Monday, April 30, 2012

Ode to Slim


RIP Mr. Preston

Thomas 'Amarillo Slim' Preston Jr. died today at the age of 83. Many of you may not know who he was but in certain circles he was rather famous or actually infamous depending on your point of view.

In my younger days I actually knew the man quite well. I went to school with his son Todd and worked summers on his ranch near Clarendon, Texas.

I know there are a lot of stories of some of his more famous deeds, like beating Minnesota Fats in pool with a broom stick or hitting a golf ball a mile on a frozen lake. But I too have a story about Slim and this one incident is one of the acute things that happen in your life that in some small way becomes a part of you - part of your make up for the rest of your life.

For all the glamorous side of the man - Vegas the outlandish bets and what not - the showman if you will, there was another side to Mr. Preston. He loved the land. He loved getting up on a cold January morning - dragging me and Todd to go count cattle in the North-forty as it were. Now I don't know how many of my readers actually worked on a ranch but oddly enough it is not that enchanting. But for a 12-16 year old kid it was heaven.

Slim's ranch was literally five miles just beyond the middle of nowhere. Not a lot of amenities if you take my meaning. We sometimes camped just like in the movies, coffee out of a pot that was new sometime in the early 30's over a metal grate with embers glowing yellow below it. We did have Jerky but little else when it came to 'store bought' vittles. I mean way beyond cool.

Slim had a 30 ot 6 he kept in an saddle holster that he could whip out in a heartbeat and take down anything around. But mostly he just used the .22 caliber long rifle to get our daily requirement of meat (mostly rabbit). I remember the look in his eye every time he took the .22 out; steal gray eyes never wavering from his prey. His hand mechanically doing everything while his eyes zeroed in on his target damn scary to witness. I am sure he missed a few times in his life but never in my presence.

I once asked him why he didn't use the 30 ot 6. He shook his head and said, "Son, there'd be nothing left to eat." That was Slim in a single sentence. Pragmatic, concise and to the point. I loved him for that.

***

Mae West was her name; she was a beautiful animal, dirty white and stood about 16 and a half hands high, fairly tall for a mare. She was 7 I was 12 and this was the first time I'd every been on a horse other than the pony round-about at the county fair.

Mae was what they call a cutting horse. She was trained to cut individual cows out of a herd for branding. She was a precision instrument when it came to responding to her rider - assuming that rider knew what the hell he was doing - which of course I did not. Needless to say when our eyes met across the corral I could tell I was in trouble deep and by god she knew it.

Slim was on his pride and joy. A beautiful 18 hand tall Palomino called Probation, or Pro for short. To say this animal was mean would be like saying that Pol Pot just had some mild anger issues. If Slim told Pro to bite me damned it that animal wouldn't throw his head around and take a nip at me.

Well the mission for the day was to go about 5 miles into the northeast corner to find a cow who'd thought it prudent to wander off to have her calf. It was early, cold and just about as miserable a day as you could imagine. In other words for a 12 year old out of his parents care for the first time - it was freaking perfect.

Slim had saddled Mae and Todd's horse Soxy (which by the way was remarkably tame compared to the beast Mae) and simply turned to us and said, "You boys said you want to learn some ranching, lets saddle up and get a move one." With that mounted Pro and started for the gate with out another word.

I looked at Mae with something bordering on panic then at Todd who nodded and threw himself on Soxy. I tentatively took Mae's reigns and did the same. Once on top of the animal she ambled amicably toward the gate following Pro.

"Well this is pretty damn easy," I said, "You're just a big old softy at heart aren't you Mae?" Well oddly enough that's when I thought I would most certainly die. You see with a cutting horse you have to be rather judicious with the reigns. If you loosen them on one side the horse thinks it's time to go a-cutting!

Well being new at the game I inadvertently did just that and off we go. Mae went from a walk into a full throated cantor. For my part being as seasoned as a clever garden snail I dropped the other reign and grabbed the horn and simply held on for dear life. Now I am sure there was some yelling and whining to go along with the festivities but honestly all I remember is the fact that I was on a 1700 pound animal of which I had absolutely no control over.

Time had no meaning at this point. I could have been on this ride from hell for 30 seconds or 2 hours but I do remember at one point seeing Probation literally flying up on my right out of the corner of my eye, cutting off Mae's flight to regions unknown and forcing her into a temporary fence.

We were traveling so fast that Mae literally climbed the fence with her front legs subsequently throwing me from her. I hit with a resounding thud that hurt like hell by the way. I pushed myself up instantly, not wanting to be trampled by Mae's stomping around, and burst into a run back to the truck. Game over in other words.

