Bayou Renaissance Man

 

The Adaptive Curmudgeon has a few choice words about COVID-19, National Public Radio, and the denizens who frequent it.

I had the radio on. I’d tuned to a talk show which I was ignoring.

. . .

“A risk you take…” The radio was saying.

My curiosity was piqued. What interesting radio topic had matched my inner thoughts?

“They crawl all over you so it’s hard to stop… but it’s still a hazard to be cognizant of…”

What hazard crawls all over you? They had my full attention now.

“Your cat can get Covid from you so…”

What. The. ****!

It was NPR. G-ddammit! America’s ever-present, continuously preaching, massively woke, propaganda distribution system never sleeps.

Some unaccomplished retread was interviewing a ****ess wonder. The topic was ‘how to make sure your housecat is safe from Covid’. That’s the ‘hazard’ they were talking about. I listened a bit more just in case it was satire. Does Babylon Bee do radio?

It wasn’t satire. They were serious, or at least as serious as something that unserious can be. Does a cat owner’s vaccine protect the cat during risky behavior, like letting fluffy sit on your lap?

It’s a ****ing cat. It ****s in a box! It’ll eat a raw mouse. Cats lick their own ***** until we cut their ***** off to keep them from making more useless damn cats.

Yet, this was a “hazard”. This was “risk”. NPR’s limp, ineffectual, soyboy losers were evaluating the “physical dangers” of petting a housecat! In a world where desperate people fall off airplanes trying to flee Afghanistan, NPR used its vast network of antenna for a call-in show about how Covid might make a cat sick or the cat might inexplicably give it back to you. These people walk among us.

Can there be anything more pathetic? Some of us crash through the forest in a chaotic symphony of fear and exhilaration. Others, fear to pet a cat.

Anyone who’s so afraid of illness that they worry the cat will die… they’re completely irrelevant. Consulting their opinion is like taking advice from a houseplant. What does it know about being human? What has it done? Where has it gone? What wisdom has its unfulfilled life of photosynthesis taught it that we, the people who actually live, can use?

America is best when we ignore cessile, inert, semi-sentient, weaklings. Without the spark of life that makes the world so wonderful, they crawl up their own *** and weep while clutching cell phones. They may not know it, but they’re dead already. They’re not at the boisterous bar I just left. They’re not on the dusty mountainside where I spent a delightful afternoon. They’re not pissing in the grass under a full moon. They’re just… nothing. Being so deeply deeply deeply risk averse they’ve taken the glorious gift of life and turned it into a mockery. A lifestyle of waiting for the clock to run out.

The biggest tragedy in modern society is when we equate people who do with those that talk. Gutless losers don’t belong at the adult table with the rest of us. Don’t ask their opinion about anything. Give ‘em a juice box and a pat on the head. Then send ‘em back to their padded collegiate playpen where they can live out their days amassing debt and wallowing in fear.

There's more at the link.

Isn't it nice to find an island of sanity in the COVID-19 hysteria bombarding us from all sides?  Fortunately, there are many of them out there, if one looks.  (I hope this blog is among them, for most of you.)

As for cats and COVID, Miss D. and I have already had at least two bouts with the disease.  So far, the only reaction of our cats has been pleasure at being able to snuggle up in bed with us, and displeasure that we no longer hurry as quickly to do their bidding where milk, tuna and other pleasures (including cleaning the cat box) are concerned.  "Hey!  You!  Slow human!  Get over it, already!  We're hungry!"

Peter

There's an old Arab proverb that warns, "Never let the camel get its nose under the tent, because the rest of the body will follow".  It's a variation on the Western proverb that "if you give someone an inch, they'll take a mile".  I daresay the concept is common among almost all cultures.  In politics, they call it "moving the Overton window";  starting with discussion within a socially accepted range, then moving the discussion to gradually include more and more extreme elements, getting people accustomed to the new concepts.  In due course, society will accept as common or normative things that were until recently beyond the pale.  (See also the boiling frog.)

That's long been a deliberate tactic on the part of "fringe" elements of Western society, who've used it to edge their formerly "extremist" beliefs slowly but surely into the mainstream.  The gay and lesbian lobby is a good example, moving from widespread rejection, scorn and disgust to acceptance by most people, largely based on the argument that one's sexuality is not a choice, but predetermined.  (That's not been proven to be genetically or chromosomally valid, AFAIK, but it's nevertheless become the socially accepted view.)  They've been very successful at it.

Sadly, as always in any movement, there are those with ulterior motives, seeking to "piggyback" on the success of the movement to advance their own particular (and often peculiar) agendas.  A good example is a Canadian born as Johnathan Yaniv, who prefers to be called Jessica Yaniv.  This person appears to be using Canadian law as a weapon to extort money from those who won't conform to its demands, and as a shelter for some truly perverted ideas.  This being a family-friendly blog, I'm not going to go into detail in these pages.  Anyone wanting to know more will find the whole sordid story at this link.  I find it sickening and disgusting, but I do recommend reading it to see just how much damage one particular camel's nose inside the tent can do, and how much societal havoc it can wreak.  That article is what gave rise to this one, and the thoughts it contains.

Note, too, how the deliberate engineering of social acceptance has discredited previously axiomatic ideas and social norms, as far as the law is concerned.  To illustrate, consider the preceding paragraph in the light of those who insist that public bathrooms should be gender-neutral.  In the not very distant past, any parent would have considered it axiomatic that a bathroom was reserved for one or the other sex, and that gender had little or nothing to do with it.  If a man tried to enter the ladies' bathroom, he'd be told to get out.  Now, we're told that if a transgender male wants to use the ladies' bathroom, with members of our family inside, he/she/it has the right to do so.  Not in my book!  My Overton window hasn't moved that far, and probably never will.  If any visibly male individual tries to enter a bathroom where my wife is taking care of business, as far as I'm concerned, he's putting her at risk.  The only thing stopping me from stopping him will be the knowledge that my wife is aware of the risk and is more than capable of doing so herself, if necessary the hard way.  (Have I mentioned that I love my wife, and her demonstrated competence in so many areas?)

Many of us were raised in traditional religious faiths, where sexuality was considered to be governed by what we understood to be God's laws and moral norms.  Nowadays, trying to live according to those norms, and educate one's children accordingly, can be seen as a "hate crime".  Pointing out that the Bible's moral norms are directly at odds with modern notions of sexuality and sexual freedom can lead to one being investigated by the authorities for bias and intolerance, or denied the right to adopt because one's views are "out of step with society", or even charged with a criminal offense for refusing to accept someone else's assertions about what's "normal".  The camel's nose has shoved so far into the tent of our lives that it's now disrupting almost every other area of our lives.  I, for one, think that's gone way too far.

