant nor a violent person. I am a mother and grandmother. I am a working woman. I am busy, busy, busy and tired, tired, tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawns and wash our cars on weekends, and be responsible, contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same, all the while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.
I entrusted you with upholding our Constitution and believed in the checks and balances to keep you from getting too far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think that I find humor in hiring a speed reader to unintelligibly ramble through a bill you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not! It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face! I am not laughing—the arrogance!
Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it, but you expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children? We did not want that TARP bill. We said “NO!” We would repeal it if we could. I am not sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all the recent spending. From my perspective, it seems that you have all gone insane.
I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back!
You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington.
http://glennbeck.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/17/an-open-letter-to-our-nations-leadership/#more-503
Friday, June 12, 2009
Living Under a Rock
Today at noon, all major TV stations will switch to broadcasting their content in all digital format, and the majority of analog broadcasting will cease.
All but the highest-end TV's manufactured prior to 1998 lack the circuitry to receive DTV broadcasts on their own. However, anyone that subscribes to cable or satellite service is able to receive digital signals by default, because of the coverter boxes those services provide.
The transition has been in the works for over ten years. The relentless public awareness campaign began over two years ago, and was designed to ensure everyone that had an analog TV and over-the-air antenna was aware and informed of steps they need to take in order to continue watching TV. The full-on assault on public ignorance included commercials with dancing TV's, catchy songs, easy to remember steps, multiple websites, advertisements in every media imaginable, and even mobile "DTV Transition" trucks that set up in high traffic areas to get the word out.
The conversion date was set for February 17, 2009. But, the liberal Democrats, always the champions of the limp, lame, lazy and ignorant, threw a fit about people being unaware and unprepared (even after a two-year media blitz) and succeeded in passing legislation that pushed out the DTV transition four months, into June, where we are today.
Today's news headlines point out today is the day and, tipping their hats to the liberal Democrat nanny-state coddlers, most of the press calls out that "millions" will be left out and will be unable to watch TV. Despite the dancing TV's, full page ads, and unprecedented publicity about the change, news snippets shriek, "...likely stranding more than 1 million unprepared homes without TV service", "More than 2 million households are in danger of seeing their major broadcast TV channels disappear into a fuzz of static...", "About 2.2 million homes still not DTV ready", etc. etc. etc.
Evidently there was a survey taken by an "association of broadcasters", and that is where the numbers come from. Logic dictates that by simply answering a survey about a subject, you become aware of it if you weren't aware before.
The country is a big place. I'd venture to say that the number of households that are prepared for this switch are higher than 98%. Yet the media is trumpeting the plight of those poor, disadvantaged 2%, who are unprepared. At this point, there really is no excuse. Either those 2% are living under a rock, willfully ignorant, or just don't care.
Why is it that the media wants us all to feel outrage towards the transition? Why do they want us to feel sorry for those that will be "left in the dark"? At what point is it OK for us to be proud of our advancement into the digital TV age, and proud of our preparedness to do so, without the transference of guilt and shame by the media for leaving the small percentage of non-participants behind?
This is still America, and much to the chagrin of the nanny-state liberals, there are still expectations that people take personal responsibility for themselves and their standards of living despite the socialist & Marxist agenda of the current administration. The day that the government relieves the people of their personal responsibility for themselves is the day I move to another country.
So I say to all those that are being "left behind", willfully or not: get out from under your rock and participate in America, before someone does it for you.
All but the highest-end TV's manufactured prior to 1998 lack the circuitry to receive DTV broadcasts on their own. However, anyone that subscribes to cable or satellite service is able to receive digital signals by default, because of the coverter boxes those services provide.
The transition has been in the works for over ten years. The relentless public awareness campaign began over two years ago, and was designed to ensure everyone that had an analog TV and over-the-air antenna was aware and informed of steps they need to take in order to continue watching TV. The full-on assault on public ignorance included commercials with dancing TV's, catchy songs, easy to remember steps, multiple websites, advertisements in every media imaginable, and even mobile "DTV Transition" trucks that set up in high traffic areas to get the word out.
The conversion date was set for February 17, 2009. But, the liberal Democrats, always the champions of the limp, lame, lazy and ignorant, threw a fit about people being unaware and unprepared (even after a two-year media blitz) and succeeded in passing legislation that pushed out the DTV transition four months, into June, where we are today.
