Just a thought (delayed a bit, sorry)
Isn't this media celebration of the Kennedy asshole's life simply the media patting themselves on the back for being bought and paid for for so long? I mean really, isn't this a celebration of Joseph Kennedy's post WWII era media manipulation.
The media has no shame. But they do have competition now. We know that that Ted Kennedy, the lion of the senate, was a lion inasmuch as he was a roaring drunk, womanizer, shameless robotic partisan hack, and spoiled rich kid. He was the bad guy from every teenage comedy in the 80's, spoiled, blonde, maybe too handsome and athletic at times, rich, arrogant, cheater, over-sexed.
Oh, by the way, he killed a girl.
But he was in favor of abortions...so it's all good to some.
He favored adopting totalitarian ideals from Europe...so it's all good to some.
He was a shameless, robotic, partisan hack who, by the way, voted against a universal health care option in the 70's because republicans would get credit for it. But still, being an asshole is bad, only when it's done to democrats.
I am glad we buried this enemy of America. At least jihadists come from dank mosques in foreign lands. This traitor grew up Catholic and wealthy in America. He should have defended our ideals...instead he was America's Perfect Useful Idiot.
And the media? The watchdogs? They just love the iconography. They need to defend their past obsequiousness for never holding the light to this awful family.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Duh.
I wrote a post analyzing the flaws inherent in HR3200.
It's not that difficult.
In fact, it's staring you in the face.
The reader of the teleprompter of the free world says you can keep your insurance.
The bill says that you are grandfathered in until any changes to your old insurance takes place.
Those are facts.
What the bill also does is require insurance companies to take people in, regardless of preexisting conditions and for a premium equivalent to non-preexisting condition types.
That's a fact.
What this means is that, in order to charge everyone the same, cover applicants with preexisting conditions, all premiums have to go up.
Let's ignore the larger picture of why anyone would get insurance. Just wait until you get sick. You know? Take the tax hit.
What that means is that the grandfather clause is automatically kaput. There's no way your coverage will not be changed the moment the bill passes.
Obama lie.
Anyway, this being a recession and all, I thought I would pass along some money saving tips:
Lunch. People spend too much money on it. My advice, go to taco bell.
Order an $.89 chicken soft taco fresco style.
That's it. If you are super hungry and need more calories, get the chicken soft burrito instead, also $.89. It's filled with rice and a tasty, gooey, obviously high cal guacamole sauce.
Seriously, why bother with anything else. A value meal at Subway? like $8!
Even if you bring in hot pockets or Healthy Choice, you are still spending $3 for lunch.
The taco bell value menu is insane and so are you if you don't use it.
Also, if I can survive on one taco for lunch and I am an active, muscular, strikingly good looking 200 pound man, then you can also live on one.
Straight up, money cash advice ya'll.
Furthermore, Pasta Sauce.
You buy it.
Don't. Just make it.
The best sauce you can buy in a store is arguably Rao's. It's $8 a jar. That Barilla stuff is also pretty good at $3 a jar.
Screw that. Get an onion. A can of whole peeled tomatoes (with seasoning if you like) and a baby can of tomato paste.
Saute the onion until translucent, then add crushed garlic for another minute.
Then, add the two cans.
Stir and crush the tomatoes.
add a bay leaf, a tbsp of sugar. Some pepper, whatever else you have around.
Simmer for an hour or so.
Add about a half cup of the pasta water of the pasta you are cooking and some shredded Parmesan cheese.
Better than anything else you can buy. And I think you get like two jars worth.
I describe it as the difference between sunlight and clouds. This tastes alive while the shit you get at the store feels just there.
You can also add some bacon with the onion. Use a mirepoix if you have it laying around instead of just one onion. Hello, add shredded chicken or sausage mid point, or shrimp at the end.
So, if you shop smart, you can make this stuff for about $2.50. I'd say two jars worth of pasta sauce.
I've been meaning to do this for years. When I finally made my own sauce, the thought of years wasted buying Barilla in the stores struck me as wasted and futile and ultimately wasteful. A complete game changer.
I wrote a post analyzing the flaws inherent in HR3200.
It's not that difficult.
In fact, it's staring you in the face.
The reader of the teleprompter of the free world says you can keep your insurance.
The bill says that you are grandfathered in until any changes to your old insurance takes place.
Those are facts.
What the bill also does is require insurance companies to take people in, regardless of preexisting conditions and for a premium equivalent to non-preexisting condition types.
That's a fact.
What this means is that, in order to charge everyone the same, cover applicants with preexisting conditions, all premiums have to go up.
Let's ignore the larger picture of why anyone would get insurance. Just wait until you get sick. You know? Take the tax hit.
What that means is that the grandfather clause is automatically kaput. There's no way your coverage will not be changed the moment the bill passes.
Obama lie.
Anyway, this being a recession and all, I thought I would pass along some money saving tips:
Lunch. People spend too much money on it. My advice, go to taco bell.
Order an $.89 chicken soft taco fresco style.
That's it. If you are super hungry and need more calories, get the chicken soft burrito instead, also $.89. It's filled with rice and a tasty, gooey, obviously high cal guacamole sauce.
Seriously, why bother with anything else. A value meal at Subway? like $8!
Even if you bring in hot pockets or Healthy Choice, you are still spending $3 for lunch.
The taco bell value menu is insane and so are you if you don't use it.
Also, if I can survive on one taco for lunch and I am an active, muscular, strikingly good looking 200 pound man, then you can also live on one.
Straight up, money cash advice ya'll.
Furthermore, Pasta Sauce.
You buy it.
Don't. Just make it.
The best sauce you can buy in a store is arguably Rao's. It's $8 a jar. That Barilla stuff is also pretty good at $3 a jar.
Screw that. Get an onion. A can of whole peeled tomatoes (with seasoning if you like) and a baby can of tomato paste.
Saute the onion until translucent, then add crushed garlic for another minute.
Then, add the two cans.
Stir and crush the tomatoes.
add a bay leaf, a tbsp of sugar. Some pepper, whatever else you have around.
Simmer for an hour or so.
Add about a half cup of the pasta water of the pasta you are cooking and some shredded Parmesan cheese.
Better than anything else you can buy. And I think you get like two jars worth.
I describe it as the difference between sunlight and clouds. This tastes alive while the shit you get at the store feels just there.
You can also add some bacon with the onion. Use a mirepoix if you have it laying around instead of just one onion. Hello, add shredded chicken or sausage mid point, or shrimp at the end.
So, if you shop smart, you can make this stuff for about $2.50. I'd say two jars worth of pasta sauce.
I've been meaning to do this for years. When I finally made my own sauce, the thought of years wasted buying Barilla in the stores struck me as wasted and futile and ultimately wasteful. A complete game changer.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
New Chevelle out.
First impression? Fell Into Your Shoes, Sleep Apnea, Letters From a Thief, and a few others are very strong. Going to the show, I'll ask them if they were inspired by Modest Mouse on Shoes.
Anyway, this is a big deal, Hot Air found the death panel. Rather, HR3200's version of the death panels. To quote the reader of the teleprompter of the free world:
Obama read this from his teleprompter:
"But I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first; how to let doctors focus on practicing medicine; how to encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. I want to work with the AMA so we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine that reinforces our current system, and shift to a system where we are providing better care, simply — rather than simply more treatment."
There you go. You can go ahead and treat granny in contradiction to our "evidence-based guidelines," or you will be sued into submission. I read this line of thought as providing trial lawyers with a prima facie lawsuit against doctors who treat people who go out and provide "simply more treatment."
This guy, reader of the teleprompter of the free world, he is dangerous.
In reading HR3200, something that it appears that the reader of the teleprompter of the free hasn't, I came across with the impression that
First, everyone will be forced to buy high cost insurance, or pay taxes.
Second, those who don't can still get insurance once they get sick, hit by a bus, or old.
Third, a review board will create evidence based guidelines, most likely headed by Dr. Emmanuel (Rahm's brother, call him neo-Kevorkian).
Fourth, there are no affirmative boundaries for anything. The administrator and boards will make all the decisions.
Fifth, abortion, euthanasia, and illegals will certainly be covered.
Sixth, it will cost a lot of money.
Seven, yes it will put insurance companies out of business.
And
No, you won't be able to keep your insurance. Your current plan is grandfathered until any part of it changes. However, on the very first day, the director has the power to force your provider to change the terms of your insurance...ergo...you lose.
Obama lies.
First impression? Fell Into Your Shoes, Sleep Apnea, Letters From a Thief, and a few others are very strong. Going to the show, I'll ask them if they were inspired by Modest Mouse on Shoes.
Anyway, this is a big deal, Hot Air found the death panel. Rather, HR3200's version of the death panels. To quote the reader of the teleprompter of the free world:
Obama read this from his teleprompter:
"But I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first; how to let doctors focus on practicing medicine; how to encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. I want to work with the AMA so we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine that reinforces our current system, and shift to a system where we are providing better care, simply — rather than simply more treatment."
There you go. You can go ahead and treat granny in contradiction to our "evidence-based guidelines," or you will be sued into submission. I read this line of thought as providing trial lawyers with a prima facie lawsuit against doctors who treat people who go out and provide "simply more treatment."
This guy, reader of the teleprompter of the free world, he is dangerous.
In reading HR3200, something that it appears that the reader of the teleprompter of the free hasn't, I came across with the impression that
First, everyone will be forced to buy high cost insurance, or pay taxes.
Second, those who don't can still get insurance once they get sick, hit by a bus, or old.
Third, a review board will create evidence based guidelines, most likely headed by Dr. Emmanuel (Rahm's brother, call him neo-Kevorkian).
Fourth, there are no affirmative boundaries for anything. The administrator and boards will make all the decisions.
Fifth, abortion, euthanasia, and illegals will certainly be covered.
Sixth, it will cost a lot of money.
Seven, yes it will put insurance companies out of business.
And
No, you won't be able to keep your insurance. Your current plan is grandfathered until any part of it changes. However, on the very first day, the director has the power to force your provider to change the terms of your insurance...ergo...you lose.
Obama lies.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Is it too soon? Too soon to reflect on the passing of a selfish, ignoble jackass whose life was an example of projection and self-immolation?
Yup. I waited a day. I think.
Fuck. Ted. Kennedy.
It's one of those weird things about this guy is that the more you learn about him, the worse of a person he was.