I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they wish about life, the universe and everything (including sexuality).  As long as they keep it to themselves, it's their business.  I'm not going to foist my opinions and beliefs upon them, and I won't allow them to foist theirs onto me.  On the other hand, I'm not prepared to be told that my outlook on life is somehow "oppressing" them because it disagrees with theirs.  It doesn't have to.  I have as much freedom of choice as they do.  To legislatively force tolerance and acceptance of views that are anathema to my own isn't right or just - it's oppression under another name.  By all means, legislate against unfair, coercive discrimination;  but don't legislate for unquestioning acceptance and approval.  That's far too much of the camel inside society's tent!

IMHO, it's long gone time our politicians stopped kowtowing to political correctness, and enacted that principle into our laws.  That, at least, would provide some defense against the Jessica Yaniv's of this world, without forcing us to (if necessary) take the law into our own hands to do so.  Suffice it to say, if that individual's fantasies about young girls and their bodily functions, protected elsewhere by socially progressive laws, were to come anywhere near where I live, most adults I know around these parts would feel absolutely justified in ensuring that those fantasies ceased to be a problem, forthwith and forever - and political correctness be damned.

Peter

My friend, armorer, fellow author and blogger Michael Z. Williamson, known in various and sundry circles as "Mad Mike", "Crazy Einar" (see the T-shirt!) and other appellations, has written two OUTSTANDING blog posts that I think deserve the widest possible circulation.

The first is a succinct takedown of gun control dweebs.

Gun control's only philosophical argument is waving the bloody shirt. There are literally zero facts to support the claims, when any objective study is done. In fact, four of the most widely cited sources against gun control all started out in support, and changed their minds based on facts. (Wright, Rossi, Kleck, Lott)

So then the bleat is, "Who are you going to believe? Some researcher with an "Agenda"(Because obviously, there's zero agenda to taking weapons away from people), or the kids who were at the shooting?

Well, that's easy.  It doesn't matter what a Tide Pod eater thinks. Especially when the ones being genuflected before weren't even at the shooting, they were in a completely different building.  That's like saying. "I wasn't in combat, but I was on the base near where it happened and I talked to a bunch of shooters, so my opinion on what rifle to use is important!"

No, not really. Science matters.  Opinion from a glory seeker who wants CNN coverage is not.

There's more at the link.

The second, longer article is a truly magnificent rant against the hard-left, progressive liberal activists who are trying to shut down free speech and put Big Brother in power.  He compares them - instructively - with Muslim fundamentalist terrorists.  It's a very profane rant, littered with f-bombs and the like - and it's spot on.

The modern American "liberal" is nothing like the classical liberal of the 19th Century, who gave us most of modern civilization, nor even the anti-statist liberals of the 60s, who were well-intentioned if a bit naive.

The modern American "liberal" is a statist ****sucker who cannot tolerate even the existence of dissent.  They claim to be "tolerant," but a quick discussion will lead to them admitting they don't have to tolerate those hatey haters who hate, which is anyone they disagree with, even if the facts conclusively support the other party.  They are a cancer on society and, as in several past societies, at some point they will have to be exterminated.

. . .

There are a billion Muslims in the world, and it's true that the overwhelming majority are peaceful. Those poor people are stuck in the middle between the violent nutjobs and those fighting the violent nutjobs. Nor do they have an obligation to apologize for the nutjobs, anymore than gun owners should apologize for mass shooters, responsible drinkers for drunk drivers, or Canadians for Justin Bieber.

Liberals, though, do need to apologize for the acts of other liberals, because there is no such thing as an innocent liberal. They're pretty much all on board with Kim, Stalin and Hitler, and most come out and extol those behaviors.

Again, more at the link.

Go read them both.  They're highly entertaining - and despite the hyperbole, they're pretty accurate descriptions of the sort of idiots we saw in Washington last weekend.

Thanks, Mike.  You made my morning!

Peter

Long-time friend in cyber- and meatspace, bestselling author, and fellow blogger Larry Correia is at it again.  This time he tackles the boss of File770.com, Mike Glyer.

I had some exposure to the vitriol and nastiness of File770 denizens when I called for a boycott of Tor Books over the unconscionable behavior of one of their staff.  Those who frequent it decided to be rude to and about me, even though I'd never darkened their online doorstep and none of them knew me at all.  I was therefore not surprised when they targeted author Jon del Arroz (whom we've met in these pages before) for his not-politically-correct views.  However, they were so rude that they attracted Larry's attention - and he's responded in his usual tactful (NOT!), diplomatic (NEVER!), mild-mannered (HA!) way.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the seedy underbelly of fandom, File 770 is a garbage gossip column website run by a scumbag named Mike Glyer. His whole shtick is to be a news aggregator for the sci-fi/fantasy business and collect links from people who actually create things for a living. He play acts at being an impartial journalist, but in reality everything he does is slanted to screw over anybody he doesn’t like.

He chums the water for his horde of psychos so they can go about forming internet lynch mobs, boycotts, and black ballings. But then he pretends to be all impartial and above the fray. If you ever want to lose all faith in humanity, read the comments there. His regulars range between basement dwelling goons, creepy weirdo stalkers, and angry rainbow haired social justice warriors.

If you are in any writer’s groups with conservative or libertarian authors in them, then you’ve inevitably heard about this shithole website. We mostly call it Vile 770 or File 666. At one point or another that page has tried to start shit with every author who gets on Glyer’s bad side. Because when you are ever the nail that sticks up, the File 770 crew are the hammer that wants to knock you back down. Luckily, they’re about as effective as a Fisher Price squeaky hammer. So mostly we just mock them.

There's much more at the link.  It's classic Correia gold.  Go read the whole thing.

(By the way, I've never spoken with Mr. Glyer in any way, shape or form, so I'm not going to be rude about him myself:  but I will say that File770 commenters are consistently negative and rude to and about anyone who doesn't toe the progressive, left-wing, social-justice-warrior line.  I therefore suspect that Larry's rant is more on-target than not.)

Peter

I wasn't surprised (but I was still annoyed) to learn that many so-called 'craft' or small-distillery whiskies and other spirits may be mass-produced in a single factory.

Lawrenceburg, Indiana (not to be confused with bourbon-locale Lawrenceburg, Kentucky) is home to a massive brick complex that cranks out mega-industrial quantities of beverage-grade alcohol. The factory, once a Seagram distillery, has changed hands over the decades and was most recently acquired by food-ingredient corporation MGP. It is now a one-stop shop for marketers who want to bottle their own brands of spirits without having to distill the product themselves. MGP sells them bulk vodka and gin, as well as a large selection of whiskies, including bourbons of varying recipes, wheat whiskey, corn whiskey, and rye. (They also make “food grade industrial alcohol” used in everything from solvents and antiseptics to fungicides.) Their products are well-made, but hardly what one thinks of as artisanal. And yet, much of the whiskey now being sold as the hand-crafted product of micro-distilleries actually comes from this one Indiana factory.