Today's news headlines point out today is the day and, tipping their hats to the liberal Democrat nanny-state coddlers, most of the press calls out that "millions" will be left out and will be unable to watch TV. Despite the dancing TV's, full page ads, and unprecedented publicity about the change, news snippets shriek, "...likely stranding more than 1 million unprepared homes without TV service", "More than 2 million households are in danger of seeing their major broadcast TV channels disappear into a fuzz of static...", "About 2.2 million homes still not DTV ready", etc. etc. etc.
Evidently there was a survey taken by an "association of broadcasters", and that is where the numbers come from. Logic dictates that by simply answering a survey about a subject, you become aware of it if you weren't aware before.
The country is a big place. I'd venture to say that the number of households that are prepared for this switch are higher than 98%. Yet the media is trumpeting the plight of those poor, disadvantaged 2%, who are unprepared. At this point, there really is no excuse. Either those 2% are living under a rock, willfully ignorant, or just don't care.
Why is it that the media wants us all to feel outrage towards the transition? Why do they want us to feel sorry for those that will be "left in the dark"? At what point is it OK for us to be proud of our advancement into the digital TV age, and proud of our preparedness to do so, without the transference of guilt and shame by the media for leaving the small percentage of non-participants behind?
This is still America, and much to the chagrin of the nanny-state liberals, there are still expectations that people take personal responsibility for themselves and their standards of living despite the socialist & Marxist agenda of the current administration. The day that the government relieves the people of their personal responsibility for themselves is the day I move to another country.
So I say to all those that are being "left behind", willfully or not: get out from under your rock and participate in America, before someone does it for you.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
More Liberal Tolerance
By now everyone has heard about the Miss USA contest, and the political outcome of the competition.
One of the judges, a goofy, flamboyantly gay blogger named Perez Hilton, asked the contestant from California what her views were on gay marriage.
The contestant, Carrie Prejean, answered, "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised".
Predictably, her answer didn't go over well with at least one of the judges. Hilton gave her extremely low marks for her answer and later called Prejean a "stupid bitch" in a Youtube video rant. He has since declined to apologize, saying that though he used the "b" word, he was thinking the "c" word.
Today, the financier for the Miss USA pageant, Donald Trump, said about Hilton "I’d love to have him back [as a judge]," Trump said. "I mean, I'd love to have him back."
This is just more evidence that liberals are not as tolerant as they expect everyone else to be, and that the Miss USA pageant is about nothing more than which hot chick agrees with the judges' - and Donald Trump's - politics.
Also, it's interesting that liberal president Barack Obama has stated the same position on gay marriage as Carrie Prejean. Then again, he was on the campaign trail and his mouth was moving, so he was lying.
At least conservatives don't pretend to have an abundance of tolerance. Someone once said, "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions". Most conservatives are religious to some extent, and religious teachings are the most firmly rooted convictions that there are. Gay marriage falls under that umbrella.
You may be thinking, "well her position wasn't exactly tolerant, was it?" Let's examine the situation. She was asked to share her personal opinion, and she did. It was not "I hate homos", or "fags suck", or "I do not tolerate gay marriage". Those would be positions of intolerance.
Had the roles been reversed, nobody would have tolerated her calling him a "stupid dick" for believing that gay marriage should be legal. And she sure would not have been invited back in such a gushing, adorant manner to sit in judgment again.
I fail to understand why endorsing something that is illegal in most states is a prerequisite for becoming Miss USA. Hey, I just had an idea! Maybe if I advocate child molestation, polygamy or bestiality, I can become the next Mr. Olympia!
One of the judges, a goofy, flamboyantly gay blogger named Perez Hilton, asked the contestant from California what her views were on gay marriage.
The contestant, Carrie Prejean, answered, "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised".
Predictably, her answer didn't go over well with at least one of the judges. Hilton gave her extremely low marks for her answer and later called Prejean a "stupid bitch" in a Youtube video rant. He has since declined to apologize, saying that though he used the "b" word, he was thinking the "c" word.
Today, the financier for the Miss USA pageant, Donald Trump, said about Hilton "I’d love to have him back [as a judge]," Trump said. "I mean, I'd love to have him back."
This is just more evidence that liberals are not as tolerant as they expect everyone else to be, and that the Miss USA pageant is about nothing more than which hot chick agrees with the judges' - and Donald Trump's - politics.
Also, it's interesting that liberal president Barack Obama has stated the same position on gay marriage as Carrie Prejean. Then again, he was on the campaign trail and his mouth was moving, so he was lying.