I hadn't made it ten feet when I heard Slim say in a voice I'd never heard him use before. "Son, get back on that horse." That' all he said. There was no discussion no pleading my case. I turned looked into his pale unblinking grey eyes, and I understood him completely at that point. I took Mae's reigns without a word mounted her and rode for the next 6 hours without incident.

I know it may not seem like a pinnacle moment to some. It's not like Moses parting the Red Sea or anything. But for me, Slim ordering me to get back on the fearsome beast meant more than anything. What if I hadn't? What if through my entire life I took the easy way out and simply gone to the truck and waited. Would I be who I am today? I choose to believe I wouldn't and for that you have my sincere thanks Mr. Preston for I am a better person to have known you.

Rest in peace my friend and thank you sir.

Stephen is King of Crap




(Editor’s Note: I have read just about everything Stephen King has written and am a big big fan of his fiction.)

Mr. King has an Op Ed over at the Daily Beast that is nothing short of a drunken profanity laced tirade. 

While I don't mind that Mr. King speaks his mind, knock yourself out big guy, but if there is anything I've learned doing what I do here at 6079 you gotta back up your words. I don't want to go through Mr. King's point with his column but rather how he tries to make his point and just how badly it hurts his cause. Let's start with this paragraph:

The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they're giving right-wing creepazoids. Here's an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy. But it won't do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions.

Creepazoids? Based on what? Have you ever actually met either of the Koch brothers Mr. King? Fish with lesions due to the BP Oil spill? There is no evidence that the BP spill is causing any such thing. Yet King says it as if it is fact.

In his first sentence he manages to call Governor Christie Fat. (Stay classy Stevie!) But what is really ironic about the first paragraph? Well check it out for yourself:

Chris Christie may be fat, but he ain't Santa Claus. In fact, he seems unable to decide if he is New Jersey's governor or its caporegime, and it may be a comment on the coarsening of American discourse that his brash rudeness is often taken for charm.

King has the gall to chastise Christie's 'coarseness' and then spends the next several thousand words profanely deriding the right in a seemingly stream of consciousness rant.

Again, big fan of his fiction but this one should never have made it past the editor's desk. It reflects badly on both King and the Daily Beast.

Occupy Boredom



OK I've been getting geared up for the May 1st Occupy Wall Street gala. Got my bandana to cover my face 15 different colors of spray paint and all my shots to ward of hepatitis and other contagious diseases. In case you haven't heard the Occupiers are at it again. Tomorrow the leaders of the, ahem, movement are calling for global disruption of status quo (emphasis mine):

Occupy Wall Street demonstrators, whose anti-greed message spread worldwide during an eight-week encampment in Lower Manhattan last year, plan marches across the globe tomorrow calling attention to what they say are abuses of power and wealth.

Just for the record I went down to the Occupy Louisville last fall to take some pics of the, er, event and found about 12 folks meandering around looking for someone to pay attention to them. No one did.

Anyway I've been reading a lot of left leaning articles that are trying to help create buzz for the group. However, one article stood out over the rest if for nothing else its insipidness. Douglas Schoen over at the Daily Beast pens a column where he is trying to make the case that the Occupy Wall Street crowd is 'seizing control of the political debate in America this election year':

OWS already has had a clear and demonstrable impact on both the Obama and Romney campaigns–arguably becoming the most important outside influence so far in this year's election campaign dialogue.

He cites comments from the President in various recent interviews where the President says:

And in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine this week, the president openly embraced Occupy Wall Street as "just one vivid expression of a broader anxiety."

Wow! Those Occupiers have really done it now! The president - responding to an interview question - says that they mildly relevant. And that folks is the extent of evidence Schoen gives for his thesis that the Occupiers are leading the debate this electoral season. If anything he misses the point as to who is leading whom. For example in this passage he tries to imply that it is the Occupiers who are leading the charge redistribution of wealth.

President Obama and the Democrats have been increasingly echoing the central themes that OWS introduced last fall—emphasizing unfairness in American society, income inequality, and the need to redistribute wealth.

Who is echoing whom? Is Schoen really trying to suggest that democrats (generally) and this president (specifically) weren't all about wealth redistribution before this Occupy nonsense? If so he has not been paying attention for the past 60 years.

Honestly I am just using Schoen as an example of a broader issue with the media on the left as it relates to these nonentities. They are so hard up for a counter balance for the tea party that they will actually give these thugs the time of day. Does anyone remember the incoherent messaging from the original sit in?





Exit question: How much coverage will these tools get tomorrow regardless of how pathetic the turn out? My guess is that MSNBC will have wall to wall coverage.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Once again government is the answer



I found this report over at the Royal Society's web site called: People and the Planet Report. The purpose of the report is to emphasize the precariousness of the planet as it relates to population growth and the scarceness of resources and how badly the resources that do exist are poorly distributed. But the best part is their recommendations on how to avoid the looming catastrophe that awaits us (emphasis theirs):

Recommendation 1
The international community must bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day out of absolute poverty, and reduce the inequality that persists in the world today. This will require focused efforts in key policy areas including economic development, education, family planning and health.