Upstart spirits companies selling juice they didn’t distill rarely advertise the fact. But there are ways to tell: whiskey aged longer than a distillery has been in business is one of the telltale signs that the “distiller” is actually just bottling someone else’s product.

. . .

“I have purchased hundreds of barrels of rye and bourbon from them,” John Bernasconi admits when asked about the Indiana factory. A principal in the New Mexico company, Bernasconi says that purchasing whiskey from MGP and bottling it is “a means to develop a brand and help fund the next step” of actually distilling a unique product. It may be a sensible enough business strategy, but as whiskey writer Charles Cowdery points out, “There’s no reason to think anyone knows how to make whiskey or can learn how to make whiskey based on buying whiskey.” Cowdery has been railing for years against the proliferation of what he calls “Potemkin distilleries,” many of which own shiny new copper stills to wow visitors, but actually sell factory-made spirits they’ve acquired in bulk.

. . .

Dozens of new brands are packaging whiskey bought in bulk from Indiana. But it isn’t the only source. Some recently launched whiskey brands, such as the much-hyped WhistlePig Rye (which touts the product as “hand-bottled” on a Vermont farm), get their product from a factory distillery in Canada. Others are picking up cast-off barrels from high-volume Kentucky “macro-distillers” who occasionally find themselves with more whiskey than they can sell under their own labels.

There's more at the link.

I was particularly angry to find out that some well-known small distilleries (including top brands) are named in the article as sourcing at least some of their products from mega-factories like that.  Why should I waste my hard-earned money on premium spirits that aren't premium at all?  I'm surprised it's even legal to allow such sales without full disclosure of where the product comes from.

As of right now, I won't be buying any 'craft' spirits unless I'm absolutely certain that I'm getting what I'm being asked to pay for.




Peter

An annoyed homeowner in England struck back last week.

For ten years Julie has been regularly inconvenienced by drivers leaving their cars on her property in Crowborough, East Sussex, where she lives opposite the train station in Farningham Road.

Commuters can pay a daily rate of £4.40, a weekly rate of £19, a monthly rate of £69 or an annual rate of £646 to park at the station.

Earlier this month Julie had been due to have gravel laid on her drive - but when workmen arrived to do the job they found a car had been left in the way, preventing the work from being carried out.

So, spotting her chance to retaliate, Julie ordered the workmen to block the errant car in with a ton of gravel.

And, to top it off, she stuck a trowel in the gravel with a note attached saying: "Happy digging, at least it's not raining."

The car was blocked in for two days before the owner was able to move it.

There's more at the link.

I've experienced the same thoughtlessness from motorists.  Several decades ago I owned an apartment in Berea, a suburb of Johannesburg in South Africa.  My parking spot in the basement garage had a private entrance, with a ramp leading down to it.  I frequently found partygoers would simply park on my ramp on Friday and Saturday evenings, blocking it, when they found the street parking already filled.  I used to call our building's towing service and have their vehicles hauled away, usually drawing anger and profanity from the owner(s) when they returned to find their vehicles gone.  One even went so far as to hurl a beer bottle at my car, visible through the barred gates in the garage.  (Fortunately it hit and shattered on the gate, not my car.)  Not one of them ever thought to apologize for blocking my entrance - or bothered to ask for permission to park there, for that matter.

I have a fairly visceral reaction to thoughtless, rude, inconsiderate motorists to this day.

Peter

I've had a wonderful ghastly two days trying to fight my way through a tangled thicket of medical bureaucracy.  This is all to do with getting copies of reports and tests that were done on me in the mid-2000's, and which must now be repeated.  Would you believe that bureaucrats completed all the paperwork years ago, in accordance with the then-current edition of the guidelines concerned, but neglected to get everything finalized at the time?  Now, because of their negligence, I have to re-do it all, at considerable delay and expense, because the guidelines have changed by one edition since then.  I've protested vigorously that I see no reason why I should be penalized for the mistakes of others, but these are bureaucrats.  They don't care.  They're not personally responsible or accountable.






It took me most of yesterday to clarify matters to that point.  I was informed I'd have to provide copies of the initial tests and evaluations (from five different specialists and/or medical practices) as background material for the new evaluation.  No, the bureaucrats wouldn't provide copies from their files - I had to get them from the centers that had performed them.  Copies from third parties were not acceptable.

Grrr!

This morning, I started trying to locate the records.  The fun began when I was informed that the evaluation center that performed my final assessment had been sold shortly afterwards, and the specialist who conducted the assessment had retired.  The corporate HQ of the hospital chain concerned initially said they couldn't help me locate records;  but when I pressed the issue, I was put through to a lady who told me that I could contact another company that was now responsible for all the records from that facility.  So far, so good.

I contacted that other company, by telephone message and via a form on their corporate Web site.  The telephone operator returned my call to say (initially) that she had no record of my case at all, and I'd have to get back to Company #1 to find out what they'd done with them.  She later phoned back and left a message saying she had located my name in the records after all, but that I still had to phone Company #1 and give them a long numerical code, so that they could locate the records in their system, confirm they were about my case, then authorize Company #2 to release them to me.

Meanwhile, an initial e-mail response to the same query via the Internet led to someone trying to sell me physical therapy services at an establishment run by Company #2.  When I demurred, and explained what I needed, the person concerned told me that she couldn't help me.  However, a couple of hours later, someone else from Company #2 e-mailed me to say that they could help me, and would I please fill out the attached HIPAA form and return it so they could find and release my records to me?

When I tried to get the lady on the other end of the telephone and the lady on the other end of the e-mail (both from Company #2) to talk to one another, the system melted down in chaos.  I'm still not sure that they haven't entered into some sort of fusion reaction with each other, consuming my records in the process.  I'll have to continue tomorrow morning, trying to get both halves of the conversation to give me a single, common answer as to how to get the information I need.

Then I have to repeat this process for four more medical specialists and/or practices.  The only consolation is that the records were compiled before Obamacare set in.  If they were post-Obamacare, they'd probably have been sold to China already for use as landfill.

I suddenly understand H. L. Mencken's perspective a great deal better . . .


*Sigh*


Peter

It seems an animal control officer finally lost control, and decided to let those he served know about his job - and his feelings - before quitting. He posted his thoughts on Craigslist, and they were picked up by Buzzfeed. Here's an excerpt.

Hello kids. I'm your friendly neighborhood Animal Control Officer, and I'd like to officially tell you all to bite my butt. Before I ride off into the sunset, however - here are some parting words . . .