Let's see, caught cheating at Harvard? Check
Led police on car chases? CheckKilled a girl? CheckKinda sorta used his power and wealth to bed and harass the ladies? Checkity check checkPink bellied, socialist scum sucked who hated this country? uh yeahShameless, robotic, partisan hack. That's his middle nameDoes he like to drink? Is the Pope catholic?Tried to redeem himself by spending other people's money, thereby continuing the leftist delusion that wealth redistribution is a good thing? See above, he's as red as they come.Did he commit treason? Does offering the premier of the Soviet Union thwart the West's cold war strategy count? Then yes.Was he, without fail, an advocate for America's enemies...except when politically expedient. Yes, and Uncle Bills says thanks for helping wag that dog.Did he change the landscape of American politics by Borking Bork and High tech lyching Thomas? You betcha.Did he enact immigration reforms that in essence were attempts to fire the American voter? Si su perde.As Andrew Breitbart put it, this isn't a political whack a doo. This a corrupt, vile Jabba the Hutt type gangster putting on airs of civility. Fuck him.Oh, the Brits don't care...love that they pulled this out of the memory hole.
quote "Irish support: Kennedy with Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams - for years the Democrat was seen as a cheerleader for American Irish supporters of the IRA"
Monday, August 10, 2009
Wow, the left...the people who pride themselves on being jackasses, of assaulting conservative public speakers, is now aghast that Seibulus and Specter got booed while dishonestly answering questions. Pelosi continues to be a moron.
However, ignoring the projection that defines the DNC, let's get to the issues. I came across a pie in the sky list of 10 reasons why we should support Pelosi-Care. First, let me be clear, Obama has shown no leadership in this mess, outside of getting SEIU muscle to intimidate voters. He just wants Congress to pass anything with words "health," "care," and "reform" on it. Let me be clear, Obama was a substandard student who published only one paper. Bill Ayers wrote his books for him, so it's not like Obama has any real intellectual skin in this game. Dr. Jacob Hacker is the archetict for PelosiCare.
To the list:
1. It's good for our health.
Alright, off the bat, these aren't really that persuasive. Let's revamp the fundamental nature of America because of a few undefineables or a few questionable benefits (er, #6, what?).
I started listing some responses, and the list gets bigger and bigger.
So, let me aggregate here.
I. intro
The best refutation of these points is the fact that they're all wrong. Starting with point one...it's good for health. What ever that means. Since our system drives medical research and development and other countries that have adopted the single payer system can't even afford to have enough MRI's or cancer drugs to make their survival rates equivalent to ours is telling.
However, what the person who wrote this list probably thinks point one refers to is the idea that ObamaCare (which was written by Hacker) focuses on prevention. This is a fallacy. Diseases are age related. You can't take vitamin pills and not die. And government institutionalization of "prevention" is not a good enough reason to do it.
Another little trick is that they want to wean the public off of specialists. That is, you will be sent to general practitioners instead of specialists, and they label it prevention.
II. The money, yo!
point number two is insanely wrong. the CBO would state otherwise. And people who have checked the CBO's math have stated they've missed the mark by half.
http://city-journal.com/2009/eon0805sp.html
Again, you have to believe that (a) the government will finally run something well. and (b) that the underlying free lunch being peddled is real.
III. Low quality for all
Point three is nebulous because it doesn't mean anything. If you look at socialized health care systems, you will see that health care is equal (except for politicians and athletes) because they deny care equally. And you, as a Canadian, would have to fly to America and pay for needed treatment out of your pocket.
What the person who wrote this list appears to refer to is the alleged 45 million uninsured. This is wrong because, well, that number includes self insured, illegal aliens, and people who already qualify for Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP.
Again, what is the model? Or, what is the problem? The poor don't have access to care? not true. Their care isn't up to the Walt Disney level of personal cryogenic chambers? Sorry, since bending the curve will include denial of care to elderly and other expensive patients, it won't matter. Instead, you will define service down so that everyone's health care is reduced. But we'll all be equally sick. Sorry, not interested.
IV. What about the children!!!
Point Four...pardon my french, but who the made you the judge of morals. Your economic sense speaks for itself...see point two. See also Europe, Canada, Cuba, etc. Rationing of care, denial of care to elderly, hospital facilities that are incubators of their own diseases.
To quote Mark Steyn:
"What’s so moral about relieving the citizen of responsibility for his own health care?"
"Smokers in Manchester, England have been refused treatment for heart disease, and the obese in Suffolk have been told they’re ineligible for hip and knee replacements...they still have to ration treatment. Patricia Hewitt, the former Health Secretary, says there’s nothing wrong with the state forbidding treatment on the basis of “lifestyle choices”. And apparently the “pro-choice” types ... are entirely relaxed about the government getting its bureaucratics all over your lymphatics."http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/2295/26/
V. blah blah blah
points 5 through 10 are more misconceptions, outright lies, or restatements of points 1-4.
I am also confused as why tort reform isn't part of bending the curve on costs. It's not because they are major DNC contributors?
Seventy-four percent (74%) of voters rate the quality of care they receive as good or excellent. 9% rate it poor.
VI. Get real
Finally, for now, stop talking in platitudes. Obama came on the air and talked about unneeded tonsillectomies...what? Is there going to be a government agent between you, the doctors, and your tonsils? That's "let[s] doctors and nurses focus on patients, not paperwork?" Or is it all nonsense and he just was lying his butt off.
How about this, give us a brochure. Like a real insurance company would do. What will the average person lose out on in this deal?
For those of us intellectually invested in this debate, why not point out your model. Is it Massachusetts style, Canada Style, Cuba style? Then, we can say, "well, in Canada, they did this wrong. How do we get around it?"
If the idea's so great, why not deliberate? Why rush it through? The God-King wanted this passed without debate a month ago. That's stealth care, not health care.
VII. I have a bridge you can buy...
Oh, the hits keep on coming.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/congressional-budget-expert-says-preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs.html
With respect to points, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8, the CBO has today announced that Preventive Care Will Raise -- Not Cut -- Costs.
"Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," Elmendorf wrote. "That result may seem counterintuitive....
"For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending — for that individual," Elmendorf wrote.
VIII. Know the enemy
One thing about the left...or at least spendthrift government types (e.g., Schwarzenegger and California) is that they are money hungry. This plan reflects this because one of the methods it uses to bend the curve is to force all those young people who sign up for minimal or no health insurance coverage to buy the full Cadillac. That is, the young and the poor (because young people are poor since they just got started) will again be forced to subsidize the old. Or they get taxed out the wazoo if they forget to sign up.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/
5 specific points made:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan...
5. Freedom to choose your doctors...
"the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians..."
IX. but, really, what about the children?
In case the statist who demands free aspirin reads this far and thinks to herself, well, Obama said that those who are opposed to health care have no alternative plan (my plan, BTW, tort reform, overhaul of Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP to provide bottom floor service to those who fall off the map, every one else has to act like an adult (this is America, dammit, take care of yourself)), let it be known that:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTIwZDRlMDkzMTA5NTdiMTlkZjhjZjMwZTdkNjhiYzM =
"Press is wrong: Republicans have put several health reforms on the table, from the bipartisan plan sponsored by Sens. Robert Bennett (R., Utah) and Ron Wyden (D., Ore), to Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R., Wisc.) comprehensive entitlement- and tax-reform plan, to Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R., S.C.) plan to allow consumers to purchase health insurance across state lines. These Republican plans would do more to “bend the cost curve” than congressional Democrats’ proposals, all of which push costs in the wrong direction."
X. What about the working class?
Another fallacy with respect to points 2, 4, and 9. I just came across this as I was waiting for a print job...
http://poorandstupid.com/2009_08_09_chronArchive.asp#3293351309667487047
The highlights are how the plan...as structured...the one that the God-King, bringer of the Sun and leveler of the seas wanted passed as is, weeks ago without debate:
"the financial shock of expanded coverage would be much larger and would drive wages down for nearly the bottom 40 percent of the earnings distribution."
In English, this study found that the effects of Pelosi care (to be honest, Obama never wrote any legislation) is that wages of lower-skilled employees would be smashed.
XI. Watch out for big tonsil
Wow, aggregator is my middle name. WRT to points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, I found this gem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afuekTcSFfM
Apparently, the Oregon model shows what happens when special interests can get between you and your doctor and your money...i.e., how Obama will prevent you from being victim of big tonsil...
So, how do we prevent politically popular causes blocking out treatment for more run of the mill and less slogan friendly illnesses...keep the government out of the decision matrix (in the real world, this means keeping the government out of the money that is spent on health care).
More to follow.
However, ignoring the projection that defines the DNC, let's get to the issues. I came across a pie in the sky list of 10 reasons why we should support Pelosi-Care. First, let me be clear, Obama has shown no leadership in this mess, outside of getting SEIU muscle to intimidate voters. He just wants Congress to pass anything with words "health," "care," and "reform" on it. Let me be clear, Obama was a substandard student who published only one paper. Bill Ayers wrote his books for him, so it's not like Obama has any real intellectual skin in this game. Dr. Jacob Hacker is the archetict for PelosiCare.
To the list:
1. It's good for our health.
2. It costs less and saves money.
3. It will assure high quality health care for all Americans, rich or poor.
4. It's the best choice - morally and economically.
5. It may be a matter of life or death.
6. It will let will let doctors and nurses focus on patients, not paperwork.
7. It will reduce health care disparities.
8. It will eliminate medical debt.
9. It will be good for labor and business.
10. It's what most Americans want - and we can make it happen.
Alright, off the bat, these aren't really that persuasive. Let's revamp the fundamental nature of America because of a few undefineables or a few questionable benefits (er, #6, what?).
I started listing some responses, and the list gets bigger and bigger.
So, let me aggregate here.
I. intro
The best refutation of these points is the fact that they're all wrong. Starting with point one...it's good for health. What ever that means. Since our system drives medical research and development and other countries that have adopted the single payer system can't even afford to have enough MRI's or cancer drugs to make their survival rates equivalent to ours is telling.
However, what the person who wrote this list probably thinks point one refers to is the idea that ObamaCare (which was written by Hacker) focuses on prevention. This is a fallacy. Diseases are age related. You can't take vitamin pills and not die. And government institutionalization of "prevention" is not a good enough reason to do it.
Another little trick is that they want to wean the public off of specialists. That is, you will be sent to general practitioners instead of specialists, and they label it prevention.
II. The money, yo!
point number two is insanely wrong. the CBO would state otherwise. And people who have checked the CBO's math have stated they've missed the mark by half.
http://city-journal.com/20
Again, you have to believe that (a) the government will finally run something well. and (b) that the underlying free lunch being peddled is real.
III. Low quality for all
Point three is nebulous because it doesn't mean anything. If you look at socialized health care systems, you will see that health care is equal (except for politicians and athletes) because they deny care equally. And you, as a Canadian, would have to fly to America and pay for needed treatment out of your pocket.
What the person who wrote this list appears to refer to is the alleged 45 million uninsured. This is wrong because, well, that number includes self insured, illegal aliens, and people who already qualify for Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP.
Again, what is the model? Or, what is the problem? The poor don't have access to care? not true. Their care isn't up to the Walt Disney level of personal cryogenic chambers? Sorry, since bending the curve will include denial of care to elderly and other expensive patients, it won't matter. Instead, you will define service down so that everyone's health care is reduced. But we'll all be equally sick. Sorry, not interested.