By 'international community' they mean the dysfunctional UN of course. But more importantly the 'reduce the inequality that persists in the world today' should give you the real purpose. You guessed it income redistribution on a global scale.

Recommendation 2
The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.


'Investment in sustainable resources' read: the same pixie dust Obama and the greenies have been pandering for the last thirty years.

Recommendation 3
Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes urgently require political leadership and financial commitment, both nationally and internationally. This is needed to continue the downward trajectory of fertility rates, especially in countries where the unmet need for contraception is high.

Sandra Fluke would be so proud - international governments paying for other people to have sex without consequences!

Recommendation 4
Population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues. Demographic changes, and the influences on them, should be factored into economic and environmental debate and planning at international meetings, such as the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and subsequent meetings.

Sweeeet - gotta get the climate change nonsense in there!

Recommendation 5
Governments should realise the potential of urbanisation to reduce material consumption and environmental impact through efficiency measures. The well planned provision of water supply, waste disposal, power and other services will avoid slum conditions and increase the welfare of inhabitants.


This is nothing short of the collectivists' wettest of wet dreams. Gotta get everybody close together because it is so much easier to control them when they are in one place and all services will be provided by the omnipresent government.

Recommendation 6
In order to meet previously agreed goals for universal education, policy makers in countries with low school attendance need to work with international funders and organisations, such as UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, IMF, World Bank and Education for All. Financial and non-financial barriers must be overcome to achieve high-quality primary and secondary education for all the world's young, ensuring equal opportunities for girls and boys.

By and large I could agree with this in principle, however, I do have a problem with the 'non-financial barrier'. And the greatest 'non-financial barrier' that exists are the varying types of governments around the world that they suggest we help and in many cases (North Korea, China, any one of the dysfunctional African countries) are run by tyrants/dictators who have no interest in educating the masses because it will only undermine their power.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Winston’s Websites of the Day 4-23-12


Selflessly scouring the Interwebs so you don't have to

Earth Day Self-Abuse Project: Shoveling Lightbulbs Against the Tide

By Gerard Vanderleun at his site American Digest:

Say you get a dozen Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (make sure they're the "government approved" ENERGY STAR), and install them to feel better about your "carbon footprint." It's true that these 12 bulbs are going to cost you around $50, but that's a small price to pay for feeling good, isn't it?

Now, get to work. Let's say you're a fast light bulb screwer-inner and get it all done inside of five minutes.

Whew, that felt great, didn't it? Think of all the money you've saved and how much you've done to save the planet Earth from TEOTWAWKI!

Now if only China and India could be convinced to stop bringing 200 new souls into the world in the time it took you to change 12 light bulbs and we really might be getting somewhere.

Two hundred new human beings every five minutes in these two nations alone. And 200 more during the next five minutes. And 200.... Humm, 12 light bulb changes versus 200 human beings.... surely there's room for negotiation.

Read more:

Let the Conversation Begin

by Velociman at Vilociworld

There are a lot of permitted soccer moms out there, well-meaning folks, who in a climate of fear will shoot first, and beg indulgences later, should the unspeakable occur. People with no skin in the racial-grievance game have played along for years out of a sense of displaced guilt. Now that they understand their government will not only refuse to protect them but will actively advocate violence against them, their survival instincts will kick in.

Read more:

Intermission:


11 More Days 'till MOVIE TIME!


Now back to our regularly scheduled program:

Here Come the Green Police! DHS Launches 'Environmental Justice' Units


By The Rat via The Constitution Club:

Not a minute too soon, the Department of Homeland Security has announced that it is creating "environmental justice" units that will be empowered to oversee regulations in conjunction with local governments throughout the country. The framework for the Environmental Justice Working Group includes eleven federal government agencies, including the TSA, the Secret Service and FEMA. Go big or go home, right?

Read More:

Inventing Muhammad?

By Robert Spencer via American Thinker:


[w]hy it would matter whether or not Muhammad existed -- after all, a billion Muslims believe he did, and they are not going to stop doing so because of some historical investigations.  Yet the numerous indications that the standard account of Muhammad's life is more legend than fact actually have considerable
Read more:

Sunday, April 22, 2012

The Case of CA’s Missing Republicans



Charlie Mahtesian over at Polico has a mystery - how did the GOP in California fade into irrelevance?:

According to the latest figures from the Secretary of State's office, Democratic registration is 43.5% to 30.3% for Republicans.