At least conservatives don't pretend to have an abundance of tolerance. Someone once said, "Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions". Most conservatives are religious to some extent, and religious teachings are the most firmly rooted convictions that there are. Gay marriage falls under that umbrella.
You may be thinking, "well her position wasn't exactly tolerant, was it?" Let's examine the situation. She was asked to share her personal opinion, and she did. It was not "I hate homos", or "fags suck", or "I do not tolerate gay marriage". Those would be positions of intolerance.
Had the roles been reversed, nobody would have tolerated her calling him a "stupid dick" for believing that gay marriage should be legal. And she sure would not have been invited back in such a gushing, adorant manner to sit in judgment again.
I fail to understand why endorsing something that is illegal in most states is a prerequisite for becoming Miss USA. Hey, I just had an idea! Maybe if I advocate child molestation, polygamy or bestiality, I can become the next Mr. Olympia!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Hey Dummy!
Something finally snapped in my head the other day. I think it was my tolerance tendon, reacting to yet another instance of abusing, misusing, molesting, adulterating and exploiting the word "smart".
Thinking about this phenomenon, the first abuse I can recall offhand is "Smartfood"; I think they make popcorn and stuff. Then there is "Smartlease", a GM product. Go to various shopping outlets and you'll see references to "smart buys". Many of us carry "smartphones", and I laugh at the morons that drive those little "Smart" cars (which doesn't seem too smart after all, according to the crash studies in the news today).
Those of us who have been in the Army in the past 20 years have undoubtedly heard of the "smartbook", a new soldier's bible. And in the corporate world, you have the "S.M.A.R.T." goal methodology. And all you high achievers out there probably eat that Smart Start breakfast cereal, huh? How many of us have those new "smart cards" that have the RFID chip in them?
So, being the anal and literal person I am, my tolerance tendon got pulled askew every time I saw examples like these. Are these companies calling me a dummy if I don't buy into their "smart" stuff? If I buy my car instead of going the "smartlease" route, is GM inferring that I'm of lesser intelligence? If I eat Cheerios in the morning, that makes me more of a drooling, inept knuckle-dragger than if I were to eat Smart Start?
Just how smart can popcorn be, anyway? Is it going to help me pass the Mensa test or explain the pythagorean theorem from right there in the bowl? And this phone - it can't be that damn smart if it doesn't stop me from drunk dialing. How smart is it to have a credit card that allows who-knows-who-all to track where you are and what you're spending money on at any hour of day or night?
I'm pretty content being a big dumbass. I'm not a big fan of GM, don't like popcorn that has no taste, and don't eat much cereal. My memories of my smartbook are painful, and you'll never catch me within ten feet of one of those little deathtraps known as Smart cars. I sure don't need any more credit cards, no matter how smart they are.
Then again, I'm very attached to my smartphone, so maybe I'm not as big of a dumbass as I thought. Maybe just a smartass.
Thinking about this phenomenon, the first abuse I can recall offhand is "Smartfood"; I think they make popcorn and stuff. Then there is "Smartlease", a GM product. Go to various shopping outlets and you'll see references to "smart buys". Many of us carry "smartphones", and I laugh at the morons that drive those little "Smart" cars (which doesn't seem too smart after all, according to the crash studies in the news today).
Those of us who have been in the Army in the past 20 years have undoubtedly heard of the "smartbook", a new soldier's bible. And in the corporate world, you have the "S.M.A.R.T." goal methodology. And all you high achievers out there probably eat that Smart Start breakfast cereal, huh? How many of us have those new "smart cards" that have the RFID chip in them?
So, being the anal and literal person I am, my tolerance tendon got pulled askew every time I saw examples like these. Are these companies calling me a dummy if I don't buy into their "smart" stuff? If I buy my car instead of going the "smartlease" route, is GM inferring that I'm of lesser intelligence? If I eat Cheerios in the morning, that makes me more of a drooling, inept knuckle-dragger than if I were to eat Smart Start?
Just how smart can popcorn be, anyway? Is it going to help me pass the Mensa test or explain the pythagorean theorem from right there in the bowl? And this phone - it can't be that damn smart if it doesn't stop me from drunk dialing. How smart is it to have a credit card that allows who-knows-who-all to track where you are and what you're spending money on at any hour of day or night?