IV. What about the children!!!
Point Four...pardon my french, but who the made you the judge of morals. Your economic sense speaks for itself...see point two. See also Europe, Canada, Cuba, etc. Rationing of care, denial of care to elderly, hospital facilities that are incubators of their own diseases.
To quote Mark Steyn:
"What’s so moral about relieving the citizen of responsibility for his own health care?"
"Smokers in Manchester, England have been refused treatment for heart disease, and the obese in Suffolk have been told they’re ineligible for hip and knee replacements...they still have to ration treatment. Patricia Hewitt, the former Health Secretary, says there’s nothing wrong with the state forbidding treatment on the basis of “lifestyle choices”. And apparently the “pro-choice” types ... are entirely relaxed about the government getting its bureaucratics all over your lymphatics."http://www.steynonline.com
V. blah blah blah
points 5 through 10 are more misconceptions, outright lies, or restatements of points 1-4.
I am also confused as why tort reform isn't part of bending the curve on costs. It's not because they are major DNC contributors?
Seventy-four percent (74%) of voters rate the quality of care they receive as good or excellent. 9% rate it poor.
VI. Get real
Finally, for now, stop talking in platitudes. Obama came on the air and talked about unneeded tonsillectomies...what? Is there going to be a government agent between you, the doctors, and your tonsils? That's "let[s] doctors and nurses focus on patients, not paperwork?" Or is it all nonsense and he just was lying his butt off.
How about this, give us a brochure. Like a real insurance company would do. What will the average person lose out on in this deal?
For those of us intellectually invested in this debate, why not point out your model. Is it Massachusetts style, Canada Style, Cuba style? Then, we can say, "well, in Canada, they did this wrong. How do we get around it?"
If the idea's so great, why not deliberate? Why rush it through? The God-King wanted this passed without debate a month ago. That's stealth care, not health care.
VII. I have a bridge you can buy...
Oh, the hits keep on coming.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/p
With respect to points, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8, the CBO has today announced that Preventive Care Will Raise -- Not Cut -- Costs.
"Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," Elmendorf wrote. "That result may seem counterintuitive....
"For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending — for that individual," Elmendorf wrote.
VIII. Know the enemy
One thing about the left...or at least spendthrift government types (e.g., Schwarzenegger and California) is that they are money hungry. This plan reflects this because one of the methods it uses to bend the curve is to force all those young people who sign up for minimal or no health insurance coverage to buy the full Cadillac. That is, the young and the poor (because young people are poor since they just got started) will again be forced to subsidize the old. Or they get taxed out the wazoo if they forget to sign up.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/
5 specific points made:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan...
5. Freedom to choose your doctors...
"the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians..."
IX. but, really, what about the children?
In case the statist who demands free aspirin reads this far and thinks to herself, well, Obama said that those who are opposed to health care have no alternative plan (my plan, BTW, tort reform, overhaul of Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP to provide bottom floor service to those who fall off the map, every one else has to act like an adult (this is America, dammit, take care of yourself)), let it be known that:
http://article.nationalrev
"Press is wrong: Republicans have put several health reforms on the table, from the bipartisan plan sponsored by Sens. Robert Bennett (R., Utah) and Ron Wyden (D., Ore), to Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R., Wisc.) comprehensive entitlement- and tax-reform plan, to Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R., S.C.) plan to allow consumers to purchase health insurance across state lines. These Republican plans would do more to “bend the cost curve” than congressional Democrats’ proposals, all of which push costs in the wrong direction."
X. What about the working class?
Another fallacy with respect to points 2, 4, and 9. I just came across this as I was waiting for a print job...
http://poorandstupid.com/2
The highlights are how the plan...as structured...the one that the God-King, bringer of the Sun and leveler of the seas wanted passed as is, weeks ago without debate:
"the financial shock of expanded coverage would be much larger and would drive wages down for nearly the bottom 40 percent of the earnings distribution."
In English, this study found that the effects of Pelosi care (to be honest, Obama never wrote any legislation) is that wages of lower-skilled employees would be smashed.
XI. Watch out for big tonsil
Wow, aggregator is my middle name. WRT to points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, I found this gem:
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Apparently, the Oregon model shows what happens when special interests can get between you and your doctor and your money...i.e., how Obama will prevent you from being victim of big tonsil...
So, how do we prevent politically popular causes blocking out treatment for more run of the mill and less slogan friendly illnesses...keep the government out of the decision matrix (in the real world, this means keeping the government out of the money that is spent on health care).
More to follow.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
I Still Hate You, Sarah Palin by David Kahane on National Review Online
Shared via AddThis
Go forth and read, for this shall inform you:
Someone gets it, and rails against the right's namby pamby defense of this nation from foes domestic.
"In other words, stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party, because it’s much more than that. We’re not just the party of slavery, segregation, secularism, and sedition. Not just the party of Aaron Burr, Boss Tweed, Richard J. Croker, Bull Connor, Chris Dodd, Richard Daley, Bill Ayers, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Emperor Barack Hussein Obama II. Not just the party of Kendall “Agent 202” Myers, the State Department official recruited as a Cuban spy along with his wife during the Carter administration. Rather, think of the Democratic Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party."
"You might also want to think about interviewing New York literary agent Jane Dystel, who a) contacted the totally unknown Obama in the wake of an adulatory New York Times piece in 1990 and b) got him a $125,000 advance for a memoir that c) he couldn’t write, even after a long sojourn in Bali, which d) got the contract canceled, whereupon e) Dystel got him $40,000 from another publisher, following which f) the book finally came out to glowing reviews and g) Obama fired her. Wouldn’t she have an interesting story to tell?" [note: he's implying that, duh, Bill Ayers wrote the book].
"And that’s why Sarah had to go. Whether she understood it or not, she threatened us right down to our most fundamental, meretricious, elitist, sneering, snobbish, insecure, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders bones. She was, after all, a “normal” American, the kind of person (or so I’m told) you meet in flyover country. The kind that worries first about home and hearth and believes in things like motherhood and love of country the way it is, not the way she wants to remake it."
Shared via AddThis
Go forth and read, for this shall inform you:
Someone gets it, and rails against the right's namby pamby defense of this nation from foes domestic.
"In other words, stop thinking of the Democratic Party as merely a political party, because it’s much more than that. We’re not just the party of slavery, segregation, secularism, and sedition. Not just the party of Aaron Burr, Boss Tweed, Richard J. Croker, Bull Connor, Chris Dodd, Richard Daley, Bill Ayers, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Emperor Barack Hussein Obama II. Not just the party of Kendall “Agent 202” Myers, the State Department official recruited as a Cuban spy along with his wife during the Carter administration. Rather, think of the Democratic Party as what it really is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party."
"You might also want to think about interviewing New York literary agent Jane Dystel, who a) contacted the totally unknown Obama in the wake of an adulatory New York Times piece in 1990 and b) got him a $125,000 advance for a memoir that c) he couldn’t write, even after a long sojourn in Bali, which d) got the contract canceled, whereupon e) Dystel got him $40,000 from another publisher, following which f) the book finally came out to glowing reviews and g) Obama fired her. Wouldn’t she have an interesting story to tell?" [note: he's implying that, duh, Bill Ayers wrote the book].
"And that’s why Sarah had to go. Whether she understood it or not, she threatened us right down to our most fundamental, meretricious, elitist, sneering, snobbish, insecure, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders bones. She was, after all, a “normal” American, the kind of person (or so I’m told) you meet in flyover country. The kind that worries first about home and hearth and believes in things like motherhood and love of country the way it is, not the way she wants to remake it."
Monday, July 06, 2009
I saw two new movies and my impression of them is that they should have switched directors.
One director is a punchline, Michael Bay, while the other is respected, Michael Mann. Mann is awesome. The heist scene in Heat is impressive. I found Miami Vice to be a great procedural with tons of style and dread. He does have an annoying tendency to film the act of love as a little twitchy. And he, like Bay (and also Apatow), seems to now be collecting his own mafia of go-to scene fillers. Seeing Dominick Lombardozzi as an Irish boy with old-school gangster hair is weird. But I digress...
Public Enemies is a bloodless, long ass film starring my doppelganger as John Dillinger. Depp was good. The story...meh. Needed more stuff getting blow'd up. There were action sequences, but Mann was too faithful, I believe, to the actual material to give us some good chases and battles. Come on, it's early America, throw in some bigger gun battles. Also, there is the problem with what Dillenger did. He robbed banks. Before silent alarms, cameras, dye packets, and other modern security counter measures that most directors use to punch up their films. He just rolls in and robs that shit. You can't really spice it up with out something else. And Mann refuses to spice things up in this movie.
Mann also seems to refuse to glamorize Dillinger beyond what Depp can do with his own smirking charisma. I know how that is, smirking charisma can take you places, but it can't take you past the 90 minute mark in a movie without some good boobies or explosions or fight scenes. Alas, Public Enemies needed some Bay. He needed Bay to blow some shit up, have Steve Buscemi make a cameo, and maybe some gratuitous over-sexualization, like Bay did in T2 with:
or:
or:
[sidenote: Seriously, Bay oversexualizes his films too much. The college campus scenes are ridiculous. Furthermore, the film hovers in the PG13 range on language. Coarse language doesn't improve a film or a bad script. It's lazy. Clean it, Bay, kids are watching!]
Mann took it too seriously, or too lazily as some have asserted, to have fun.
In fact, the scene that starts the movie, the death of Pretty Boy Floyd sort of illustrates how little joy there is in the film. He gets shot in the back and C. Bale just sort of meh stands there. The chase is about as dry as a daylight episode of Cops. The bad guy runs, the cops just fire on him. No drama. People die. There is no beauty in it, because that truth is ugly. And I guess Mann wants us to suffer through his movie because of it.
On the other hand, we have Bay's clusterfuck called Transformers 2. I am going to let you in on a few secrets. I love killing robots. Or to put it bluntly, people killing giant robots such as at the end of the far superior first movie, when the American troops finally get it over on Blackout, that was awesome. Even better was a scene that, thanks to Michael Bay's ineptness, was largely missed. Toward the end of the climactic fight scene, Ironhide basically bodyslams Barricade into pieces. Watch carefully, the cop car drive up to Ironhide and Ironhide has none of it. Barricade gets torn to pieces without even a peep. Dayam, robot get killed. shit get blow'd up, all is good.
First things first, the two robots---black robots---were pretty bad. Diminutive in size and brains, they are the equivalent of slicing Jar Jar Binks into two separate Jars, and putting more black face on them. But, at the end of the day, they weren't *that* bad. They were more like riggers...you know robots who think they're black.
Second, Michael Bay's godawful directing. Look, my go-to joke on Bay is that his films would be about 16 minutes long but for the fact that he seems to film them entirely in slo-mo. With several hard to distinguish robots fighting each other, for once it would have been nice for some slo-mo. Jesus, what the fuck just happened, did that Audi beat up the motorcycle or was that the corvette rescuing bumblebee? What? which anoynmous decipticon was that?