The GOP actually has a majority of voters in 30 of California's 58 counties. But that number is misleading. If you look at the list of the 10 counties with the highest percentage of Democrats, they tend to be some of the more populous in the state – places like Alameda (Oakland) Los Angeles (LA), Contra Costa (Bay area), and San Mateo (Bay area) counties.

The 10 counties with the highest percentage of Republicans tend to be among the least populous counties, all of them located inland.

Wow - over a 13 point Democrat advantage in registration. How can this be when California is the state that gave us Reagan and Nixon both won two terms and carried the state each time? What has happened to cause the incredible turn around? Have the former GOPer's of the state finally seen the error of their ways and gone over to the dark side?

Well to answer this I put on my deerstalker hat and found an article by The Wall Street Journal's Allysia Finley who interviewed Joel Kotkin a leading U.S. demographer. In the article Mr. Kotkin makes the case that over the past 20 years the Democratic Party has done nothing short of running anybody who is productive out of the state:

Now, however, the Golden State's fastest-growing entity is government and its biggest product is red tape. The first thing that comes to many American minds when you mention California isn't Hollywood or tanned girls on a beach, but Greece. Many progressives in California take that as a compliment since Greeks are ostensibly happier. But as Mr. Kotkin notes, Californians are increasingly pursuing happiness elsewhere.

And when Mr. Kotkin talks about red tape he means it. For example, look at the state's current cap-and-trade law AB32 will raise the cost of energy and drive out even more manufacturing jobs without making even a dent in global carbon emissions. Meanwhile California's electricity prices are already 50% higher than the national average. Golly, if I had a manufacturing company that relied on electricity to produce my product I might look elsewhere if I were looking to relocate.

But just how bad is the net population loss problem for California? I mean we are talking about CALIFORNIA here, the land of milk and honey for crying out loud, how bad could it be? Mr. Kotkin again:

Nearly four million more people have left the Golden State in the last two decades than have come from other states. This is a sharp reversal from the 1980s, when 100,000 more Americans were settling in California each year than were leaving. According to Mr. Kotkin, most of those leaving are between the ages of 5 and 14 or 34 to 45. In other words, young families.

Of those 4 million that have left the state! - I'm just asking here, how many do you think were the homeless folks watching porn for free in a San Francisco Library? I'm gonna go with exactly zero. My guess is that the people leaving are those gosh-darn productive folks who are being punished with draconian regulations and taxes (10.3% top rate for millionaires and 9.3% top rate for those who earn over $48,000). More from Kotkin:

And Democrats want to raise taxes even more. Mind you, the November ballot initiative that Mr. Brown is spearheading would primarily hit those whom Democrats call "millionaires" (i.e., people who make more than $250,000 a year). Some Republicans have warned that it will cause a millionaire march out of the state.

That said, "It's really going to hit the small business owners and the young family that's trying to accumulate enough to raise a family, maybe send their kids to private school. It'll kick them in the teeth."

Well at least the GOP's loss isn't to conversion but rather flight. According to the United States Census Bureau Texas, Arizona, Washington and Arizona are the top destinations for Republicans Californians leaving the state. All of which coincidentally are much more business friendly. And I for one do not think it is a coincidence that both Republican numbers and the general population are decreasing in the Golden State.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Sunday, April 15, 2012

The Buffet Rule: Libs vs. Conservatives



By now we have all heard the President's campaign rhetoric deriding the evil gazillionaires and how they game the system to pick the pockets of the rest of us. Now I know that by and large this is Obama's only strategy to get elected in November. He will have to create a populist platform pitting one class against the other.

But as I've looked at the speechifying from the administration it struck me that the One actually may believe what he is saying. I am convinced that he has no interest in improving the economy with the Buffet Rule. Point in fact. Many folks out there are reporting that if we implement the Buffet Rule it will have negligible effect on the deficit/debt and in some cases there are those who believe that it will actually hurt job creation. This from Sal Bommarito at Policymic:

The [Buffet Rule) proposal is dramatic in name only as it is predicted to generate only $47 billion of new revenue over 10 years, or less than $5 billion annually. This compares to annual national deficits of over a trillion dollars during the past four years (three of these years were during Obama's tenure).

If the capital gains tax rate were to be increased to 20% or 30% or even 35%, the vast majority of those people earning up to $10 million annually would be affected only to a small degree. Keep in mind, one would need to sell assets of $20 million for a 5% gain to earn $1 million of capital gains, or $100 million to produce $5 million of capital gains. Very few people earning $5-$10 million annually (pretax) have assets (or earnings from them) large enough to generate those types of capital gains.

The Buffett Rule would yield a relatively small amount of increased revenue for the Treasury. Frankly, I do not object to the proposal out of hand; but one must be concerned about the derivative impact of changing the capital gains tax rate on investment income in this country. Would it hurt job creation? Probably.