1) To all the jackasses who ask me if I don't have something better to do than giving them a ticket for no license/dog off leash/being a douchebag. The answer is no. No, I have nothing better than to take my precious time and taxpayer dollars to write you a COMPLETELY LAME ticket for not doing what was your responsibility to do in the first place. I love nothing more than babysitting grown adults who seem incapable of wiping their own butt without law enforcement present. Thanks, dirtbags.

2) To all the jackasses who ask me why I'm not rounding up all the killer pitbulls. Where . . . WHERE!? Where are all the killer pitbulls that are roaming the streets and attacking your women and children. My god, the city should issue you all SHOTGUNS to fend off these land sharks. In other news, THERE IS NO VICIOUS PITBULL EPIDEMIC. Let's all hold hands and say it together folks, the only epidemic is misinformation, ignorance and animal neglect. Thanks, please drive through to the second window and receive a punch in the face.

There's more at the link.

Why do I get the feeling he's less than impressed with most of the residents of the city where he worked - or, after that message, presumably used to work?





Peter

Two excellent rants against idiots in power caught my eye this week. The first, from the Gormogons, responded to a New York Times editorial about the Minnesota government shutdown.

We are honorable people. We believe in helping the poor and less fortunate. But we also believe in earning your keep, and in keeping what we earn. We produce and give and fund the government, yet we get nothing back but disdain and scorn. We are not your ATM. We are not your indentured servants. You no talent ass clowns work for us, and don't you forget it. We are sorry you elites are uncomfortable being asked what your value-add is. It must be discomfiting to realize you add little if anything of value to our society. Forgive us for not caring what someone who has never had to make payroll or lay off employees thinks about small business and the economy.

What of use have any of the liberal elites given our country, except backbreaking taxes and hamstringing regulation? Self-professed elites produce nothing of value, and are paid and treated as if they developed the polio vaccine. The world of ideas is nice, but the folks that are cleaning your toilets, treating your sewage, and keeping the power on are the heroes. Yet you despise them. You treat them as morons for asking why we should pay more for a broken government and its dependents.

Listen, elites. Your dreams of a big government Utopia have failed. There's simply not enough money to do everything you want. Hell, there's not enough money to do what you've already enacted. The sooner you come to grips with that, the sooner we will be able to have a functioning society again.

You want fair share, NYT? Get back to me when everyone pays taxes. Get back to me when you can't get Medicaid in New York making $66,000 per year for a family of four. Get back to me when state workers aren't getting guaranteed gold plated pensions, guaranteed for life at age 55 (or less if you're a cop or fireman). Get back to me when unemployment is under 7%. Get back to me when I'm not paying $8,000 per year in property taxes on a house assessed at $197,000. Get back to me when one -- just one -- of your economic policies actually improves something. Get back to me when you find a way to balance the budget on current revenues.

Until that time, fund your G-d damned big society welfare state your own damned selves, sit down, and shut the [heck] up.

There's more at the link.

The second is from Mark Steyn, looking at the conduct of 'big government'. Among other aspects, he tackles a scandal we've covered here before.

... consider "Operation Fast and Furious", about which nothing is happening terribly fast and over which Americans should be furious.

The official explanation is that the federal government used stimulus funding to buy guns from Arizona gun shops for known criminals to funnel to Mexican drug cartels. As I said, that's the official explanation: As soon as your head stops spinning, we'll resume the narrative. Supposedly, United States taxpayers were picking up the tab for Mexican drug lords' weaponry in order that the ATF could identify high-up gun-traffickers. But, as it turns out, these high-up gun-traffickers were already known to other agencies – FBI, DEA and other big-spending acronyms in the great fetid ooze of federal alphabet soup in which this republic is drowning. And, indeed, some of those high-ups are said to have been paid informants for those various federal agencies. So, in case you're wondering why Obama's second annual Recovery Summer is a wee bit sluggish at your end, relax: Stimulus dollars went to fund one federal agency to buy guns for the paid informants of another federal agency to funnel to foreign criminals in order that the first federal agency might identify the paid informants of the second federal agency.

Meanwhile, what did the drug cartels, the recipients of the guns, do with them? Well, they used them to kill at least one member of a third federal agency: Brian Terry of the United States Border Patrol. If that doesn't bother you, well, they also killed not insignificant numbers of Mexican civilians.

If, by this stage, you're wondering why U.S. stimulus dollars are being used to stimulate the Mexican coffin industry, consider the dark suspicion of many American gun owners – that the real reason the feds embarked on this murderous scheme was to plant the evidence that the increasing lawlessness on the southern border is the fault of the gun industry and the Second Amendment, and thereby advance its ideological agenda of ever greater gun control.

We're not talking about hacking a schoolgirl's cellphone here. Real people are dead. Yet nobody's going to close down any wing of the vast spendaholic DEATFBI hydra-headed security-state turf-war.

Again, more at the link. Bold print is my emphasis.

Both articles are highly recommended reading. The question is, what are we - you and I - going to do about them? I can only suggest we need to be hounding our elected representatives, making sure that they address these issues early and often. If they don't, we need to kick them out at the earliest opportunity and elect more responsible - and responsive - representatives.

Peter

I'm already getting tired of the 2012 Presidential election campaign, and it's hardly begun yet! I wish we could persuade those involved to put a sock in it until the New Year, but I guess that's a pipe-dream. I thought I'd share my take on the candidates so far, and hope for a revolution to change the tone.

The Democratic candidacy is virtually certain to go to President Obama, as the incumbent. That's a pity, because he's either an incompetent nincompoop, or an extraordinarily devious and dangerous hard-core Socialist who's out to destroy America as we know it. His record in office has been unremittingly destructive to the core values that have sustained this country for so many years. If he gets a second term, I seriously question whether we'll be able to undo all the damage he's done. Perhaps the best hope is to get a House and Senate with opposition majorities sufficient to pass budgets (and de-fund programs, where necessary) over his veto. Still, it'd be nice if someone (Hillary?) would choose to run against him for the Democratic Party nomination. I think he's alienated enough of his own party to give a good in-house opponent a fighting chance.

As for the Republican candidates, it's a case of same old, same old. I'm sick of the lot of them.

Mitch Daniels: He's responsible for the mess caused by the Indiana Supreme Court. Given his complicity in that, I can't and won't support him unless he moves very hard and very fast to undo the damage - and there's no sign that he will. As Karl Denninger states: "Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, by not directing his State Attorney General and Prosecutors to drop this case and moot the appeal, has demonstrated through his direct and proximate actions that he is Adolph Hitler personified and is thus disqualified to run for President of the United States." (Bold italic print is Mr. Denninger's emphasis.)