This movie needed Mann's steady hand and big brain. There needed to be some, ah, how you say, procedure and gravitas to it. Instead, it's all blurry shit getting blow'd up. This time around, robots come and go and do stuff and there's no joy to it. Who is the corvette? Is bumblebee really the Autobot's best fighter? Is it wrong for me to think that Sam's mom is kinda hot? Mann would have, I believe, put back some logic and thrill into robot on robot on human action.
Ok, then there's the plot. Complete melt-down. Haters made fun of the first movie but they are teh ghey. TFRM1 had a good plot. It had depth. Things happened, people met, robots died, it was all good. There was the famous KillBox One Alpha scene. In fact, the only escape from reality I found was that I find it *highly unlikely* that once Meghan Fox and Josh Duhamel's characters met, that they would have had time for anything else but humping. That is, once all the robots are dead, Josh would end up with Meghan while Sam would end up having to hang out with his weird friend. But that's just my perspective. Pretty people tend to date pretty people, not Shia LaBoef.
Nonetheless, at the end of the last film, the decepticons had a problem. They lost the war. They have no energy cubes and no way to create new robots. A competent director, like Mann, would have used this to create a different movie. For example, in Blackhawk down, the Somali militia had no almost no advantage over the American forces except for their sheer zombie like determination to stumble into enemy fire and one good trap. That created tension. Bay, on the other hand, ignores this basic premise and the fucking decepticons are so powerful that you lose track of how many tier one (Megatron, Starscream, Blackout, etc.) fighters they have. Note that in this movie, the ratings have changed. Megatron is now about as powerful as starscream while Optimus has also been reduced to just slightly weaker than bumblebee. In fact, I would now say that the Autobot order of battle is:
tier one: no one.
tier two: bumblebee
tier three: optimus prime
tier four: Ironhide
nearly useless: everyone else.
On the other hand, the Decepticon order of battle is:
Invincible: (spoiler)
tier one: Everyone.
That is just lazy film making. A bad director or lazy screenwriter creates tension by making the bad guys super strong, even though there's no reason they should be that strong. It reminds me of Matrix 3 where, from we've been lead to believe, the machines are so weak and power starved, they use people as batteries...yet they fielded an army of 250,000 squiggies!
On the other hand, I love it when people kill robots and I have to say that the US Armed forces with a combined ops from useful friendly countries like, uh, Australia(?) have gotten into the robot killing business. And also, the question "how would an M1 tank with its 14 inches of steel and ceramic armor fare against a decepticon" is answered. M1 kills robot. In fact, a MEU of about 5 tanks and 100 men manages to do more damage the emasculated Autobots. I told my fellow film patron that, oh, Ironhide is the Autobot equivalent of a battleship...pure armor and firepower. Of course, he's nowhere to be seen throughout the film.
But again, I digress. Nothing made any sense. The fight scenes were blurry masses of badly rendered computer images. The plot streaks along. Battles are staged and fought according to dramatic necessity instead of any semblance to right, wrong, weak, or strong.
But still, robots get smashed up. But still, I felt like Megatron at the end of the movie as he stared in disbelief at what just happened. The look on his face is awesome. But you'll just have to suffer through the movie to figure out what could happen to put the baddest transformer out there in his place. Hint: it makes no sense.
So, two films, a lot of potential. Each one got the wrong director.
One director is a punchline, Michael Bay, while the other is respected, Michael Mann. Mann is awesome. The heist scene in Heat is impressive. I found Miami Vice to be a great procedural with tons of style and dread. He does have an annoying tendency to film the act of love as a little twitchy. And he, like Bay (and also Apatow), seems to now be collecting his own mafia of go-to scene fillers. Seeing Dominick Lombardozzi as an Irish boy with old-school gangster hair is weird. But I digress...
Public Enemies is a bloodless, long ass film starring my doppelganger as John Dillinger. Depp was good. The story...meh. Needed more stuff getting blow'd up. There were action sequences, but Mann was too faithful, I believe, to the actual material to give us some good chases and battles. Come on, it's early America, throw in some bigger gun battles. Also, there is the problem with what Dillenger did. He robbed banks. Before silent alarms, cameras, dye packets, and other modern security counter measures that most directors use to punch up their films. He just rolls in and robs that shit. You can't really spice it up with out something else. And Mann refuses to spice things up in this movie.
Mann also seems to refuse to glamorize Dillinger beyond what Depp can do with his own smirking charisma. I know how that is, smirking charisma can take you places, but it can't take you past the 90 minute mark in a movie without some good boobies or explosions or fight scenes. Alas, Public Enemies needed some Bay. He needed Bay to blow some shit up, have Steve Buscemi make a cameo, and maybe some gratuitous over-sexualization, like Bay did in T2 with:
or:
or:
[sidenote: Seriously, Bay oversexualizes his films too much. The college campus scenes are ridiculous. Furthermore, the film hovers in the PG13 range on language. Coarse language doesn't improve a film or a bad script. It's lazy. Clean it, Bay, kids are watching!]
Mann took it too seriously, or too lazily as some have asserted, to have fun.
In fact, the scene that starts the movie, the death of Pretty Boy Floyd sort of illustrates how little joy there is in the film. He gets shot in the back and C. Bale just sort of meh stands there. The chase is about as dry as a daylight episode of Cops. The bad guy runs, the cops just fire on him. No drama. People die. There is no beauty in it, because that truth is ugly. And I guess Mann wants us to suffer through his movie because of it.
On the other hand, we have Bay's clusterfuck called Transformers 2. I am going to let you in on a few secrets. I love killing robots. Or to put it bluntly, people killing giant robots such as at the end of the far superior first movie, when the American troops finally get it over on Blackout, that was awesome. Even better was a scene that, thanks to Michael Bay's ineptness, was largely missed. Toward the end of the climactic fight scene, Ironhide basically bodyslams Barricade into pieces. Watch carefully, the cop car drive up to Ironhide and Ironhide has none of it. Barricade gets torn to pieces without even a peep. Dayam, robot get killed. shit get blow'd up, all is good.
First things first, the two robots---black robots---were pretty bad. Diminutive in size and brains, they are the equivalent of slicing Jar Jar Binks into two separate Jars, and putting more black face on them. But, at the end of the day, they weren't *that* bad. They were more like riggers...you know robots who think they're black.
Second, Michael Bay's godawful directing. Look, my go-to joke on Bay is that his films would be about 16 minutes long but for the fact that he seems to film them entirely in slo-mo. With several hard to distinguish robots fighting each other, for once it would have been nice for some slo-mo. Jesus, what the fuck just happened, did that Audi beat up the motorcycle or was that the corvette rescuing bumblebee? What? which anoynmous decipticon was that?
This movie needed Mann's steady hand and big brain. There needed to be some, ah, how you say, procedure and gravitas to it. Instead, it's all blurry shit getting blow'd up. This time around, robots come and go and do stuff and there's no joy to it. Who is the corvette? Is bumblebee really the Autobot's best fighter? Is it wrong for me to think that Sam's mom is kinda hot? Mann would have, I believe, put back some logic and thrill into robot on robot on human action.
Ok, then there's the plot. Complete melt-down. Haters made fun of the first movie but they are teh ghey. TFRM1 had a good plot. It had depth. Things happened, people met, robots died, it was all good. There was the famous KillBox One Alpha scene. In fact, the only escape from reality I found was that I find it *highly unlikely* that once Meghan Fox and Josh Duhamel's characters met, that they would have had time for anything else but humping. That is, once all the robots are dead, Josh would end up with Meghan while Sam would end up having to hang out with his weird friend. But that's just my perspective. Pretty people tend to date pretty people, not Shia LaBoef.
Nonetheless, at the end of the last film, the decepticons had a problem. They lost the war. They have no energy cubes and no way to create new robots. A competent director, like Mann, would have used this to create a different movie. For example, in Blackhawk down, the Somali militia had no almost no advantage over the American forces except for their sheer zombie like determination to stumble into enemy fire and one good trap. That created tension. Bay, on the other hand, ignores this basic premise and the fucking decepticons are so powerful that you lose track of how many tier one (Megatron, Starscream, Blackout, etc.) fighters they have. Note that in this movie, the ratings have changed. Megatron is now about as powerful as starscream while Optimus has also been reduced to just slightly weaker than bumblebee. In fact, I would now say that the Autobot order of battle is:
tier one: no one.
tier two: bumblebee
tier three: optimus prime
tier four: Ironhide
nearly useless: everyone else.
On the other hand, the Decepticon order of battle is:
Invincible: (spoiler)
tier one: Everyone.
That is just lazy film making. A bad director or lazy screenwriter creates tension by making the bad guys super strong, even though there's no reason they should be that strong. It reminds me of Matrix 3 where, from we've been lead to believe, the machines are so weak and power starved, they use people as batteries...yet they fielded an army of 250,000 squiggies!
On the other hand, I love it when people kill robots and I have to say that the US Armed forces with a combined ops from useful friendly countries like, uh, Australia(?) have gotten into the robot killing business. And also, the question "how would an M1 tank with its 14 inches of steel and ceramic armor fare against a decepticon" is answered. M1 kills robot. In fact, a MEU of about 5 tanks and 100 men manages to do more damage the emasculated Autobots. I told my fellow film patron that, oh, Ironhide is the Autobot equivalent of a battleship...pure armor and firepower. Of course, he's nowhere to be seen throughout the film.
But again, I digress. Nothing made any sense. The fight scenes were blurry masses of badly rendered computer images. The plot streaks along. Battles are staged and fought according to dramatic necessity instead of any semblance to right, wrong, weak, or strong.
But still, robots get smashed up. But still, I felt like Megatron at the end of the movie as he stared in disbelief at what just happened. The look on his face is awesome. But you'll just have to suffer through the movie to figure out what could happen to put the baddest transformer out there in his place. Hint: it makes no sense.
So, two films, a lot of potential. Each one got the wrong director.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Hey, you wanna hear something funny? I heard some good jokes recently.
The Obama's were deciding on a dog to get and *get this* their choices finalized to three and Obama advisor Axelrod broke it down quite wittily:
“I was only called in for the final three, and one was Miss California.”
Hey-oh!
How about this gut buster from David Letterman...Sara Palin dresses like a slutty flight attendant.
Zing!
Want a cherry on top of that sundae?
Arod knocked up her 14 year old daughter during the seventh inning stretch.
Truly, it is demonstrated day after day that the left possesses not only the most compassionate souls and keen intellect, but immense comedic talent. That's why leftist geniuses like Margaret Cho are constantly foisted on us...for our own good...if only we could grasp it!
Allow me to retort...and steal Ace of Spades' idea entirely.
David Letterman finally knocked up his ugly, slutty babymomma who looks like a slutty ugly female Bill Paxton. Dayam, am I funny or what? Oh wait, no, the left, as they fight with barbed wire and knives drawn are quick to pull the shocked gasp of a victorian matriarch...why I never! Have you no decency, sir?