So if the experts are right why does Obama keep trotting out this class warfare nonsense? He must know how little effect (if any) it will actually have on economic growth. I truly believe that his intentions are not  to help the economy, rather, the Buffet Rule is in line with how he sees the economy in general and specifically how each of the participants contribute. In his (and most liberals') minds, they think that if one person is succeeding then it obviously is at the direct expense of another. Thus he views the U.S. economy as little more than Zero sum game. From Wikipedia:

In game theory and economic theory, a "zero-sum game" is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.

From Karl Marx to Mao Tse Tung to the lunatics in North Korea and any other communist worth his salt - this is their view of economic development. In other words their faith in fair economic growth is dependent upon who controls the resources and more importantly how those resources are re-distributed. And ultimately that distribution of resources MUST inherently be defined by a centralized government because left to their own devices the evil 1% will ultimately end up with all the resources.

Counter this theory with what evil capitalists believe. In the capitalist world we believe the theory that a "rising tide lifts all boats". Again from Wikipedia:

The aphorism "a rising tide lifts all boats" is associated with the idea that improvements in the general economy will benefit all participants in that economy, and that economic policy, particularly government economic policy, should therefore focus on the general macroeconomic environment first and foremost.

Simply put the "zero sum game" theory suggests that the economic 'pie' is one static size and will always remain so, while the "rising tide" theorists believe that the pie is ever changing depending upon economic factors including how much the government gets involved. Rising tide folks believe that when the pie grows it benefits every participant in the economy regardless of where they are in the economic strata.

The big difference in these competing theories is that the "rising tide" theory requires little government intrusion assistance and that is where if falls out of bed with any hard working socialist. After all, how can they find votes if they can't inflame unproductive folks looking for a handout?

In business school I remember using the 'decision tree' process to help managers make decisions. At some point the decision comes down to a few options and one of those options is it to do absolutely nothing. In other words there is always the option not to act. I believe that Liberals are perfectly incapable of taking the ' do nothing' option because they always see themselves as the smartest guy in the room and have to try their hand at social engineering regardless of the consequences.

The bottom line is that the liberals have no faith in the population whereas the conservatives nothing but faith in their common man.

The election this November couldn't be starker in its contrast. On one side you have the liberal elite who want to keep the pie the same size (and through their policies actually shrink it) and distribute the wealth in this country as they see fit 'fairly'. On the other side, you have conservatives who want to throw off the shackles of centralized government so they can create wealth, not only for themselves, but for everyone.

Friday, April 13, 2012

No Words Needed Here.


Only the Govn't Can Deliver The American Dream Now!


Somebody needs to tell labor secretary Hilda Solis no more drinking on the job. Take 68 seconds and watch this video of Hilda speaking at Al Sharpton’s annual convention of the National Action Network in Washington, D.C and see if you can find any level of coherence:

 

"We need to understand what the president is fighting for - he is fighting for you and (sic) I."

Just a personal note, when I hear a politician say that they are fighting for (fill in the blank) - it usually means taking something from someone and giving it to another. But I digress, here's more:

"And it's about fairness (ah that lovely word) - it's about fairness in the workplace (read: Unions) it's about fairness in education (read: Teacher's Unions and subsisted student loans) and it's about fairness about what services are provided by government. And if we can't have a say-so in that then this isn't the dream that all of us aspire to be a part of."

Fairness about what services are provided by government. Can anybody tell me what the hell that means? Is she implying that the American dream can only be realized if the government has the 'say-so" about how the government provides services and to whom?

This is extremely troublesome if she really believes that the American Dream is now dependent upon the government and how it redistributes services/wealth. But wait there's even more:

..Because if people aren't paying their taxes - those that can afford it - the billionaires - the millionaires - even the folks as you heard yesterday that were in the White House that agreed to pay more. They want to pay more because they know it's their obligation. Because that's what we stand by - those principles. That's very very important for us to understand what the president is fighting for - for fairness..

Unbelievable, just jaw-dropping - deer-in-the-headlights - nu-freaking-believable. Her argument for higher taxes is because some millionaire pin-heads want to pay more in taxes because they feel it's their obligation! Look, if there are some misguided lemmings out there who want to throw their money away knock yourself out - but don't expect the rest of us to jump off that cliff.

And what does she mean by - "people not paying their taxes?" Who? Who is not paying their taxes? My guess is that she means some people aren't paying enough.

The mask slips even more with her 'because that's what we stand by - those principles' nonsense. Am I to understand that higher taxes are now a belief in something with higher meaning? That if you pay more taxes then you are somehow a better person? More patriotic?

I truly believe that this administration is not about improving the economy. No, it is only about punishing those who they see as evil (oil, wall-street, banks, etc.). There ultimate goal is fairness for all, which of course is nothing less that socialism. They will deny it and hide behind terms like fairness and war on (again) fill in the blank.