I'm pretty content being a big dumbass. I'm not a big fan of GM, don't like popcorn that has no taste, and don't eat much cereal. My memories of my smartbook are painful, and you'll never catch me within ten feet of one of those little deathtraps known as Smart cars. I sure don't need any more credit cards, no matter how smart they are.
Then again, I'm very attached to my smartphone, so maybe I'm not as big of a dumbass as I thought. Maybe just a smartass.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Two-Faced on Telecommuting
My job as a project manager for a very large international telecommunications company is an ideal model for telecommuting. I log into our corporate network via secure VPN connection to obtain data, analyze it, and produce reports, analysis & recommendations related to the health and effectiveness of our business unit's IT applications. Interaction with my boss, co-workers, clients and resources is handled over the telephone and the computer via email or web-based conferencing/computer sharing applications.
For the last year, I've been working from home. It's worked out beautifully! I am able to work in comfort, with everything I need within a few steps of my desk. As a smoker, I can indulge in my habit without having to stop what I'm doing to go outside - 50 feet from the entrance to the building - to light up. I don't have to slog to and from our downtown offices in the horrible Dallas traffic, wasting time and gas. I end up using that time to get work done.
However, the edict came down recently from on high that all employees will work at a company assigned work location (office). Those who had formal telecommuting arrangements would be forced back into an office. Nobody is exempt; no matter what your job is, you have to work in a company office. If you're an outside sales rep and spend much of your time on the road, you will still be required to report to the office if you aren't on an appointment with a customer. If you have absolutely no interaction with anyone within the company, you are still required to work in a company office location.
This is Dilbert's pointy-haired boss in action; the departure from logic that this mandate demonstrates is mind-boggling.
First, our company prides itself on its suite of products and services that facilitate telecommuting. In fact, the internal corporate mantras, beaten into the employees on a regular basis, all relate to the global network. Facilitating the communication needs of everyone no matter where they are. Creating a seamless communication environment around the world. Doing it better than anyone else. We sell these concepts internally to the employees and externally to our customers. But it seems we don't want to walk the talk ourselves.
Second, companies these days, including mine, are all jumping on the "green" bandwagon. Cutting down on energy usage, carbon emissions, and working to lessen the human impact on our environment is all the rage these days. This shortsighted policy of "you work in an office, period" is very anti-green. As such, it is not in line with what we state to be our commitment to being a good corporate partner with our community.
Third, it is anyone's guess as to why our leadership team made this decision. Perhaps there are issues of trust. It seems simple to me - if leadership doesn't trust people to do their jobs without direct, constant supervision, then those people shouldn't be in management positions or positions that require a high degree of autonomy or self-direction. Those are generally the types of jobs that are ideal for telecommuting.
Fourth, another constant drumbeat we're subjected to internally is related to saving money and expenses. It stands to reason that if employees whose jobs could be done at home or remotely were allowed to take advantage of a telecommunting arrangement, it would save the company tens of millions of dollars in real estate expenses. Not only building leases, but also the utilities/amenities required to support workers who fill those offices.
Last but not least (well, I take that back - it may the the last concern of our leadership team) is the impact on employee morale. In this economy, more and more people are having to scrimp and save every dime just to get by every month. Our company, like all the others out there, is cutting back everywhere you look. Layoffs are a regular occurance. Job security is non-existent. Benefits have been scaled back. Pensions are a thing of the past. Salaries are frozen. Bonuses have plummeted. Stock options are worthless. Morale is swirling down the toilet. Enacting this stupid, draconian policy just adds to the stress that our employees face every single day with the added expense of gas, parking, vehicle maintenance, and tolls. Or at the very least, a bus pass. Bottom line: more personal expenses.
It's not very often that I am disappointed in my company's leadership team, but this is one of those times.
For the last year, I've been working from home. It's worked out beautifully! I am able to work in comfort, with everything I need within a few steps of my desk. As a smoker, I can indulge in my habit without having to stop what I'm doing to go outside - 50 feet from the entrance to the building - to light up. I don't have to slog to and from our downtown offices in the horrible Dallas traffic, wasting time and gas. I end up using that time to get work done.
However, the edict came down recently from on high that all employees will work at a company assigned work location (office). Those who had formal telecommuting arrangements would be forced back into an office. Nobody is exempt; no matter what your job is, you have to work in a company office. If you're an outside sales rep and spend much of your time on the road, you will still be required to report to the office if you aren't on an appointment with a customer. If you have absolutely no interaction with anyone within the company, you are still required to work in a company office location.