Yes, they are soooooooo decent.
So, now, Palin quit her office. Apparently, the full on hate fest from the festering leftwing's vile soul is enough to drive people to simply submit and seek peace. Then again, maybe the woman deserved having Andrew Sullivan spend a year or so discussing who actually gave birth to Trig Palin. Maybe even hockey mom can have enough. Maybe running up half a million in legal bills shooting down baseless ethics complaints (I mean so what if she fired an inspector general who was sniffing up a dear friend's racket...oh wait, that's the thug from Chicago...Palin was accused of holding a fish).
I mean come on! Anyone who dares to believe that they are as qualified as "slow" Joe Biden to be Veep must be destroyed! right? She should be punched in the throat. or the face.
A good parting shot was the threat of massive libel suits. It seems that the left can't get a clue and assumes another "scandal." They live in their own bubble where only their own biases are assumed. So, here's a clue...there's no FBI investigation. I wonder if any sane person would, in a libel suit, not find actual malice towards Sara on the part of these slanderers?
To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those “responsible for the abuse of that right.” Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=1. These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.
What scum. I hope she gets revenge...bloody, legal, expensive revenge.
Oh, and let's not forget to heap scorn on the feminists, the same gals who kinda sorta supported the Taliban and Saddam Hussein not because their ultimate goal is the destruction of capitalism and therefore the moral underpinnings of America, but because, you know the bikini is worse than the burka. Also, let's not forget that Palin isn't a woman, she's a republican. The same mindfucked minds that supported Clinton over all his women problems.
And it's really quite pathetic the true reasons for this hatred. She dared mock the mockable Obama. She didn't abort her kids. She hasn't left her husband. Her husband is kinda hot. She's kinda hot. She has about five times more kids than the average DC SWPL uptown girl and guy will have in their life.
And, she doesn't appear to be hitting the wall. How dare she!
And this reminds me of why I stopped doing a lot of things...things with my money and time. I don't watch TV shows that support this frame of mind, I don't buy records that support this shit, or go to movies that regurgitate it. Punish the entertainment class for the classlessness. Stop watching Letterman...hell try to get his gap toothed ass fired. So, CNN, Wash Post, NYT's, eat shit and die...you won't get my money for your crap. James Bond's Daniel Craig thinks we should vote for Obama...oops I forgot to see Quantum (loved Steyn's take on this, McCain lived the Bond lifestyle, while Obama sat in comfort, but Obama best represents the Bond ideal? what???). Meanwhile, I was conflicted over whether ignorant
slut
Megan Fox's
diatribe
against the good people of fly-over country would lead me to skip Transformers 2...oops...it's actually anti-Obama...I am there dudes! You shall be rewarded! Same with Taken...partiarchal porn AND revenge porn? Dudes...Liam gets my money.
Speaking of which, I do love going to movies..but so much recent shit has been pure leftwing masterbation. The recent Russel Crowe movie for example, no, sorry, depictions of reporters as hardworking souls who actually do reporting? Instead of rereading DNC talking points? Heartless, nameless corporations killing people for fun and profit? Please. Get bent. Not a dime! There must be some sort of cottage industry in Hollywood where your idiotic leftist fantasy gets made and you, an ignorant stupid rich person, get to lose $80 million doing it.
The same with GM and their union thugs (the DNC's other other organized crime wing). You want to institute socialism in America? Fuck you...I wouldn't give you a dime.
So yeah, eventually, people like Letterman will feel pain for their comments. Whether he gets his ass fired, he loses ratings, or I cal his wife a slutty Bill Paxton to his face, maybe the only way to restore manners is the cowboy way and not turning the other cheek.
The Obama's were deciding on a dog to get and *get this* their choices finalized to three and Obama advisor Axelrod broke it down quite wittily:
“I was only called in for the final three, and one was Miss California.”
Hey-oh!
How about this gut buster from David Letterman...Sara Palin dresses like a slutty flight attendant.
Zing!
Want a cherry on top of that sundae?
Arod knocked up her 14 year old daughter during the seventh inning stretch.
Truly, it is demonstrated day after day that the left possesses not only the most compassionate souls and keen intellect, but immense comedic talent. That's why leftist geniuses like Margaret Cho are constantly foisted on us...for our own good...if only we could grasp it!
Allow me to retort...and steal Ace of Spades' idea entirely.
David Letterman finally knocked up his ugly, slutty babymomma who looks like a slutty ugly female Bill Paxton. Dayam, am I funny or what? Oh wait, no, the left, as they fight with barbed wire and knives drawn are quick to pull the shocked gasp of a victorian matriarch...why I never! Have you no decency, sir?
Yes, they are soooooooo decent.So, now, Palin quit her office. Apparently, the full on hate fest from the festering leftwing's vile soul is enough to drive people to simply submit and seek peace. Then again, maybe the woman deserved having Andrew Sullivan spend a year or so discussing who actually gave birth to Trig Palin. Maybe even hockey mom can have enough. Maybe running up half a million in legal bills shooting down baseless ethics complaints (I mean so what if she fired an inspector general who was sniffing up a dear friend's racket...oh wait, that's the thug from Chicago...Palin was accused of holding a fish).
I mean come on! Anyone who dares to believe that they are as qualified as "slow" Joe Biden to be Veep must be destroyed! right? She should be punched in the throat. or the face.
A good parting shot was the threat of massive libel suits. It seems that the left can't get a clue and assumes another "scandal." They live in their own bubble where only their own biases are assumed. So, here's a clue...there's no FBI investigation. I wonder if any sane person would, in a libel suit, not find actual malice towards Sara on the part of these slanderers?
To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those “responsible for the abuse of that right.” Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=1. These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.
What scum. I hope she gets revenge...bloody, legal, expensive revenge.
Oh, and let's not forget to heap scorn on the feminists, the same gals who kinda sorta supported the Taliban and Saddam Hussein not because their ultimate goal is the destruction of capitalism and therefore the moral underpinnings of America, but because, you know the bikini is worse than the burka. Also, let's not forget that Palin isn't a woman, she's a republican. The same mindfucked minds that supported Clinton over all his women problems.
And it's really quite pathetic the true reasons for this hatred. She dared mock the mockable Obama. She didn't abort her kids. She hasn't left her husband. Her husband is kinda hot. She's kinda hot. She has about five times more kids than the average DC SWPL uptown girl and guy will have in their life.
And, she doesn't appear to be hitting the wall. How dare she!
And this reminds me of why I stopped doing a lot of things...things with my money and time. I don't watch TV shows that support this frame of mind, I don't buy records that support this shit, or go to movies that regurgitate it. Punish the entertainment class for the classlessness. Stop watching Letterman...hell try to get his gap toothed ass fired. So, CNN, Wash Post, NYT's, eat shit and die...you won't get my money for your crap. James Bond's Daniel Craig thinks we should vote for Obama...oops I forgot to see Quantum (loved Steyn's take on this, McCain lived the Bond lifestyle, while Obama sat in comfort, but Obama best represents the Bond ideal? what???). Meanwhile, I was conflicted over whether ignorant
slut
Megan Fox's
diatribeagainst the good people of fly-over country would lead me to skip Transformers 2...oops...it's actually anti-Obama...I am there dudes! You shall be rewarded! Same with Taken...partiarchal porn AND revenge porn? Dudes...Liam gets my money.
Speaking of which, I do love going to movies..but so much recent shit has been pure leftwing masterbation. The recent Russel Crowe movie for example, no, sorry, depictions of reporters as hardworking souls who actually do reporting? Instead of rereading DNC talking points? Heartless, nameless corporations killing people for fun and profit? Please. Get bent. Not a dime! There must be some sort of cottage industry in Hollywood where your idiotic leftist fantasy gets made and you, an ignorant stupid rich person, get to lose $80 million doing it.
The same with GM and their union thugs (the DNC's other other organized crime wing). You want to institute socialism in America? Fuck you...I wouldn't give you a dime.
So yeah, eventually, people like Letterman will feel pain for their comments. Whether he gets his ass fired, he loses ratings, or I cal his wife a slutty Bill Paxton to his face, maybe the only way to restore manners is the cowboy way and not turning the other cheek.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Just a thought...there's this movie called Fred Claus...I've never seen it, but apparently it stars Vince Vaughn playing the role of Vince Vaughn pretending to be Santa Claus's brother (older, younger, or twin brother I couldn't divine).
I saw this at work today:
Yup, a pile of random junk food delivered to my office cafeteria mysteriously.
So, I figured it out. Tired of living in Santa's shadow, Fred Claus decided to get off his rump and do something. Well, celebrating the birth of Christ is taken. The Easter Bunny defends his celebretory turf fairly gangster. Cupid is a bitch, a real fruit fly, so no muscling in on that holiday either. So, instead, Fred Claus choose to pick up the slack and now goes from office to office dropping off random junk food, birthday cakes, and inedible Domino's pizzas. He's lazy and kind of unorganized, so the food just shows up depending on his mood. He's also nicely egalitarian, Naughty, nice, obese, thin, it doesn't matter to him. Well, actually, I think the little scamp likes to reward obese office girls...it's a sick little joke to him. I wonder if the elves who work with Fred Claus are as obese as some of the Chick Fil-A workers I've seen because being around all those Doritos has got to be tempting.
I wonder if he has to twinkle his nose to cram himself through the building's HVAC or if, instead of a red suit, he dresses as a UPS worker to surreptitiously sneak his high carbohydrate load into office building across the land.
So, I would like to thank Fred Claus for helping my place of work celebrate Independence Day. What better way to mark the birth (and thanks to Obama, likely death) of America ... with crap delivered to your office!
So, what does this have to do with me? I can't resist. Give me an early morning bagel! Doritos? More please. Cake? Only with extra icing. Yep, I can have a high protein lunch and dinner prepared, with sides of salads or dreamfields pasta...but give me a slice of goopy pizza and I melt.
But, here's my secret, I work out. So, it's ok. Fred Claus might be toying with the cat ladies in accounting, but my metabolism is stoked! I invented what I like to call the half-hour of power work out:
I mix benching, pull ups, and squats into one vicious circuit.
So, max out (I did 285 3 times...could have probably done 5 (I know, awesome, eh!)) bench
hit the squats,
do pull ups.
repeat.
Hits the big muscle groups, which apparently drops a bucket of testosterone, and you're done quick. I know I should be doing shrugs, dead lifts and other things too, but this is a nice fit into anotherwise long ass week of working out. Those 1.5 hour long P90X routines just wear you down.
Another thing. Maybe it's cause I switched my pasta loading to DreamFields, but I've discovered almost no weight gain from stopping running. and pretty much stopping other cardio too. A tear in the Achilles will do that to you. It also made made me fear obesity, but I guess not. It turns out cardio is the worst thing you can do to yourself. You pound your body for hours, grinding away joints, only to immediately gorge back your meager burned calories (my in-gym triathalon apparently cooked off 1000 calories, but most people stop at 400-500).