Our only hope is that the electorate will see through this nonsense and chuck them out in November, otherwise they'll have four more years to drag us closer and closer to Obama's socialist utopia.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Breaking: Joe Truly is Stupid



I generally try to avoid calling anyone stupid but it is so hard sometimes. Case in point - Joking Joe Biden had this to say yesterday:

Vice President Joe Biden described former Saturday Night Live comedian, Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., as a "leading legal scholar," presumably in the Senate, today.

"He has been one of the leading legal scholars," Biden said

OK I have searched every database I can find and the only Al Franken I can find is the Jr. Senator form Minnesota (who only has a BA from Harvard). You know this guy:

 

 Next Biden will be praising Suzie from the Verizon Commercials as a leading entrepreneur of our time.


 Personal note: Thank you - thank you - thank you - Blog Gods for Joe Biden!

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Priceless - This should put it all in perspective

If you do nothing else today please, please, please watch this video  - it's just .. well perfect - make sure you stay to the 2:40 mark where the toddler actually signs for the debt.



From debtlimitusa.

Update:

Here's another that gets to the point as well Thanks to my buddy Chris for pointing it out:

 

Democrats: Racist Since 1830 And They’re Just Getting Started!



I love how members of the Democratic Party like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Sheila Jackson Lee and even the President are so comfortable playing the race card. It shouldn't be as easy as it is but when you have brainless tools like The New Black Panthers (just like their predecessor the Ku Klux Klan) play right into the hands of the Democratic Party - who's only function is to keep the black man down, in his place and on the plantation - what else are they going to do?

Earlier this week The New Black Panthers had a group phone call Friday to discuss the April 9 rally for Trayvon Martin. It was hosted primarily by Michelle Williams and Chawn Kweli, the New Black Panther's chief of staff in Tampa and a national spokesman, respectively. Here is a partial transcript of the exchange:

Williams: I just want to say to all the listeners on this phone call, that if you are having any doubt about getting suited, booted, and armed up for this race war that we're in that has never ended, let me tell you somethin…the thing that's about to happen these honkies, these crackers, these pigs, these people, these motherf*er…it has been long overdue."

Kweli: "Ya, what she said was right– we got to suit up and boot up…and get prepared for the war that we're in…this stuff got to boil over, and all your great's talked about that happened to be bloodshed involved with revolution- true revolution means some bloodshed, so there's blood being spilled because there's a new life that is beyond this bloodshed.  There is a new reality that is built upon your original African principles and spiritualities and values and norms that is beyond this bloodshed.  But we gotta go do it.

Williams: "I say to everyone that is on this call right now, I'm comin' out of the gate…my prize right now this evening is going to be the bounty, the arrest– dead or alive– for George Zimmerman.  You feel me?  To every brother, to every female, I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black man's problem just to avoid violence.  You feel me?  It's time to wake up, I don't know how else...It's in me to fight.  It's in me to raise up soldiers.  It's in me that every time my feet touch the ground the state of Florida- these crackers- they scared.
 
"I'm kinda pissed off right now that the state of Florida ain't on fire.  This could not have happened in L.A. because them brothers up there are not scared to riot.  This could not have happened in St. Petersburg Florida, where the black man over there are ain't scared to kill a cracker."
 
Niiiicccceee. Really makes me want to rally around their cause

But here are the facts, 49% of all homicides in the US have black victims. That is an incredible number when you consider that the black population in the US is only around 11%. But here's the kicker of all of those homicides with Black victims 93% perpetrated are committed by blacks. So rather than speaking out against the real racists who have oppressed the black community for over 180 years these tools are screaming about paying back the white devil and kill whitey.

If The New Black Panthers really wanted to help their community they would stop all this violent rhetoric against whites and direct their ire at Democratic Party. Since LBJ's 'War on Poverty' where we flushed trillions down the welfare drain the black community has responded by deteriorating to the point of anarchy.

Yet year after year we see black voters fall into line and vote for the same old race baiters and expect a different result in their community. And year after year more and more of their sons and daughters either die before they are 25 or grow up to be dependent upon the state in a never ending cycle of welfare addiction.

We have come to the point where those that produce are  literally paying (through transfer of wealth) to those who don't to stay on their side of the train tracks and not come into our neighborhoods and wreak havoc. How long will this last? 49% of folks don't pay income taxes - it's only a matter of time.

If The Panthers really want to help - start by looking in their own back yard and lay off whitey.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Desperation Time for Unions in Indiana



Oh my. Talk about reverse of fortunes. The Unions in Indiana are scrambling to maintain their mafia style grip on members' wallets. Two articles from Indiana Business Journal illustrate just how desperate the unions have become.

