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!
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
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.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thank God for the Government
Once again, the government has mercifully swooped in to save us from ourselves.
The proaction demonstrated by the Dallas City Council yesterday in passing an enhancement of the ban on public smoking was impressive. They moved swiftly in unilaterally deciding what was in the best interest of The People. The issue was clear and they somehow already knew what The People wanted even without putting the issue to a vote, so they skipped that time-wasting exercise and took action.
After all, this IS a public health issue. It is becoming more and more obvious that We The Sheeple are woefully inept at caring for ourselves or our health on our own, so we are very lucky to have our government acting quickly and decisively on issues like these. The move by the council is the equivalent of the knight in shining armor, coming to the rescue of us and those poor, helpless employees of bars, pool halls, restaurants and other public venues who clearly have no choice but to work there and endure all the nasty horrible smoke.
This is a wonderful development for those who don't smoke and don't want to be around it. Before the government stepped in, nonsmokers had no choice but to go eat, drink and be merry at establishments full of smokers and the product of their nasty habit. And let's not forget about those dumb business owners, who are undoubtedly singing and dancing with joy in the wake of the government's decision to assume the responsibility of helping run their businesses. They were obviously failing miserably at doing so on their own.
Last but not least, those nasty smokers are having to face the fact that, although buying, possessing, and smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal, the tax dollars that the sale of cigarettes generates, isn't really wanted or needed. They're having to understand that they are a lower class of people whose behavior must be dictated by the government and that they have no choice in the matter.
Personally, I'm thrilled to be freed from the responsibility to choose whether or not to work in a bar that allows smoking, or whether to patronize establishments that allow smoking. After all, it was evidently too great a burden for nonsmokers to have those choices and act accordingly.
I look forward to living in a nirvana where worries like these are a thing of the past, and the government shoulders all of the burdens of choice and responsibility on my behalf.
The proaction demonstrated by the Dallas City Council yesterday in passing an enhancement of the ban on public smoking was impressive. They moved swiftly in unilaterally deciding what was in the best interest of The People. The issue was clear and they somehow already knew what The People wanted even without putting the issue to a vote, so they skipped that time-wasting exercise and took action.
After all, this IS a public health issue. It is becoming more and more obvious that We The Sheeple are woefully inept at caring for ourselves or our health on our own, so we are very lucky to have our government acting quickly and decisively on issues like these. The move by the council is the equivalent of the knight in shining armor, coming to the rescue of us and those poor, helpless employees of bars, pool halls, restaurants and other public venues who clearly have no choice but to work there and endure all the nasty horrible smoke.
This is a wonderful development for those who don't smoke and don't want to be around it. Before the government stepped in, nonsmokers had no choice but to go eat, drink and be merry at establishments full of smokers and the product of their nasty habit. And let's not forget about those dumb business owners, who are undoubtedly singing and dancing with joy in the wake of the government's decision to assume the responsibility of helping run their businesses. They were obviously failing miserably at doing so on their own.
Last but not least, those nasty smokers are having to face the fact that, although buying, possessing, and smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal, the tax dollars that the sale of cigarettes generates, isn't really wanted or needed. They're having to understand that they are a lower class of people whose behavior must be dictated by the government and that they have no choice in the matter.
Personally, I'm thrilled to be freed from the responsibility to choose whether or not to work in a bar that allows smoking, or whether to patronize establishments that allow smoking. After all, it was evidently too great a burden for nonsmokers to have those choices and act accordingly.
I look forward to living in a nirvana where worries like these are a thing of the past, and the government shoulders all of the burdens of choice and responsibility on my behalf.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Election 2008 is Finally Over!
Change we can believe in?
Well, you'd better believe there's going to be change. Sadly, the things that truly need to change will remain the same.
A long and tiring election season lasting nearly two years has finally come to an end. Since the mid-term elections in 2006, it has been a relentless countdown to November 4, 2008. And here we are.
Barack Hussein Obama, a junior Senator with a mere two years' experience in government, is going to be the 44th president of the United States. Thankfully the Congress will not be providing him a blank check as the Democrats were unable to capture enough red seats in either house.
Below is some Change we are likely to see in the next four years:
Well, you'd better believe there's going to be change. Sadly, the things that truly need to change will remain the same.
A long and tiring election season lasting nearly two years has finally come to an end. Since the mid-term elections in 2006, it has been a relentless countdown to November 4, 2008. And here we are.
Barack Hussein Obama, a junior Senator with a mere two years' experience in government, is going to be the 44th president of the United States. Thankfully the Congress will not be providing him a blank check as the Democrats were unable to capture enough red seats in either house.
Below is some Change we are likely to see in the next four years:
- Bigger government. Obama is determined to expand the role and reach of government. As an example, he wants the same government that can't manage to properly care for the health and well-being of our military veterans to involve itself in health care. This, of course, will require a huge bureacracy which will cost taxpayer dollars to maintain. This brings us to...
- Increased taxes. There is simply no way to pay for the bold, new Marxist social programs and tax cuts that he has promised without a tax increase. It just won't happen.
- Less national security. Obama is a liberal Democrat and wants to cut defense spending by 25%. He has already said he will shut down development of new missle defense systems. In addition, he plans to reward illegal immigrants and let them stay in our country with no meaningful penance - and without supporting concrete steps to secure our borders.
- A lesser sense of personal responsibility. Being a liberal Democrat, Obama believes in "spreading the wealth" and socialist practices. He believes that the state should bear the responsibility for the well being of The People, oftentimes at the expense of The People. Obama and his ilk believe they are smarter than everyone else and that The People need to be protected from themselves. This will serve to douse the flames of inspiration, innovation, and freedom.
What disappoints me the most is that the majority of The People, the sheep, were starstruck by Obama. They were dazzled by the colorful and shiny speeches which distracted them from what he was actually saying. They heard the words but didn't listen. They didn't think. The People are IGNORANT.
Many "man on the street" interviews laid bare this embarrassing ignorance. "What is something Obama has done as a Senator that impresses you?", asked the interviewer. The answer was usually silence, drivel about his time as a "community organizer", or some other non-answer. This is because the man has accomplished NOTHING as a Senator. Only two years in the Senate and the majority of his votes are simply "present". That is not leadership.
But the sheep didn't care.
The Howard Stern show took to the streets to interview Obama supporters during the campaign. They were asked if they agreed with specific proposals, and they enthusiastically voiced their endorsement. What they didn't know was that the proposals were actually McCain's - not Obama's.
Obama happily attended the same church with the same racist and hate-filled pastor - Reverend Wright, who also married the Obamas - for over 20 years. But, The People inexplicably believed him when he disavowed any knowledge of, or agreement with, Rev. Wright's sick positions. That Obama would count on such ignorance among The People is an insult to the intelligence of all thinking Americans.
The People heard him stand up and proclaim he would not use private donations to finance his campaign, yet it wasn't long before he had his hand out, completely reversing his position, and The People didn't think twice about what that says about his integrity and character, and how that will carry over to the presidency. They just filled his hands with money for his campaign.
That Barack Hussein Obama was elected is a travesty. I am embarrassed for our society.
How about some Change like this?
- Secure our borders!
- Require ID to vote!
- Don't meddle in the free market!
- Let people be responsible for their own actions and well-being!
- Life isn't fair. Let it be!
That's the change *I* want!
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)