Mitt Romney: Oh, puh-leeze! After the catastrophic consequences of Romneycare in Massachusetts, and his public call for more of the same on a national scale, fuhgettabahtit! I'd rather vote for Obama. At least the Obamanation doesn't try to obfuscate about his intentions!

Newt Gingrich: He can't be trusted. He's a serial adulterer; he had the gall to cut an advertisement with Nancy Pelosi supporting the global warming scam; he's attacking and undermining elements of his own party in an attempt to maneuver for political advantage; and he's far too ambiguous and ambivalent about Obamacare. He now says that we should "Judge me by what I can do for America now, rather than only by my mistakes in the past". Unfortunately, the only yardstick we have by which to judge him (or anyone else) is precisely what they've done in the past; and, for me, his past alone (let alone his present conduct) is enough to disqualify Mr. Gingrich from consideration.

Ron Paul: He's been a courageous voice for libertarian ideas for many years. However, many of his positions are too extreme for me to support him. His past dalliance with racism troubles me, despite his and others' denials, which are suspect; and he says he would not have authorized the strike against Osama bin Laden, choosing rather to negotiate with Pakistan to have him arrested - a pipe-dream of the first water. I simply can't regard him as a realistic candidate for an office so demanding as the Presidency.

Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump have announced that they won't be running for the Republican party's Presidential nomination. Good riddance to both of them. Mr. Huckabee's far too fundamentalist for me to trust him in an office where he has to lead Americans of every, all and no religious persuasion; and Donald Trump has defined himself as a wheeler-dealing egotistical blowhard. Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota is considering a run at the Republican nomination. I don't know enough about him (yet) to have developed strong views for or against his suitability for the office of President. There are persistent rumors that Mayor Mike Bloomberg of New York City might mount an independent run for the Presidency, but he's denied them. I hope he means it. He may be just what New Yorkers want, but the rest of the country is a very different proposition. His seeming distrust of private citizens, attempting to dictate by legislation and/or regulation how they should live rather than trust them with individual liberty and responsibility, makes him (in my opinion) an unfit person to be at the head of an Executive Branch that must (at least in theory) observe the liberties guaranteed to us in the Constitution.

So who might I support, you ask? I will support any candidate, of any party, who has the courage and strength of will to seek to destroy 'politics as usual' in his or her campaign. Give me a candidate who will not appoint political 'insiders' or 'experts' as advisers, but will draw his or her entourage from sources outside the Beltway. Give me a candidate who will actively seek to restrict the role of government to the powers authorized for it in the Constitution. Give me a candidate who will dismantle the 'Big Brother' elements of government and return power to the people. Give me a candidate who will denounce - and undo - the creeping totalitarianism of the 'nanny state', which seeks to reinterpret and restrict (if not overturn) civil liberties, and make us into subjects rather than citizens.

Who might fit that description? I can think of only two potential candidates on the Republican side at the moment. One is Michele Bachmann; the other is Sarah Palin. Both are controversial (particularly Ms. Palin), but I think neither is likely to be intimidated by the 'establishment'. Of course, that same 'establishment' will do its damnedest to make sure neither of them is nominated . . . but that's precisely the problem. The establishment wants someone who will deliver 'politics as usual'. I want to destroy 'politics as usual'.

(There are those who claim that both Ms. Bachmann and Ms. Palin are too 'extreme', or too 'inexperienced', or too 'wayward' to be viable candidates. To them I say only this: how can either of them possibly be worse than the 'politics-as-usual' candidates the parties want to offer us? I don't see how they can be worse, and they may well be better - so why not vote for them? What have you got to lose?)

Is there an equally disruptive candidate on the Democratic side? I truly hope so. I trust neither the Democratic or Republican parties as institutions. I won't vote for the party; I'll vote for the individual. Show me an individual who comes closest to the qualities I'm looking for, and I'll vote for them, irrespective of their party.

Peter

I've long since given up trying to figure out how moonbats and wingnuts think. By "moonbat" I don't mean someone who has different political, social or economic views to those I hold, so long as they're rationally argued and thought through. I can agree to disagree with such a person, and usually have a stimulating, mutually respectful and enjoyable conversation, where both of us learn something from the other. By "moonbat" I mean far-out, way-left-of-center, ideologically blinkered idiots; and by "wingnut" I mean their intellectual cousins on the far-right-of-center. Extremists of any persuasion are weird. You can't have a rational discussion or debate with them.

Nevertheless, when I run across moonbattish or wingnuttish behavior, I still find myself shaking my head in disbelief. Three examples in the past couple of weeks have had this effect.

First, there's a fundamentalist pastor in Florida by the name of Terry Jones. He seems to be divorced from reality. He's long threatened to burn the Koran (the sacred book of Islam), ignoring numerous warnings (including one from General David Petraeus) that this would be harmful to US interests, and possibly put the lives of soldiers, aid workers and others at risk. He finally did as he'd threatened last month, staging a mock "trial" of the Koran at which it was "found guilty of what he described as crimes against humanity". Following his public incineration of the Koran, precisely as others had warned, rioting broke out in several parts of the world, most notably in Afghanistan, where protesters killed 12 aid workers. Nevertheless, according to USA Today, Jones denies any responsibility for the deaths.

Jones denied responsibility, and said Islam, not he or his church, must be held accountable for inciting the crowds to violence.

"The United States government and the United Nations itself must take immediate action," Jones said in a statement. "We must hold these countries and people accountable for what they have done as well as for any excuses they may use to promote their terrorist activities."

There's more at the link.

Let's see now. Jones was specifically and explicitly informed that if he did A, B would result. He did A, and B did, indeed, result . . . but now he denies any responsibility for B. If he had not done A, B would not have ensued. How is it possible that he can't see this? How is it even remotely feasible that someone can be so blind?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a definitive Wingnut.

Next, we have the doctors who circulated among protesting trades union members in Madison, Wisconsin during recent demonstrations there. They made no examinations of anyone, and did no diagnostic tests; yet they wrote out hundreds, if not thousands, of notes certifying that the person concerned was not at work because of some medical condition. (For actual examples, see here.) This was clearly a blatant and fraudulent breach of both medical ethics and the demonstrators' conditions of employment. Both the demonstrators and the doctors were lying in their teeth . . . and it's therefore not surprising to me that there will be consequences.

The state Department of Regulation and Licensing and the Medical Examining Board said Wednesday that they had opened investigations into eight individuals who allegedly wrote doctor excuse notes for protesters at the state Capitol during rallies in February.

Last month, the Department of Regulation and Licensing said it had identified 11 people who may have provided the medical excuses, and it asked them to submit information about their activities at the Capitol.

Three members of the Medical Examining Board reviewed the information and decided to open investigations on eight of the 11, according to a department news release.