But first a little background. The Indiana recently passed a law making it a right-to-work state. Effectively what this law does is end the extortion scheme the unions have enjoyed over the past 70 plus years where union dues are automatically deducted from members' paycheck to the tune of $2,000 to $2,500 a year.

If this sounds familiar it should, it's the same principle as the mafia's 'protection' scheme where local businesses are charged a 'fee' for protection (presumably from an unnamed outside force but in reality it is from the mafia itself). If the businesses didn't pay they would wake up one morning to find a brick thrown through their window or sometimes worse.

Now for the fun. Back in February the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 filed a restraining order in federal court to halt the right-to-work law:

The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 contends in a motion filed Monday afternoon that the law will cause irreparable harm, saying it already has employers actively questioning its ability to sustain itself in the face of a loss of a significant portion of its dues. The union says its members pay on average between $2,000 and $2,500 a year in dues and a loss of just 10 percent in membership would cost it $500,000 a year.

Golly, that's a lot of scratch and I can see why there a bit upset over the new law. But here's what I don't understand, rather than extorting the dues from their members, why not justify the value of union membership so that members are lining up to dole out the $2,000 to $2,500 bucks every year.

Reading between the lines it appears that what the unions are saying is that apparently current membership dues are too high because given a choice some union members would prefer not to pay. In other words, some members just don't see the value of membership (don't you just love the free market system?). So in order for unions to survive they either have to either lower membership dues (not bloody likely) or resort to legalized extortion.

So after they failed to get their way February what's a corrupt  hard working union boss supposed to do now? Well they put on their thinking caps and decided to file a motion in court to have the law struck down because the law… wait for it… Violates the union's freedom of speech!: Yep you read that right!! Check it out:

Indiana's new right-to-work law should be struck down because it infringes upon unions' free speech rights by depriving them of the dues that fund their political speech..

Attorneys for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150 argue in a court brief that Indiana's new law, which allows workers to not pay union dues even if a union bargains on their behalf, interferes with the union's free speech rights and "impinges on this fundamental right of union membership."

And what precedent did the Union's lawyers use to justify this nonsense?

[t]he union cites the 2010 Citizens United decision, which struck down on free-speech grounds restrictions on corporations' and union spending on advertising endorsing or opposing certain candidates.

Talk about a non sequitur. The union is arguing that because they anticipate a drop-off in dues that finance their political propaganda machine, their freedom of speech is somehow violated. So the remedy is to ask the court to force the members to pay their dues to preserve their first amendment right of freedom of speech. 

I just.. how do they.. SAY WHAT?

First of all the case the union lawyers are citing was struck down not because of where the financing was coming from, but rather, that the law put spending limits on corporations and unions.

So if I follow the unions' logic from their brief, we here at 6079 Smith, W can spend as much as we want and when we run out of money we can sue our advertisers for more money because if they don't payup our first amendment rights are somehow violated?

Um, hope that works out for you guys in Hoosier land..

Realistically the unions would be better off trying to make themselves relevant to their members and less time giving the rest of us a good chuckle at their abject desperation.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

I'll Have Some Cyanide - Shaken not Stirred?



From The Daily mail:

Thanks to a major new marketing deal, the character (James Bond), played by Daniel Craig, will be seen reaching for a [freaking] Heineken in upcoming film Skyfall.

Excuse me; I will now be in the bathroom slitting my wrists.

Liberals: Impeach Everybody! (Unless they agree with me)


David Dow at the Daily Beast has a terrific idea: Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law

The Roberts Court's rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age. If they dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David Dow, we should dump them.

Hell and Yes! Down with Tyranny POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!

So let me make sure I get this. By using Dow's logic, if I get pulled over by a patrolman and gives me a ticket for speeding, and, after I take him to court and am found guilty all I have to do is invoke my magical liberal powers and impeach the judge because I didn't like his decision? After all, I don't know much about the law but I know what I want!!

I just love how liberals' going in position is almost alway scorched-Earth tempy-tantrums when they don't get their way. "OH MY GOD THE SUMPEME COURT IS DOING IT"S JOB? WE GOTTA GET RID OF THEM!"

I think what Mr. Dow is missing here is that once upon a time this country was a country bound by respect of the law. The highest law of the land being the Constitution. I know, I know it was written by a bunch of men in powdered wigs (sigh - now that's a fashion statement) and short pants buckled at the knee so what in God's name would they know about what we need in today's fast paced society?

I hate to break it to you Mr. Dow but the founders explicitly set up congress (and specifically the Senate) for inaction rather than action (60 vote requirement). They saw what sudden and ill-thought out legislation could do to a country both economically and to its security. So they made it very very difficult to make changes without bi-partisan support.