So, I don't know. When my Achilles comes back and I have to give up my beloved handicap parking spaces, should I do any cardio regularly?
I also wonder, is if I am being naughty or nice in Fred Claus' mind? I am not a portly office girl or AFC drone
so, am I pissing him off by not getting fat? or am I earning brownie (pun!) points? Really, what does Fred Claus want? Why is there cake in my office?
Finally, I noticed this little gem from the Onion...
Classic! Here's the button: "It just doesn't add up," said Campus Womyn's Caucus chairwomon Mia Petrovich, 20. "If it's true, that would imply that there is some aspect of collegiate revolutionary Marxist-feminist lesbian identity that is, in some way, less than completely genuine. And that's something my most heartfelt convictions will simply not allow me to accept, at least for the next few semesters, anyway."
Oh, will I ever tire of picking on academics, feminists, and other twits?
Let me add one more block quote which resonates with me:
"Man, I remember once telling her I thought her friend Liz was kind of cute," said fellow junior Mike Nygard, 20. "She got unbelievably offended and lectured me for two hours on Lookism and the society-wide evils of the Male Gaze. At the time, I felt awful and apologized profusely for my insensitivity. I remember thinking how lucky I was to have someone like Amanda to point out how sexist I didn't even know I was being. Now, though, I'm thinking maybe she was just being a sanctimonious, self-righteous bitch. Of course, it would be sexist of me to think that, but I sort of do."
Listen, brother. Never apologize. Sanctimonious, self-righteous bitchery is a rite of passage for the larval feminist academic. There was once a time in this country...and indeed in the Western World, where you would have been able to call her out on this. Alas, you'd do so at your own peril these days. But, rest assured, based on the Tom Brady guide to Sexual Harassment, if you did call her out, she would have stopped playing pretend lesbian earlier. You'll never be anything other than a cipher with a offensive (and unused) phallus with that attitude. Embrace your inner oppressor and be a reactionary. It'll feel good. Like that one time you stood up for the national anthem and the jets flew over head and you were like "maybe we aren't so bad..."
But the larval bitch stage girl, at around 20 is one thing. There is a whole other species of post-larval girl out there. And I've heard a few things popping up in conversation with my few normal, unbitchy female friends: The 30 year old doormat. For whatever reason, some girls go their 20's and early 30's without mating. Oh, they've hooked up, but have not gotten knocked up. Then there comes the desire for a doormat. "I just want a guy to split a mortgage with." "I want a guy to mold himself to my life and my accomplishments." I'm no spring-chicken, but dayam. Don't do it, doormat! First of all, being a doormat is no way to retain whatever sexual tension/attraction/deviancy you first had in your courtship. Women, I am afraid, look down on their "let's just be friends" male friends and I think being a doormat is not much better.
Most divorces, contrary to Lifetime TV, occur when women cheat. Men, contrary to LifeTime TV also do the grunt work in salvaging a marriage. That groveling turns the wife off even more. Oh, what's not a lie or a media fabrication is this...in divorce, Mr. Doormat, you will lose...your money, dignity, and kids. Don't do it! Who is she going to cheat with? Some guy who is impressive, either in his presence, appearance, or ability (think of Tao of Steve), not someone who is sniveling. Hint: get a paternity test. Otherwise, check out this blog of some whore who is proudly cuckolding her placating husband. Jesus!
Quotes from an article I read,"In a 2004 poll by the AARP, one in four men who were divorces in the previous year said they “never saw it coming.” (Only 14 percent of divorced women said they experienced the same unexpected broadside.)"
"However that may be, the modern woman clearly wants the benefi ts of a traditional marriage, but is unwilling to pay the costs; she wants a man to marry her without her having to marry the man. It is the eternal dream of irresponsible freedom: In the feminist formulation, freedom for women, responsibility for men."
"close observers tend to estimate that women are responsible for about nine-tenths of the divorcing and breakingup: Men do not love them and leave them, but love them and get left by them."
"On the other hand, “the word used by the majority of women I interviewed to describe their husbands [was] ‘pathetic.’” When the full extent of their husband’s emotional dependence upon them comes out, women are not moved or gratified; they feel contempt for what they see as weakness."
"Accordingly, over time, most women begin to rationalize their extramarital erotic interests. If women simply want to be married and are not naturally inclined to be attracted to other men, “any unhappiness or infidelity on the part of the women is assumed to be due to the men they married.”
I am willing to bet that these girls are the ones seeking doormats and eager providers. The post larval collegiate feminists.
So, this is a mystery to me. A new phenomenon, girls actively seeking men that they can marry, but walk all over. Some sort of predatory arrangement, if you ask me. Note to self: become Muslim, move to Saudi Arabia. Don't be a doormat.
I saw this at work today:
Yup, a pile of random junk food delivered to my office cafeteria mysteriously.
So, I figured it out. Tired of living in Santa's shadow, Fred Claus decided to get off his rump and do something. Well, celebrating the birth of Christ is taken. The Easter Bunny defends his celebretory turf fairly gangster. Cupid is a bitch, a real fruit fly, so no muscling in on that holiday either. So, instead, Fred Claus choose to pick up the slack and now goes from office to office dropping off random junk food, birthday cakes, and inedible Domino's pizzas. He's lazy and kind of unorganized, so the food just shows up depending on his mood. He's also nicely egalitarian, Naughty, nice, obese, thin, it doesn't matter to him. Well, actually, I think the little scamp likes to reward obese office girls...it's a sick little joke to him. I wonder if the elves who work with Fred Claus are as obese as some of the Chick Fil-A workers I've seen because being around all those Doritos has got to be tempting.
I wonder if he has to twinkle his nose to cram himself through the building's HVAC or if, instead of a red suit, he dresses as a UPS worker to surreptitiously sneak his high carbohydrate load into office building across the land.
So, I would like to thank Fred Claus for helping my place of work celebrate Independence Day. What better way to mark the birth (and thanks to Obama, likely death) of America ... with crap delivered to your office!
So, what does this have to do with me? I can't resist. Give me an early morning bagel! Doritos? More please. Cake? Only with extra icing. Yep, I can have a high protein lunch and dinner prepared, with sides of salads or dreamfields pasta...but give me a slice of goopy pizza and I melt.
But, here's my secret, I work out. So, it's ok. Fred Claus might be toying with the cat ladies in accounting, but my metabolism is stoked! I invented what I like to call the half-hour of power work out:
I mix benching, pull ups, and squats into one vicious circuit.
So, max out (I did 285 3 times...could have probably done 5 (I know, awesome, eh!)) bench
hit the squats,
do pull ups.
repeat.
Hits the big muscle groups, which apparently drops a bucket of testosterone, and you're done quick. I know I should be doing shrugs, dead lifts and other things too, but this is a nice fit into anotherwise long ass week of working out. Those 1.5 hour long P90X routines just wear you down.
Another thing. Maybe it's cause I switched my pasta loading to DreamFields, but I've discovered almost no weight gain from stopping running. and pretty much stopping other cardio too. A tear in the Achilles will do that to you. It also made made me fear obesity, but I guess not. It turns out cardio is the worst thing you can do to yourself. You pound your body for hours, grinding away joints, only to immediately gorge back your meager burned calories (my in-gym triathalon apparently cooked off 1000 calories, but most people stop at 400-500).
So, I don't know. When my Achilles comes back and I have to give up my beloved handicap parking spaces, should I do any cardio regularly?
I also wonder, is if I am being naughty or nice in Fred Claus' mind? I am not a portly office girl or AFC drone
so, am I pissing him off by not getting fat? or am I earning brownie (pun!) points? Really, what does Fred Claus want? Why is there cake in my office?
Finally, I noticed this little gem from the Onion...
Lesbian Identity Ends Abruptly Mid-Junior Year
Classic! Here's the button: "It just doesn't add up," said Campus Womyn's Caucus chairwomon Mia Petrovich, 20. "If it's true, that would imply that there is some aspect of collegiate revolutionary Marxist-feminist lesbian identity that is, in some way, less than completely genuine. And that's something my most heartfelt convictions will simply not allow me to accept, at least for the next few semesters, anyway."
Oh, will I ever tire of picking on academics, feminists, and other twits?
Let me add one more block quote which resonates with me:
"Man, I remember once telling her I thought her friend Liz was kind of cute," said fellow junior Mike Nygard, 20. "She got unbelievably offended and lectured me for two hours on Lookism and the society-wide evils of the Male Gaze. At the time, I felt awful and apologized profusely for my insensitivity. I remember thinking how lucky I was to have someone like Amanda to point out how sexist I didn't even know I was being. Now, though, I'm thinking maybe she was just being a sanctimonious, self-righteous bitch. Of course, it would be sexist of me to think that, but I sort of do."
Listen, brother. Never apologize. Sanctimonious, self-righteous bitchery is a rite of passage for the larval feminist academic. There was once a time in this country...and indeed in the Western World, where you would have been able to call her out on this. Alas, you'd do so at your own peril these days. But, rest assured, based on the Tom Brady guide to Sexual Harassment, if you did call her out, she would have stopped playing pretend lesbian earlier. You'll never be anything other than a cipher with a offensive (and unused) phallus with that attitude. Embrace your inner oppressor and be a reactionary. It'll feel good. Like that one time you stood up for the national anthem and the jets flew over head and you were like "maybe we aren't so bad..."
But the larval bitch stage girl, at around 20 is one thing. There is a whole other species of post-larval girl out there. And I've heard a few things popping up in conversation with my few normal, unbitchy female friends: The 30 year old doormat. For whatever reason, some girls go their 20's and early 30's without mating. Oh, they've hooked up, but have not gotten knocked up. Then there comes the desire for a doormat. "I just want a guy to split a mortgage with." "I want a guy to mold himself to my life and my accomplishments." I'm no spring-chicken, but dayam. Don't do it, doormat! First of all, being a doormat is no way to retain whatever sexual tension/attraction/deviancy you first had in your courtship. Women, I am afraid, look down on their "let's just be friends" male friends and I think being a doormat is not much better.
Most divorces, contrary to Lifetime TV, occur when women cheat. Men, contrary to LifeTime TV also do the grunt work in salvaging a marriage. That groveling turns the wife off even more. Oh, what's not a lie or a media fabrication is this...in divorce, Mr. Doormat, you will lose...your money, dignity, and kids. Don't do it! Who is she going to cheat with? Some guy who is impressive, either in his presence, appearance, or ability (think of Tao of Steve), not someone who is sniveling. Hint: get a paternity test. Otherwise, check out this blog of some whore who is proudly cuckolding her placating husband. Jesus!
Quotes from an article I read,"In a 2004 poll by the AARP, one in four men who were divorces in the previous year said they “never saw it coming.” (Only 14 percent of divorced women said they experienced the same unexpected broadside.)"