The eight being investigated are all licensed physicians, department spokesman David Carlson said.

Investigations were not opened against three people because the panel concluded no violations had occurred, the news release says.

The 11 were identified by complaints to the department. Nine of those named are licensed physicians and two are unlicensed, the department said.

The investigations will include a more extensive fact-finding process to determine if any violations of law occurred, according to the news release.

At the conclusion of each investigation, recommendations will be made about whether disciplinary action should be pursued.

The state Department of Regulation and Licensing previously has said disciplinary action could include a reprimand, license limitations, suspension or revocation.

There's more at the link.

To me, this is logical, rational and entirely appropriate. If these doctors were caught lying in public, and disgracing their professional responsibilities, they should be held accountable for it. However, the Left has exploded in righteous (or should that be "lefteous"?) indignation, accusing Governor Scott Walker of "going after" these doctors. Wonkette sneers:

Doctors better think twice about helping out the proletariat in the future if they want to stay rich and drive their fancy cars. Medicine should never associate itself with socialism.

Don't they get it? Can't they understand that any deliberate public lie, and any abuse of an official position, merit investigation and punishment? I'd want that to happen to any doctor, of any political persuasion, who misused his or her position for any reason whatsoever. I don't believe for a moment that the Wisconsin state government's investigation is politically motivated. I'd hold the state government accountable if they didn't investigate! To think otherwise is so ridiculous that it's beyond stupidity . . . it's moonbattery, pure and simple.

Finally, two teachers were recently caught on tape, as the Washington Post reports.

Sarah Knopp, a Los Angeles teachers union leader (in the Tax the Rich shirt) and Megan Behrent a New York City teacher affiliated with the International Socialist Organization, explain how to push Marxism in the public school classroom.

More at the link, including a video clip of their explanation.

Unsurprisingly, voices on the Left are now outraged that these teachers' propaganda efforts have been exposed, and are calling it 'underhanded' and 'an attempt to silence progressive voices in education'. I don't see it that way at all. They spread a message that's regarded with contempt and derision by many (including myself); they were caught at it; and now those opposed to their message are calling them on it, publicly. That's the way it is - just as those on the progressive side do precisely and exactly the same thing to those trying to propagate messages and views with which they disagree, such as abstinence-based sex education, school vouchers, etc. Both sides have the absolute right to publicize what they're doing, and to publicize what their opponents are doing. That's called "freedom of speech". Why complain and get all bitter and twisted about it?

I don't know why I've wasted all this time writing about these cases . . . I guess it's just that I get so darn frustrated with idiots sometimes. Call this a catharsis post, if you like.





Peter

Today was the deadline (in the USA) for submission of individual tax returns (or applications for an extension of time in which to do so).

Bestselling author and blogging buddy Larry Correia wrote a truly magnificent rant on Tax Day. It's not only hugely entertaining, but also very true. Go read it.

Indeed, it was so good that it's been spread all over the Internet . . . and the wingnuts have begun to froth at the mouth about it. Larry, in his usual inimitable fashion, proceeds to take their objections apart at the seams. It's even more entertaining than the original rant! Again, go read it for yourselves.





Peter

That's the title of another essay by my favorite Australian satirist, Richard Glover (whom we've met before on this blog). Here's an excerpt.

Idiots used to be corralled in places called pubs, in which they could bore each other with their crazy opinions while drinking themselves into alcoholic dementia but now - suddenly - they are everywhere. You can read a perfectly decent paper like The Guardian and looming at the bottom of every article is a septic tank teeming with snapping trolls.

The article in question might be anything from a think piece about the universe by Stephen Hawking to a sly piece of wit by David Mitchell, yet the trolls always have the same view: "OMG, this is such crap." That pretty much sums up the view from each witless avatar, whether it be Rastamouse16 or BigBoy8 or CrapForBrains22.

Throw in the Twitter feed, which now runs across the bottom of every TV program from Video Hits to Q&A, and you have the perfect horror - a giant party in which the most boring people in existence have you cornered.

. . .

It's increasingly apparent that the internet may bring about the death of human civilisation, beating out previous contenders such as nuclear holocaust and the election of George W. Bush.

. . .

First thing tomorrow the whole internet will collapse, unable to cope with the quantity of bile pumping through the pipes. There will be a final Nigerian email pinging into your mailbox and then silence for ever.

We can but hope.

There's more at the link. Funny, entertaining and recommended reading.





Peter

I'm so angry with (at least some of) the global warming crowd right now, I could spit-roast them over coals and not turn a hair. Japan's just experienced one of the worst earthquakes in recorded history,. Hundreds are already known to be dead, with hundreds more missing. The death toll may rise into the thousands. That's not even considering the injured, those trapped right now under the rubble and wreckage of buildings, those who can't get to their homes, or who've lost their homes, or who've been forced to evacuate their homes due to threats from overheating nuclear reactors, or flooding, or . . . the list of tragedies is just too ghastly to contemplate.

And, in the midst of all this suffering and heartbreak, what do the global warming apologists do?

Hours after a massive earthquake rattled Japan, environmental advocates connected the natural disaster to global warming. The president of the European Economic and Social Committee, Staffan Nilsson, issued a statement calling for solidarity in tackling the global warming problem.

"Some islands affected by climate change have been hit," said Nilsson. "Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity - not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming?"

"Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do," he added.

Global warming enthusiasts have also taken to Twitter to raise awareness of the need to respond to the earthquake by finally acting on climate change. And the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Lee Doren compiled some of the best ones.

Some examples:

. . .

Arbiterofwords tweeted "I’m worried that Japan earthquake, on top of other recent natural ‘disasters’, is a sign we’ve passed point of no return for climate change."

. . .

Tayyclayy noted her frustration by tweeting "An earthquake with an 8.9 magnitude struck Japan.. And some say climate change isn’t real?!"

. . .

"Global warming alarmists will exploit any natural disaster to promote their anti-fossil fuel agenda," Tom Borelli of the Free Enterprise Project told The Daily Caller, adding that the climate change reaction is a result of the "global warming spin machine".

"First it’s global warming, then it’s climate change, now it’s probably tectonic instability - no doubt all caused by man," he said.

When contacted by TheDC, Dan Weiss, Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress, also expressed skepticism at the link between global warming and the earthquake in Japan.

"I am not a scientist," said Weiss, "but I have never heard of a link between global warming and earthquakes."

There's more at the link.

A pox on them! May the fleas of a thousand camels infest their genitals! May their toes fall off, their knees pop, and their thighs bloat!

Quite apart from their scientific illiteracy in trying to link subterranean tectonic plates to atmospheric temperature, anyone who'd try to take advantage of the suffering and death of others to defend an indefensible position (I highly recommend all four linked articles, in sequence, if you're in any doubt about its indefensibility), and propagate a patently false philosophy, isn't worthy of consideration as a human being. They're lower than the gutter.