However, the only way the Senate could pass O-Care in the first place was by playing parliamentary tricks circumventing both tradition and the Constitution. And now that their pet experiment is threatened - gasp - they suddenly find the separation of powers way too cumbersome and demand it be destroyed. These mouth-breathers are just stunned that the Supreme Court might-just might-have a legitimate issue with the constitutionality of the law.

Liberals are so predictable. If you don't agree with them, rather than a reasoned debate, they opt for anarchy. Sad but not unexpected.

Exit Question: where the hell were these pearl-clutchers when Hot-Rod-Harry Reid was trampling the Constitution to get this piece of crap through the Senate?

This Just In: Solar Power Sucks!


Shocked face time:

(Special thanks to Grammy for her shocked face)

 

Man I just knew THIS ONE would make it (just like I was convinced Forsyth Community College (1-26) was going to make the NCAA tournament).

From Reuters: Solar Trust of America files bankruptcy:

Solar Trust of America LLC, which holds the development rights for the world's largest solar power project, on Monday filed for bankruptcy protection after its majority owner began insolvency proceedings in Germany.

The Oakland-based company has held rights for the 1,000-megawatt Blythe Solar Power Project in the southern California desert, which last April w on a conditional commitment for a $2.1 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Golly, Solydra looks like a deal compared to this one. At least at Solydra taxpayers were only out $500 million or so. To be fair the loan guarantee was never received but it was close!

Exit question: How does Secretary Chu still have a job?

The Self-Destruction of Entitlements



Here is a report from Shaya Tayefe Mohjer via myway chronicling the desperate plight of Santa Monica College students who are outrageously outraged that their higher education is not free:

Raw video posted on the Internet Tuesday evening showed students chanting "Let us in, let us in" and "No cuts, no fees, education should be free."

Community colleges statewide have lost $809 million in state funding over the past three years, causing schools to turn away about 200,000 students and drastically cut the number of classes offered.

Trustee Louise Jaffe said during the meeting that she doesn't believe the students want to listen.

"We spoke for four hours and we weren't understood," she [Louise] said.

Most of the article is about how the meeting had limited seating and some 200 students wanted to attend and got pepper sprayed for their efforts. But what gets me is not so much that these privileged crybabies got pepper sprayed by the drastically outnumbered (not to mention threatened) campus cops; no it's the abject sense of entitlement that has permeated every facet of our lives.

Louise's comment that 'we weren't understood' is telling in the extreme. Of course the trusties weren't understood, in order for that to happen the other side has to take their fingers out of their ears and stop yelling "I can't hear you - I can't hear you - la la la la la."

These children have no interest in why the trustees are cutting back due to lack of funds, they just want to know "where's my free stuff?"

Look many of these kids have no idea how businesses are run (and yes public universities are businesses albeit non-profit). More importantly they (and to a large extent the country) have no idea how entitlements should work.

For their benefit lets review how it should work. First society decide that some entitlement will ultimately be for the public good and therefore should be paid for by the state (i.e. taxpayers). If enough elected officials believe this to be true then the entitlement is pushed through the legislative process and volia we got somebody on the dole good bad or indifferent.

But here's the tricky part. What ultimately happens (and has for the past 70 years) we get what is called 'Entitlement Creep'. This is where an entitlement is put into place to serve a limited number of recipients. What will happen over time though is those who are just outside the requirement to receive the entitlement complain that they should get it too.

So those wily politicians always looking for the next vote takes up the charge and changes the requirements of the program to include these likely voters poor folks. The problem is that the original entitlement program was not budgeted to take on these new recipients. So, one of two things will happen: 1) raise taxes to cover the shortfall or 2) borrow to cover it.

Now if everyone still agrees that the said entitlement was still worth it to society then the first option is the way to go simply raise taxes. But more times than not, people just don't want their taxes raised. Weird huh?

So what's a corrupt hard working politician to do? He has promised these new entitlements but can't pay for it because those unenlightened taxpayers just don't understand how badly he needs the votes. Is he stymied? 

Well no silly, he simply borrows to pay for it thereby increasing the public debt. Thus the more ever-expanding entitlements the more ever-expanding debt. And over the years (just like in my Aunt Mable's attic) stuff starts to pile up and you end up with unfunded entitlements all over the place and the state has to borrow more and more just to keep pace.

So fast forward to today and we find that we have raised a bunch of self-centered, ahem, young adults who have been given everything on a silver platter their entire life. They've never been told no. We've raised a bunch of chronic complainers where no matter what they get it is never enough.

The real tragedy here is that if the students miraculously get what they want they will have effectively destroyed higher education in California. Why? Same reason O-Care will destroy health care. So called 'Free' education will inherently increase demand (econ 101 price goes down demand goes up). With increase demand and no efficient increase in supply will cause shortages and limit services.

The lesson here? Entitlements without limits will ultimately destroy itself and collaterally everything around it.