"However that may be, the modern woman clearly wants the benefi ts of a traditional marriage, but is unwilling to pay the costs; she wants a man to marry her without her having to marry the man. It is the eternal dream of irresponsible freedom: In the feminist formulation, freedom for women, responsibility for men."
"close observers tend to estimate that women are responsible for about nine-tenths of the divorcing and breakingup: Men do not love them and leave them, but love them and get left by them."
"On the other hand, “the word used by the majority of women I interviewed to describe their husbands [was] ‘pathetic.’” When the full extent of their husband’s emotional dependence upon them comes out, women are not moved or gratified; they feel contempt for what they see as weakness."
"Accordingly, over time, most women begin to rationalize their extramarital erotic interests. If women simply want to be married and are not naturally inclined to be attracted to other men, “any unhappiness or infidelity on the part of the women is assumed to be due to the men they married.”
I am willing to bet that these girls are the ones seeking doormats and eager providers. The post larval collegiate feminists.
So, this is a mystery to me. A new phenomenon, girls actively seeking men that they can marry, but walk all over. Some sort of predatory arrangement, if you ask me. Note to self: become Muslim, move to Saudi Arabia. Don't be a doormat.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
oh boy.
So, the dumbest woman around decides to pick a pissing match with the firetruck known as the CIA.
Not.
Even.
Close.
First, Pelosi doesn't have the intellectual fire power to be coherent, let alone lie or smack down another person (aside from mediocre ad hominem crap "they mislead us all the time," hmmm, that will make sure the CIA plays ball). Second, as a result of that, she requires constant media manipulation to hide how dumb she is. But, today, the first point became apparent as the second point faded.
Finally, note that, as pointed out by Hot Air, the CIA doesn't care. They are not going to go down. If Pelosi wants to scare the shit out of the intel community in a bald faced attempt to turn this country into a banana republic by criminalizing all acts of the previous administration, the CIA will go ahead and drop shit on her for as long as they want.
Hell, they did it to Bush 43 and all he did was cut back on their Christmas party liquor budget.
BONUS
The alpha liberal of the liberal tribe dares to speak truth to kooks:
So, the dumbest woman around decides to pick a pissing match with the firetruck known as the CIA.
Not.
Even.
Close.
First, Pelosi doesn't have the intellectual fire power to be coherent, let alone lie or smack down another person (aside from mediocre ad hominem crap "they mislead us all the time," hmmm, that will make sure the CIA plays ball). Second, as a result of that, she requires constant media manipulation to hide how dumb she is. But, today, the first point became apparent as the second point faded.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Finally, note that, as pointed out by Hot Air, the CIA doesn't care. They are not going to go down. If Pelosi wants to scare the shit out of the intel community in a bald faced attempt to turn this country into a banana republic by criminalizing all acts of the previous administration, the CIA will go ahead and drop shit on her for as long as they want.
Hell, they did it to Bush 43 and all he did was cut back on their Christmas party liquor budget.
BONUS
The alpha liberal of the liberal tribe dares to speak truth to kooks:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Waffle House | ||||
| ||||
Monday, May 11, 2009
Look at the following image:
What the fuck?
I think some jackass named Keynes is to blame. Blamed because he is the beard for which this thing hides behind to gain credibility.
In reality, of course, this is spending is not based on any economic theory or reality. It's a power grab, it's a reward for allies. And, it's just the beginning.
I am not a tribal hack, hating on HugObama because he's of the wrong political persuasion. That thing above, that is the result of 100 days. And maybe 15 minutes of debate. This thing isn't a moderate, cool, rationale way to govern. This thing isn't even a well thought out way to socialize the country. It's just a testament to how idiotic, ignorant, and dangerous superhacks like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are. 100 days. Open the floodgates. Any pork, project, or reward...come and get it.
Fine. Even pretending that they're sincere (they aren't or they're ignorant). They believe that you solve a crisis of capital in a financial sector by repaving roads and other "stimulus" activities. Sure whatevers.
The summary of Keynesism is that by merely employing a man, you grow the economy. The example is, apparently, you pay guy to dig a hole and then pay him to fill it back up. He gets paid, he spends the money, and the greatest country and economy that the world has ever seen sprouts to life.
Can we, ah, unpack this train of thought?
What can we agree on? Wealth is created, right? Price follows the law of supply and demand, right? If you are an American and can't agree to these two basic precepts of the market economy, the economic system that has granted you more luxury, safety, and material well being than any other country ever, then leave. Please.
Ok, what is the demand for a dug hole. Not that great. Noone is going to spend a lot of money on a dug hole or a hole that's been refilled. No wealth is created by this meaningless act. It does nothing. Money is invested and nothing is returned.
More insidiously, what does this ditch digging and filling job do to the digger, the man himself? His value is tied to his job, he is not gaining new skills. He is not even being criticized or held to any standards. Just show up and do this thankless, meaningless work. Soon, the man discovers that the sum of his efforts is the same whether he works hard or softly. Or if he shows up drunk or high. Hell, why not show up late and leave early.
His soul degrades to the point where he won't even take a real job. He is programmed to earn his money for free. Real work is devalued because the compensation for an actual job is most likely trivial compared to what he makes for nothing. And, because he is a ditch digger, the opportunities for a jump in income from make-believe work to real work are small.
What proof have I of this? Look at the bloated unions driving GM out of business. Look at the hoards of French protesting the inevitable end of their 2 months of vacation and 35 hour work week. Look at the inner cities of America. These examples sprung not from my cold rationality, but from the empathy of make believe work. You loved these people to death.
Want more proof, what is this?
Now, I am not opposed to some spending. The seduction, the siren call, of giving jobs to people is there. And, maybe, some people can only dig ditches. But this theory is wrong and cannot be the basis by which an economy grows. Furthermore, yes, debt spending (another issue, but a related issue) is not always bad. Reagan had to agree to spending increases in trade for growing the military. At least military spending is the opposite of the ditch digging job. The science and engineering required to make and maintain advanced weapons systems (like the Spartans, there are no American "cannonfodder," every soldier and sailor is precious and can strike back at the enemy with unimaginable power) added to this nation's wealth. We got the internet, radars, VCR's, computers, medicine, etc. Not dug and undug ditches. The men emerging from the military were taught, if not marketable skills (how to shoot a gun, drive a boat, fly an airplane), they gained marketable traits (hardwork, leadership, and responsiblity). This spending added to the country's wealth and made the debt incurred relatively small.
Look at that thing again. Did our economy quadruple is size? Will it? No. So, where is this money going to come from? I have no idea. I expect we are going to borrow some of it and monetize the rest.
Japan is another example. They had an economic crisis. They spent like mad. They got new roads and shiny new stuff. Did it help or matter? no. They just ended up with more debt. This is known as the "lost decade." So, their debt is coming due and they don't have the economic growth to repay it. That debt is just as expensive now as it was then.
Think about it, you take out loans to get a degree, say $50K. You hopefully get a job that will make you enough money to pay off that debt. That $50K is less of a burden to you after school and better job than on the day you signed those student loan papers. If you went out and spent $50K on shoes and rims that spin, your income remains the same. That $50K is still as expensive to you on day 1000 as it was on day 1.
On the other hand, we have had the last 30 years of economic growth. Our lifetimes have been blessed by the Reagan presidency. He lowered taxes and cut regulatory interference. Our economy grew. We had several recessions and missteps, but we grew and we are stronger because of it. These recessions allowed us to clear the economic deadwood and to learn lessons. Instead of a lost decade, the recession is a rebuilding year. Think about it. We may have just abandoned the Patriots or Colts role model of the metaphorical football world because we didn't win the SuperBowl one year and decided to take up the Detroit Lion's managerial style instead. One bad year versus a bad lifetime.
Nonetheless, despite the success that we've had thanks to an embrace of the markets, the taxes crept back and the regulations crept back. They always do. Governments want more. And the power to tax is also the power to reward and to punish. And, the ignorant think that economics is a zero sum game and taxation is a linear event.
Bush is being blamed for the current recession. He was also blamed for inheriting Clinton's recession. Luck guy, eh? You saw what he did with the recession he inherited. He made life easier for businesses, not government. We grew...yes we did...hitting a record string of months of economic growth. Eventually, we hit a recession. This one caused by things that have no name (i.e., government regulations forcing banks to make bad loans and then forcing these loans to be sold as securities). But, despite a war, despite a lost city, despite many things, the economy grew.
So, think. Please. Many president inherit a recession. It's the cyclical nature of the beast. Funny how that works out. Some presidents do ok, some kick ass, and some cause and prolong the Great Depression.
So, whither Keynes? Fuck Keynes.
Give me Laffer. Give me Friedman. Give me Reagan. Hell, give me JFK. Give me Hayek. Give me Rand. Give me my freedom!
You can keep the change.
UPDATE
The super-duper deficit keeps burrowing into my brain. I grew up post Reagan, I have zero recollection of Carter. We, as a country, have had it pretty good my entire known life. But, one stupid election, the flood gates are opened. The people currently in power are not ready for this and they are dangerously willing to spend away thirty years of economic growth and prosperity.
And think about what else they've done. They rewrote the game of investing without so much as a whimper. So, why ? how? What's going to grow if people aren't even sure that their investments are safe?
And the thing is...there's historical precedent for what happens when people like HugObama take over a society. At best, we could be in for an FDR era rough spell, you know 15 years of poverty. World War. That sort of thing. But as much as liberals love their dystopic-future-fiction, the world's shitholes of poverty, soul killing oppression, and lost time comes from the totalitarian model we may be embracing.
But who knows, maybe all the spending will work. Maybe Obama's a benevolent steward of our welath. Even so, there's one thing Reagan and the Bushes weren't able to even touch. And one thing Obama isn't going to touch. Social Security is going to go boom very soon.
Think of that when Howard Dean tells you that capitalism is bad. Government is much worse.
What the fuck?
I think some jackass named Keynes is to blame. Blamed because he is the beard for which this thing hides behind to gain credibility.
In reality, of course, this is spending is not based on any economic theory or reality. It's a power grab, it's a reward for allies. And, it's just the beginning.
I am not a tribal hack, hating on HugObama because he's of the wrong political persuasion. That thing above, that is the result of 100 days. And maybe 15 minutes of debate. This thing isn't a moderate, cool, rationale way to govern. This thing isn't even a well thought out way to socialize the country. It's just a testament to how idiotic, ignorant, and dangerous superhacks like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are. 100 days. Open the floodgates. Any pork, project, or reward...come and get it.
Fine. Even pretending that they're sincere (they aren't or they're ignorant). They believe that you solve a crisis of capital in a financial sector by repaving roads and other "stimulus" activities. Sure whatevers.
The summary of Keynesism is that by merely employing a man, you grow the economy. The example is, apparently, you pay guy to dig a hole and then pay him to fill it back up. He gets paid, he spends the money, and the greatest country and economy that the world has ever seen sprouts to life.