Let them all wither and rot!





Peter

I'm infuriated by this news report from England.

At the age of three, most children will want to grow up to be a train driver, astronaut or princess.

But according to scientists, some toddlers are already destined for a life of crime.

Disturbing evidence has emerged that the psychological seeds of a criminal career can be seen before they even reach nursery school.

Abnormalities in the parts of the brain that handle emotions, guilt and fear are far more common in criminals than in law-abiding members of society, it shows.

It is unclear whether these abnormalities are genetic, the result of upbringing or both - but they can be measured at a surprisingly tender age.

The finding means youngsters could potentially be screened to see if they are at risk - and then ‘treated’ to prevent criminal behaviour.

. . .

Professor Raine, who now works at the University of Pennsylvania, studied brain scans of prisoners.

He found that murderers who kill in the heat of the moment are more likely to have a poorly functioning prefrontal cortex - which deals with reasoning and helps suppress base instincts.

Psychopaths who lack remorse, guilt or empathy tend to have smaller amygdalas - a region that handles all three emotions, he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

. . .

‘It raises the question to what extent should we develop new biological interventions to reduce crime,’ Professor Raine said.

There's more at the link. Bold print is my emphasis.

The problem is, those characteristics aren't confined to those who develop criminal traits. As a (medically retired) prison chaplain, I've had many discussions about the 'nature versus nurture' argument. There are those who claim that criminals are 'manufactured' through their family and/or social backgrounds (the 'nurture' argument), while others believe they're born that way ('nature'). What both sides fail to grasp is that there are many people born with identical physical characteristics, or who come from similar social settings, who do not become criminals. It's not a question of predisposition or circumstance; it's a matter of choice.

However, many simply don't want to accept this. They truly want to believe that everyone would be a saint, if only they'd had better opportunities, or hadn't been afflicted by some physical problem that 'made them that way', or . . . oh, hell, you get the picture. They don't want to face reality. They're far more comfortable living with (and in) their illusions - until real life slaps them in the face. If they're lucky enough to survive the experience, some of them will learn. Others will persist in their delusions, because to change would be to admit that they'd been wrong. They cannot and will not do that. It's impossible for them.

Can't you just see the 'Big Brother' or 'nanny state' types salivating over this?

"We've got to identify everyone with these characteristics, and treat them at once, to prevent them becoming criminals! It's for the chiiiiil-dren!"

The fact that it has nothing to do with the children, but everything to do with controlling others (which is their secret wet dream), won't be mentioned at all. They truly believe that if they can control everyone, and dictate what they may or may not do, and 'treat' those who won't co-operate until they conform, the world will be a better place. The fact that this defies the reality of human nature is completely lost on them.

I think that, somewhere up there, the shades of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell are smiling grimly to themselves . . .





Peter

By now I'm sure my readers are familiar with yesterday's tragic shooting in Arizona, which killed six people and left Congressional Representative Gabrielle Giffords hospitalized with a bullet through her brain. At this time, her long-term prognosis is unknown, but doctors are expressing guarded optimism that she will at least survive.

What infuriates me is the rush to judgment by many media sources and political activists, seeking to politicize this tragedy and use it as a tool to further their own ends. Isn't in enough that innocent people are dead and injured, without trying to score points or make political capital out of it? Is there no decency left in US politics any more? It certainly seems not . . .

I think my blogbuddy and bestselling author Larry Correia put it very well in a searing article on his blog. Here's an excerpt.

I wasn’t even paying attention until I stupidly took a break from writing (ironically, about an incident involving a lone nut assassin in 1933) and went onto Facebook where I discovered that there had been a shooting and that it had been caused by (in order of evil): Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Arizonans in favor of closing the border, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and easy access to guns… Whew. My people came in last for once!

So I looked into it, fully expecting the shooter to be some right-wing crazy spouting off Ayn Rand.

Nope. Not even close. But I forgot. Reality doesn’t matter.

Right after the shooting, before anyone knew what was going on, so early that the president himself didn’t even know if the congresswoman was deceased or not, the Daily Kos (the mixed nut selection par excellence) ran an article about how this was Sarah Palin’s fault because Giffords was one of the members of congress she had “targeted”.

Targeted. Yes, to get voted out of office. I missed the part about shooting them.

. . .

Only in la-la land can you stretch that far and still sound credible. The rest of us just scratch our heads and feel kind of sorry for you.

. . .

An Arizona sheriff (you get one guess where he falls on the whole secure the border thing) issued a statement yesterday saying that “Arizona has become a Mecca for prejudice and bigotry”.

What is with these people? Do they wait for something awful to happen so that they can harness it to whatever their pet issue is? Yes. The white congresswoman and a bunch of white people were shot by a crazy white guy because of prejudice against Mexicans. Do these idiots ever listen to themselves? Wait… shouldn’t the sheriff have to apologize for using the word Mecca in a negative light?

There's more at the link. Go read the whole thing. It's worth it.

Meanwhile, let's keep Representative Giffords and her family, and the other injured persons and their families, and the dead, and their families, in our prayers. They're the victims who need help and healing right now. To hell with those trying to score political points on the back of their misery!

Peter

Sean Linnane mentions on his blog a letter published in the Waco Tribune Herald newspaper in Waco, Texas, on November 18th last year. Unfortunately, not being a subscriber to that newspaper, I couldn't get a direct link to the page concerned: but Mr. Linnane printed the whole letter anyway. It's so good - and I agree with it so strongly! - that I've taken the liberty of reproducing it here. (For the benefit of readers outside the USA, I've linked terms that may not be familiar to their reference pages on Wikipedia.)

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or X box 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a government job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the common good.

Before you write that I've violated someones rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be demeaning and ruin their self esteem consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other peoples mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

- Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville, TX

Amen!!! Preach it, brother!

Thanks to Sean Linnane for reproducing Mr. Evans' letter, and to the Waco Tribune Herald for publishing it in the first place. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the author's program were implemented, we could slash entitlement spending overnight, and put our country in a much, much healthier position, financially speaking.

All we need now are politicians with the guts to stand up to the 'entitlement crowd' and implement such a program. Anyone know where they are? . . . Anybody? . . . I'm waiting . . . Anyone? Bueller?

*Sigh*

Peter

I noted two news reports with displeasure and disgust today. The first summarized former Speaker Nancy Pelosi's time in office in financial terms.

In the 1,461 days that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) served as speaker of the House, the national debt increased by a total of $5.343 trillion ($5,343,452,800,321.37) or $3.66 billion per day ($3.657,394,113.84), according to official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.