This is Dilbert's pointy-haired boss in action; the departure from logic that this mandate demonstrates is mind-boggling.
First, our company prides itself on its suite of products and services that facilitate telecommuting. In fact, the internal corporate mantras, beaten into the employees on a regular basis, all relate to the global network. Facilitating the communication needs of everyone no matter where they are. Creating a seamless communication environment around the world. Doing it better than anyone else. We sell these concepts internally to the employees and externally to our customers. But it seems we don't want to walk the talk ourselves.
Second, companies these days, including mine, are all jumping on the "green" bandwagon. Cutting down on energy usage, carbon emissions, and working to lessen the human impact on our environment is all the rage these days. This shortsighted policy of "you work in an office, period" is very anti-green. As such, it is not in line with what we state to be our commitment to being a good corporate partner with our community.
Third, it is anyone's guess as to why our leadership team made this decision. Perhaps there are issues of trust. It seems simple to me - if leadership doesn't trust people to do their jobs without direct, constant supervision, then those people shouldn't be in management positions or positions that require a high degree of autonomy or self-direction. Those are generally the types of jobs that are ideal for telecommuting.
Fourth, another constant drumbeat we're subjected to internally is related to saving money and expenses. It stands to reason that if employees whose jobs could be done at home or remotely were allowed to take advantage of a telecommunting arrangement, it would save the company tens of millions of dollars in real estate expenses. Not only building leases, but also the utilities/amenities required to support workers who fill those offices.
Last but not least (well, I take that back - it may the the last concern of our leadership team) is the impact on employee morale. In this economy, more and more people are having to scrimp and save every dime just to get by every month. Our company, like all the others out there, is cutting back everywhere you look. Layoffs are a regular occurance. Job security is non-existent. Benefits have been scaled back. Pensions are a thing of the past. Salaries are frozen. Bonuses have plummeted. Stock options are worthless. Morale is swirling down the toilet. Enacting this stupid, draconian policy just adds to the stress that our employees face every single day with the added expense of gas, parking, vehicle maintenance, and tolls. Or at the very least, a bus pass. Bottom line: more personal expenses.
It's not very often that I am disappointed in my company's leadership team, but this is one of those times.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Obama the Hypocrite
You know, I'd decided shortly after the election to try and give B. Hussein a fair shake. He managed to avoid stepping on his johnson for about a week.
Then, the other day, he unveils his economic stimulus package. A few excerpts:
Then, the other day, he unveils his economic stimulus package. A few excerpts:
- $71 billion in new entitlement spending (extended unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, etc.)
- $31 billion to build or repair federal buildings
- $6 billion to "weatherize modest-income homes"
- $850 million to "prevent forest fires"
- $400 million for habitat restoration
Can someone please explain to me how deficit spending on nice-to-have projects like these is going to somehow stimulate our economy? If government spending stimulated the economy, it would be in fine shape and we wouldn't be in a recession.
Fresh from unveiling his liberal deficit spending package, he says this about executive bonuses given out last year:
"It is shameful," Obama said from the Oval Office Thursday. "And part of what we're going to need is for the folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint, and show some discipline, and show some sense of responsibility."
Perhaps Obama should see a doctor.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Israel Bombing Schools, UN Installations, Civilians!
There sure is a lot of hand-wringing going on right now in the media about civilian casualties and big bad Israel bombing the shit out of schools and United Nations installations in Gaza.
Israel drops bombs where the enemy is located. That's the bottom line. Buried deep in a lot of the stories we're seeing about this is the fact that cowardly Hamas fighters are hiding in civilians' homes, schools, hospitals and UN facilities between rocket launches & firing their RPG's.
The blame for all civilian casualties in this conflict belongs squarely and completely at the feet of Hamas and the rest of the Islamist radicals who, to ultimately fulfill their ideological goals, require the complete destruction of Israel. If human life was so important to these idiots, they would refrain from putting their own people in harms way and strive to live in peace with their neighbors. They would fight on the battlefield like men instead of hiding amongst the civilian population, sticking their heads out only to launch rockets and commit other assorted & sundry acts of aggression.
Israel is damned if it does and fucked if it doesn't. At the most basic level, the Palestinian militants are so far in the wrong it's clear as day. The Jews need a state, and the Palestinians need a state. Israel is more than willing to work with the Palestinians in achieving that goal, but Hamas and the like will have nothing of it, instead dedicating themselves to one goal: the destruction of Israel. There will never be peace from their perspective until Israel is wiped off the map. How does Israel pursue peace with parties committed to such radical ideology? It is impossible.