Can we, ah, unpack this train of thought?
What can we agree on? Wealth is created, right? Price follows the law of supply and demand, right? If you are an American and can't agree to these two basic precepts of the market economy, the economic system that has granted you more luxury, safety, and material well being than any other country ever, then leave. Please.
Ok, what is the demand for a dug hole. Not that great. Noone is going to spend a lot of money on a dug hole or a hole that's been refilled. No wealth is created by this meaningless act. It does nothing. Money is invested and nothing is returned.
More insidiously, what does this ditch digging and filling job do to the digger, the man himself? His value is tied to his job, he is not gaining new skills. He is not even being criticized or held to any standards. Just show up and do this thankless, meaningless work. Soon, the man discovers that the sum of his efforts is the same whether he works hard or softly. Or if he shows up drunk or high. Hell, why not show up late and leave early.
His soul degrades to the point where he won't even take a real job. He is programmed to earn his money for free. Real work is devalued because the compensation for an actual job is most likely trivial compared to what he makes for nothing. And, because he is a ditch digger, the opportunities for a jump in income from make-believe work to real work are small.
What proof have I of this? Look at the bloated unions driving GM out of business. Look at the hoards of French protesting the inevitable end of their 2 months of vacation and 35 hour work week. Look at the inner cities of America. These examples sprung not from my cold rationality, but from the empathy of make believe work. You loved these people to death.
Want more proof, what is this?
Now, I am not opposed to some spending. The seduction, the siren call, of giving jobs to people is there. And, maybe, some people can only dig ditches. But this theory is wrong and cannot be the basis by which an economy grows. Furthermore, yes, debt spending (another issue, but a related issue) is not always bad. Reagan had to agree to spending increases in trade for growing the military. At least military spending is the opposite of the ditch digging job. The science and engineering required to make and maintain advanced weapons systems (like the Spartans, there are no American "cannonfodder," every soldier and sailor is precious and can strike back at the enemy with unimaginable power) added to this nation's wealth. We got the internet, radars, VCR's, computers, medicine, etc. Not dug and undug ditches. The men emerging from the military were taught, if not marketable skills (how to shoot a gun, drive a boat, fly an airplane), they gained marketable traits (hardwork, leadership, and responsiblity). This spending added to the country's wealth and made the debt incurred relatively small.Look at that thing again. Did our economy quadruple is size? Will it? No. So, where is this money going to come from? I have no idea. I expect we are going to borrow some of it and monetize the rest.
Japan is another example. They had an economic crisis. They spent like mad. They got new roads and shiny new stuff. Did it help or matter? no. They just ended up with more debt. This is known as the "lost decade." So, their debt is coming due and they don't have the economic growth to repay it. That debt is just as expensive now as it was then.
Think about it, you take out loans to get a degree, say $50K. You hopefully get a job that will make you enough money to pay off that debt. That $50K is less of a burden to you after school and better job than on the day you signed those student loan papers. If you went out and spent $50K on shoes and rims that spin, your income remains the same. That $50K is still as expensive to you on day 1000 as it was on day 1.
On the other hand, we have had the last 30 years of economic growth. Our lifetimes have been blessed by the Reagan presidency. He lowered taxes and cut regulatory interference. Our economy grew. We had several recessions and missteps, but we grew and we are stronger because of it. These recessions allowed us to clear the economic deadwood and to learn lessons. Instead of a lost decade, the recession is a rebuilding year. Think about it. We may have just abandoned the Patriots or Colts role model of the metaphorical football world because we didn't win the SuperBowl one year and decided to take up the Detroit Lion's managerial style instead. One bad year versus a bad lifetime.
Nonetheless, despite the success that we've had thanks to an embrace of the markets, the taxes crept back and the regulations crept back. They always do. Governments want more. And the power to tax is also the power to reward and to punish. And, the ignorant think that economics is a zero sum game and taxation is a linear event.
Bush is being blamed for the current recession. He was also blamed for inheriting Clinton's recession. Luck guy, eh? You saw what he did with the recession he inherited. He made life easier for businesses, not government. We grew...yes we did...hitting a record string of months of economic growth. Eventually, we hit a recession. This one caused by things that have no name (i.e., government regulations forcing banks to make bad loans and then forcing these loans to be sold as securities). But, despite a war, despite a lost city, despite many things, the economy grew.
So, think. Please. Many president inherit a recession. It's the cyclical nature of the beast. Funny how that works out. Some presidents do ok, some kick ass, and some cause and prolong the Great Depression.
So, whither Keynes? Fuck Keynes.
Give me Laffer. Give me Friedman. Give me Reagan. Hell, give me JFK. Give me Hayek. Give me Rand. Give me my freedom!
You can keep the change.
UPDATE
The super-duper deficit keeps burrowing into my brain. I grew up post Reagan, I have zero recollection of Carter. We, as a country, have had it pretty good my entire known life. But, one stupid election, the flood gates are opened. The people currently in power are not ready for this and they are dangerously willing to spend away thirty years of economic growth and prosperity.
And think about what else they've done. They rewrote the game of investing without so much as a whimper. So, why ? how? What's going to grow if people aren't even sure that their investments are safe?
And the thing is...there's historical precedent for what happens when people like HugObama take over a society. At best, we could be in for an FDR era rough spell, you know 15 years of poverty. World War. That sort of thing. But as much as liberals love their dystopic-future-fiction, the world's shitholes of poverty, soul killing oppression, and lost time comes from the totalitarian model we may be embracing.
But who knows, maybe all the spending will work. Maybe Obama's a benevolent steward of our welath. Even so, there's one thing Reagan and the Bushes weren't able to even touch. And one thing Obama isn't going to touch. Social Security is going to go boom very soon.
Think of that when Howard Dean tells you that capitalism is bad. Government is much worse.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
When I tell people that my parents are basically communists, they ask, well what happened to you?
I used to say, "they taught me to read."
But now...it seems the proper answer is that people like that don't live the way they preach. None of the things that they have done in raising me squares with what they advocate for other people.
Indeed, I see that by not living by the standards by which I was raised leads to your men being shiftless, lazy, and bad parents. That the women end up, well, at best as girls gone wild. From that point forward, the path is down, not up. I see no reason to advocate raising a feral human. I want everyone to experience what I have and more.
The people that force others into public education where social promotion is the goal, won't send their children to public schools. The easy living of rewarding single motherhood isn't an option. Neither is an abortion. Be responsible. That's what they wanted for me.
From where I was raised, things like bad education, being a victim, living off of others, and countless other things taken for granted were granted to others, but never an option. So, why should I be treated, and expect to be treated, one way, the way that they expected of me, but wasn't expected of others?
Not everyone is gifted. But everyone can do well. I could squander my gifts. You could work hard and be better than you, by all rights, could be. I realized, that what's good for me, is good for you. Not some other standard. I may be fit, but my fitness didn't cause your sloth. My virtue didn't cause your weakness. Jesus said that the poor will always be with us, but he never said that we had to encourage them that their poverty led to a poverty of their souls. The way I was raised wouldn't allow that for me.
There are, it turns out, plenty of poor people. But they still live moral, virtuous lives. Moreso than I could dream of. And these people are looked down upon because they're bitter clingers. Screw that. They are the model, an example.
Some say the poor (or the rich) are different. No. They aren't. Anyone who goes down the wrong path ends at the wrong place. Turn around, it's never too late.
So, in my mind, when Rand wrote, "I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine," I realize that that I can't say rest, do nothing, it's ok, someone else will give you stuff.
I chose another viewpoint. What's good for me is good for others.
So, yeah, live by the same rules. please.
UPDATE
Of course, for most "socialists, libs, etc." types, their positions are more intellectual preening than anything else. Conservatives offer arguments, Liberals offer alliances. To put it clearly, Conservatives want to win the argument to win the crowd, liberals wish to win the crowd to win the argument. It's tribalism versus rationality. Think about that the next time, while watching Jon Stewart, he mocks a political opponent or praises HugObama. You are being told who is cool. Not who is right. So, flush away America's future, ignore what the uncool kids say. It's obviously not important. Following the herd is no excuse, and they should still pay for their thoughtless advocacy, of course.
PS. wow, I got a 3000 word comment. Easily readable because the author managed to condense his thoughts into 4 paragraphs. Very pithy and informative, I am sure. I liked the excess use of all-caps. Persuasive. and deleted.
I used to say, "they taught me to read."
But now...it seems the proper answer is that people like that don't live the way they preach. None of the things that they have done in raising me squares with what they advocate for other people.
Indeed, I see that by not living by the standards by which I was raised leads to your men being shiftless, lazy, and bad parents. That the women end up, well, at best as girls gone wild. From that point forward, the path is down, not up. I see no reason to advocate raising a feral human. I want everyone to experience what I have and more.
The people that force others into public education where social promotion is the goal, won't send their children to public schools. The easy living of rewarding single motherhood isn't an option. Neither is an abortion. Be responsible. That's what they wanted for me.
From where I was raised, things like bad education, being a victim, living off of others, and countless other things taken for granted were granted to others, but never an option. So, why should I be treated, and expect to be treated, one way, the way that they expected of me, but wasn't expected of others?
Not everyone is gifted. But everyone can do well. I could squander my gifts. You could work hard and be better than you, by all rights, could be. I realized, that what's good for me, is good for you. Not some other standard. I may be fit, but my fitness didn't cause your sloth. My virtue didn't cause your weakness. Jesus said that the poor will always be with us, but he never said that we had to encourage them that their poverty led to a poverty of their souls. The way I was raised wouldn't allow that for me.
There are, it turns out, plenty of poor people. But they still live moral, virtuous lives. Moreso than I could dream of. And these people are looked down upon because they're bitter clingers. Screw that. They are the model, an example.
Some say the poor (or the rich) are different. No. They aren't. Anyone who goes down the wrong path ends at the wrong place. Turn around, it's never too late.
So, in my mind, when Rand wrote, "I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine," I realize that that I can't say rest, do nothing, it's ok, someone else will give you stuff.
I chose another viewpoint. What's good for me is good for others.
So, yeah, live by the same rules. please.
UPDATE
Of course, for most "socialists, libs, etc." types, their positions are more intellectual preening than anything else. Conservatives offer arguments, Liberals offer alliances. To put it clearly, Conservatives want to win the argument to win the crowd, liberals wish to win the crowd to win the argument. It's tribalism versus rationality. Think about that the next time, while watching Jon Stewart, he mocks a political opponent or praises HugObama. You are being told who is cool. Not who is right. So, flush away America's future, ignore what the uncool kids say. It's obviously not important. Following the herd is no excuse, and they should still pay for their thoughtless advocacy, of course.
PS. wow, I got a 3000 word comment. Easily readable because the author managed to condense his thoughts into 4 paragraphs. Very pithy and informative, I am sure. I liked the excess use of all-caps. Persuasive. and deleted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