Pelosi was the 52nd speaker of the House. During her tenure, she amassed more debt than the first 49 speakers combined.

The total national debt did not climb above $5.343 trillion (the amount amassed during Pelosi’s four years as speaker) until Feb. 26, 1997, when Rep. Newt Gingrich (R.-Ga.) was serving as the nation’s 50th House speaker.

When Pelosi was sworn in on Jan. 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2011, her last full day in the speakership, it stood at 14,014,049,043,294.41--an increase of $5,343,452,800,321.37.

Pelosi served as speaker for four full years, including one leap year, making her time in that office 1,461 days. On average, the federal government added $3.66 billion ($3,657,394,113.84) in new debt for each of those days.

Pelosi not only outstripped her predecessors in the total volume of debt added to the national debt during her tenure as speaker, but also in the rate at which new debt was added. In fact, Pelosi added debt at a rate more than three times faster than her nearest competitor.

There's more at the link.

The second examined Republican contenders for the 2012 Presidential election.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney continues to hold the pole position for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination in the latest National Journal Political Insiders Poll. But the surprise runner-up to Romney was the two-term Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who moved up from fifth place when the last ranking of the potential GOP White House contenders was conducted a year ago.

Romney's assets and liabilities are well known and haven't changed much since last January. He has a national network of political and financial supporters left over from his unsuccessful run for the 2008 Republican nomination, a command of economic issues derived from his days in the private sector as a corporate turnaround artist, and the hard-won experience from have run for the presidency before.

But Romney must also figure out a way to convince Republican activists that the health care reform measure that he signed as governor of Massachusetts is different from the national health care reform passed by Pres. Obama and congressional Democrats that is anathema to the GOP rank-and-file. He also has a perceived authenticity deficit.

. . .

The standings were determined by Republican Insiders.

Again, there's more at the link. Bold print is my emphasis.

The last line in the extract above sums up the problem for both parties. Pelosi and Romney are both 'insiders'. There are too many like them, professional politicians who are familiar - and comfortable - with the 'old way' of doing things. Spend like drunken sailors; avoid any problem that might be unpopular with the electorate; 'go along to get along'; compromise, prevaricate, equivocate, duck and dive . . .

I'm sick of insiders in politics!

What US politics needs is a thoroughgoing purge of insiders. We need to get rid of them, lock, stock and barrel, and elect politicians who will answer to the electorate and take the Constitution and their oaths of office seriously. Anything less will simply perpetuate the mess we're already in!

I don't really care which party those politicians come from. If someone's a good person, honest, trustworthy, loyal to the Constitution, and not afraid to tackle the hard issues that confront us, I'll vote for him or her, irrespective of party affiliation. A plague on the 'insiders' of both the Democratic and Republican parties! They're all just as bad as one another, and there's little or nothing to choose between them. We need fresh blood, and new leaders who are unpolluted by the malaise of their forebears.

Out with the insiders! Now!





Peter

Daphne, one of the contributors to Jaded Haven, writes about her New Year resolution: to avoid big-box stores.

I spent an hour at Best Buy this morning and walked out without buying the item I came to purchase. My son needs a laptop, they had the model I wanted in stock, unfortunately they only had one sales associate for the ten people milling around the computer department. I was number two in line, but the guy in front of me had three million questions and didn’t seem to give a shit that others were patiently waiting for attention. The manager I hunted down didn’t seem to give a shit either. I bought the thing from the company direct online after I got home. Free shipping, too.

Lowes didn’t schedule anyone to staff the paint department at ten in the morning last Tuesday. After a futile, thirty minute wait for the manager to find someone to mix up a can of white, I headed over to the ceiling fan section and discovered nobody on staff there either. The small Benjamin Moore store got my paint business and a local lighting company snagged two hundred bucks in a quick exchange.

Macy’s shoe department gave me a migraine. Two harried girls trying to wait on fifty women does not make for a pleasant shopping experience. At Marni’s, a little jewel box of a local shop, the charming owner waited on me and had three less pairs of shoes in stock when I walked out the door thirty minutes later.

The checkers at Target and Walmart appear to be drugged on Thorazine, deciphering the balkanized Spanglish or Ebonics at fast food drive-thru’s is an endemic pastime and suffering the illiterate thugs working the return desk at any big box store is a brutal nightmare.

I am tired of being treated like rabble, a cockroach annoyance that must be endured by the hired help when I choose to take my time and money to shop at these anonymous places of business. Yes, I’ll spend a little more out-of-pocket going local and small, but at least I won’t feel enraged, disgusted or abused when I walk out the door. I might even feel quite satisfied after spending my money.

There's more at the link.

I'm with Daphne on this one. I've gotten fed up with lousy service from the big-box stores more times than I can tell. I'll go to them for the basics like groceries, T-shirts and the like, but if I want something more expensive, or where I'll need some advice and guidance, I've more and more turned to smaller, more knowledgeable suppliers. It may cost more, but it saves me a great deal of aggravation!

Now, if we can just get companies to locate their help desks in America, and staff them with Americans, rather than use foreign call centers where the staff speak little or no English and have accents so thick as to be almost incomprehensible . . .

Peter

I hope you're as infuriated as I am by the shenanigans of the present Congress in trying to ram through a pork-filled spending bill during their lame-duck session, just before the newly-elected Congress takes office in a few days time. The Wall Street Journal called it 'The 111th Congress's Final Insult' - a very suitable phrase, if you ask me. Given that the American people overwhelmingly rejected excessive Government spending at the mid-term elections last month, this was a deliberate raising of the finger by Democrats to those who had rejected them. (Mind you, I'm not saying Republicans wouldn't have done precisely the same thing, if they'd been in that position . . . both major parties are completely untrustworthy, in my opinion.) Fortunately, the measure's been blocked in the Senate . . . but only after massive pressure from conservative voters changed the position of a few recalcitrant Republican senators who looked as if they'd go along with it.

It seems that the Wisconsin State Legislature tried to do something similar - in this case, by actually bailing one of their members out of jail so that he could cast the deciding vote for several controversial spending measures! It seems that the outgoing Democrat administration wanted to pass several union-friendly measures that would have added to the State's deficit and posed serious problems for the incoming Republican administration. They succeeded in ramming them through the State Assembly (by one vote - that of the aforementioned imprisoned legislator!), but the former Democratic Senate Majority Leader wasn't on board. He and a colleague registered negative votes, which meant that all the measures were tied at 16-16 (meaning they did not pass). Needless to say, Mr. Decker is not the favorite politician of the Wisconsin Democratic Party right now . . . but I admire his guts, and his willingness to accept the verdict of the electorate and give the incoming administration a chance to tackle the State's problems in their own way.

With the exception (for now) of Mr. Decker . . . Politicians! Grrr!





Peter