Some Palestinian elements suggest that an Israel withdrawal to pre-1967 borders may be a concession that even the hardest-core militants may accept in exchange for a long-term cease fire (note that I didn't say "permanent", or "peace"). One significant reason that Israel took the land it did in 1967 was because its previous borders were indefensible - the strips of land with hostile neighbors surrounding them were too small to have an effective & strategic plan for defense - making Israel an appealing target and vulnerable to attack. Once Israel DID get attacked by its neighbors, starting the six-day war, Israel was able to beat back the aggressors and redraw the borders to be more defensible. It is unlikely - and would be extremely foolish - for Israel to withdraw to the old borders as long as its neighbors are committed to its destruction.
The only answer to this equation is to A) change the minds of hard-core Palestinian idealogues and religious zealots so they believe Allah would be down peace with Israel, or B) Beat, bomb, shoot, eviscerate and annihilate every last one of them, or C) Israel moves to Siberia, or D) Israel agrees to its own demise.
Now, you tell me. What are the chances that anyone will change the minds of religious zealots who believe in a radical interpretation of the Koran and are bent on Israel's destruction? I'd say right around zero, so option A is out. I don't think it's feasible for Israel to roll to Siberia, so option C is out. It's idiotic to think option D is even an option. So, option B it is right now.
The people of Gaza chose this for themselves. They voted Hamas to power, so I don't feel a damn bit sorry for them. If they value their lives and the lives of their families, they will vote differently if and when there is another election, and they will purge their territory of the extremists. That is the only feasible alternative to perpetual fighting, bombing, maiming and death. Until they do, they'd better expect the bombs to rain down ANYWHERE the militants are.
Israel drops bombs where the enemy is located. That's the bottom line. Buried deep in a lot of the stories we're seeing about this is the fact that cowardly Hamas fighters are hiding in civilians' homes, schools, hospitals and UN facilities between rocket launches & firing their RPG's.
The blame for all civilian casualties in this conflict belongs squarely and completely at the feet of Hamas and the rest of the Islamist radicals who, to ultimately fulfill their ideological goals, require the complete destruction of Israel. If human life was so important to these idiots, they would refrain from putting their own people in harms way and strive to live in peace with their neighbors. They would fight on the battlefield like men instead of hiding amongst the civilian population, sticking their heads out only to launch rockets and commit other assorted & sundry acts of aggression.
Israel is damned if it does and fucked if it doesn't. At the most basic level, the Palestinian militants are so far in the wrong it's clear as day. The Jews need a state, and the Palestinians need a state. Israel is more than willing to work with the Palestinians in achieving that goal, but Hamas and the like will have nothing of it, instead dedicating themselves to one goal: the destruction of Israel. There will never be peace from their perspective until Israel is wiped off the map. How does Israel pursue peace with parties committed to such radical ideology? It is impossible.
Some Palestinian elements suggest that an Israel withdrawal to pre-1967 borders may be a concession that even the hardest-core militants may accept in exchange for a long-term cease fire (note that I didn't say "permanent", or "peace"). One significant reason that Israel took the land it did in 1967 was because its previous borders were indefensible - the strips of land with hostile neighbors surrounding them were too small to have an effective & strategic plan for defense - making Israel an appealing target and vulnerable to attack. Once Israel DID get attacked by its neighbors, starting the six-day war, Israel was able to beat back the aggressors and redraw the borders to be more defensible. It is unlikely - and would be extremely foolish - for Israel to withdraw to the old borders as long as its neighbors are committed to its destruction.
The only answer to this equation is to A) change the minds of hard-core Palestinian idealogues and religious zealots so they believe Allah would be down peace with Israel, or B) Beat, bomb, shoot, eviscerate and annihilate every last one of them, or C) Israel moves to Siberia, or D) Israel agrees to its own demise.
Now, you tell me. What are the chances that anyone will change the minds of religious zealots who believe in a radical interpretation of the Koran and are bent on Israel's destruction? I'd say right around zero, so option A is out. I don't think it's feasible for Israel to roll to Siberia, so option C is out. It's idiotic to think option D is even an option. So, option B it is right now.
The people of Gaza chose this for themselves. They voted Hamas to power, so I don't feel a damn bit sorry for them. If they value their lives and the lives of their families, they will vote differently if and when there is another election, and they will purge their territory of the extremists. That is the only feasible alternative to perpetual fighting, bombing, maiming and death. Until they do, they'd better expect the bombs to rain down ANYWHERE the militants are.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Gaza Attack Protests!!
I fired up Yahoo tonight when I got home and the above is what I see screaming at me from the Yahoo News tab.
It wasn't just a little headline like normal, but this was highlighted in light blue, bigger than the rest of the stories, complete with a picture of a woman looking forlorn with a tagline that says, "Thousands demonstrated against Israel's ground offensive on Gaza."
I have a few questions in my mind when I read this.
Why didn't we hear about any protests against Palestinian militants firing rockets on southern Israeli towns like Sderot? During the cease-fire, no less? Every day?
We never do. For some reason the liberal media doesn't run stories about the plight of Israelis who have to deal with this threat on a daily basis.
The conflict between Israel & the Palestinians goes back many hundreds if not thousands of years. The bottom line is that Israel is the rightful owner of its land. The Arabs/Muslims tried to wipe it off the map in 1967, but found out in six short days that Israel was nobody's bitch, and in fact, beat the shit out of Syria, Egypt and Jordan, and took land from each for it's trouble.
Since then there has been a constant stream of whining by the Arabs/Muslims that Israel "occupies" its land. In an effort to meet the Palestinians halfway, Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 amid violent protests from Israel's own citizens who had settled there but were forced to uproot their lives and move back into Israel.
The Palestinian response to Israel's withdrawal was more contempt and hostility. Militants dug in and began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza strip. There was no tit for tat. No cessation of Palestinian hostilities against Israel. But Israel stood by its decision and let the land remain with the Palestinians.
Later, the terrorist group Hamas won Palestinian elections and took Gaza by force from the ruling Fatah party who was more moderate towards Israel. Though a cease-fire was instituted, terrorist rockets continued to rain down into southern Israel, maiming and killing innocent Israeli civilians.
So where are the news stories about that? Where are the fucking stories about protests against continued Hamas/Palestinian aggression against Israel?
I side with Israel because anyone with eyes, ears and a brain can plainly see that Israel does not want war. It is defending itself against aggressors whose only goal in life is to destroy Israel. If Israel wanted to, it could wreak havoc across the entire middle east and take ALL of the land it wants.
Israel is trying to play nice. The Palestinians are not. End of fucking story.
It wasn't just a little headline like normal, but this was highlighted in light blue, bigger than the rest of the stories, complete with a picture of a woman looking forlorn with a tagline that says, "Thousands demonstrated against Israel's ground offensive on Gaza."
I have a few questions in my mind when I read this.
Why didn't we hear about any protests against Palestinian militants firing rockets on southern Israeli towns like Sderot? During the cease-fire, no less? Every day?
We never do. For some reason the liberal media doesn't run stories about the plight of Israelis who have to deal with this threat on a daily basis.
The conflict between Israel & the Palestinians goes back many hundreds if not thousands of years. The bottom line is that Israel is the rightful owner of its land. The Arabs/Muslims tried to wipe it off the map in 1967, but found out in six short days that Israel was nobody's bitch, and in fact, beat the shit out of Syria, Egypt and Jordan, and took land from each for it's trouble.
Since then there has been a constant stream of whining by the Arabs/Muslims that Israel "occupies" its land. In an effort to meet the Palestinians halfway, Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 amid violent protests from Israel's own citizens who had settled there but were forced to uproot their lives and move back into Israel.
The Palestinian response to Israel's withdrawal was more contempt and hostility. Militants dug in and began firing rockets into Israel from the Gaza strip. There was no tit for tat. No cessation of Palestinian hostilities against Israel. But Israel stood by its decision and let the land remain with the Palestinians.
Later, the terrorist group Hamas won Palestinian elections and took Gaza by force from the ruling Fatah party who was more moderate towards Israel. Though a cease-fire was instituted, terrorist rockets continued to rain down into southern Israel, maiming and killing innocent Israeli civilians.
So where are the news stories about that? Where are the fucking stories about protests against continued Hamas/Palestinian aggression against Israel?
I side with Israel because anyone with eyes, ears and a brain can plainly see that Israel does not want war. It is defending itself against aggressors whose only goal in life is to destroy Israel. If Israel wanted to, it could wreak havoc across the entire middle east and take ALL of the land it wants.
Israel is trying to play nice. The Palestinians are not. End of fucking story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)