Archive for December, 2008

Mean ol’ Meany  (aka Joe-Six-pack) has managed to distill down into its essential essence the fundamental flaw in a great deal of the Robin-hoodesque tax-the-rich-to-subsidize-the-poor mentality prevelant in so much of Prog ideology.  Since I’ve both linked AND attributed it, I feel safe in reposting the whole damn thing here, because, well, it’s just that awesome:

I got into it with someone today that believes that taxing the Top Five Percenters a whole bunch of dough is a good idea. Please, the only people that do not see that concept is meant to make everyone live in poverty is stupid.

Lemme ‘splain.

If you break the country down into the twenty different five percent parts you have a starting five percent of the population that makes more money than everyone else. If you tax those five percenters at a greater percentage than the 90% folks, eventually, the 95% folks and the 90% folks change places, get it?

There is always going to be a wealthiest five percent of the population until everyone is reduced to the least salary. Are you too fucking stupid to understand that?

Do you honestly want your lawn-boy and your ophthalmologist to make the same money?

Smart people say NO.

This is without a doubt the single most succinct, insightful and clear explanation of the whole stupid mess that I’ve read.  Seriously.

I mean, who gets to decide how much it’s okay to make?  At what level do they stop “trimming” the “fat?”

And nevermind that the top 10%, by making the most money, are also consistently buying the most durable and consumable goods, goods the production, marketing, distribution and sale of which keeps a whole lot of people employed!

Take away the “excess” discretionary income of the nasty (ptooie) Rich People, and unemployment WILL go up, cuz da rich fokes stop be buying shit. So then we tax people more to pay for the benefits of all these umemployed people, the less rich people now have even less money, therefore buy less, cashiers and stock clerks at Wal-Mart get laid off, who then apply for unemployment benefits….See the cycle?

Why can’t Progs get this?

A healthy economy results from people making AND SPENDING  money.  Not making money and then giving it all to the government.  The best way to spread the wealth around is to feed it through the cash register first!

Face it:  somebody is always going to be prettier, stronger, smarter, faster, more popular, a better dancer, a better artist, or (heaven-forbid) RICHER than you.  That’s not unfaaaaaaaaairrrrrrr….that’s just life.   Taxing the rich just because you think they’re too rich is like screeching and throwing paint on the Prom queen’s dress because you just hate, Hate, HATE how much prettier and more popular she is than you!!1!!11!!   The bitch.

Sour grapes is not a good foundation for sound economic policy.

In the previous post, commenter John Emerson took me to task for impugning the integrity of the people of Minnesota, specifically the voting review board involved in the recount process between Franken and Coleman.

However, the crux of my post was not so much that the people of Minnesota were a bunch of neanderthals, but rather, that the Dems would be using tactics similar to that used in Florida during the Bush/Gore count-off, and the blatant malfeasance shown in the 2004 Washington State governor’s race to keep “disovering” votes until the preferred candidate wins.

And so today I read this little snippet over at Gateway Pundit, who has been following this whole electoral abortion closely:

Currently the board is determining voter intent in disputed ballots.

Voter intent?!  This is exactly what drove my snarky comment about counting smudges and coffee stains as votes.  All throughout the ridiculous and appalling Florida recounts, there was great emphasis on determining voter “intent,” as in, it didn’t matter so much what the ballot actually said, it was much more important to determine what the voter MEANT to do.  After the fact. Without the voter present.  Based on nothing more than the scuffs and scratches on a paper ballot. 

Did they call in professional personality analysts, FBI profilers, even psychics from the 1-800-Guess-My-Vote hotline?

No.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Emerson included of course, the term “voter intent” needs to be violently expunged from the American lexicon with extreme prejudice.  It is not discrimination to discount a ballot because the voter made a hash of it.  It is not unfair to shred a ballot with a missing or unreadable mark.  The ballot is destroyed.  It is dismissed, it is not counted. 

When I take an exam in school, and fail to mark my bubble sheet in the right bubble, or through erasing and smudging and doodling make it difficult to impossible to read what answer I actually chose, does the teacher spend hours going over my exam to determine which answer I really intended to give?  No.  I get the question wrong.  The quickest, easiest and fairest solution, applied uniformly to everyone.  Yeah, sure, it sucks for me, but maybe next time I’ll try a little harder to follow basic instructions on how to fill out the form.  Unless, of course, it was my INTENT to intentionally provide an ambiguous answer in hopes that the teacher might “guess” my way.

The Canvassing Board faces a difficult task in divining voter intentions. It is very difficult to determine how a voter meant to vote simply by looking at what might be stray marks on the ballot.

That’s right.  It is very difficult.  Key words here are MIGHT and BE.  You don’t know for sure WHAT THOSE MARKS MEAN.  As a matter of fact, IT. IS. IMPOSSIBLE.  There is absolutely NO WAY of determing what the “intent” of someone was in filling out a certain ballot days and weeks after the fact.  So the answer is that you DON’T EVEN TRY.

I am especially irked by the highly appropriate use of the word “divining:”

 13. to discover or declare (something obscure or in the future) by divination; prophesy.
15. to perceive by intuition or insight; conjecture.

Also know in scientific circles as a “wild-ass guess.”

Rather than crafting convoluted rules and standards about voter intent, we should be adhering to equally rigorous and objectively enforced standards for what qualifies as an acceptable ballot.  Smudges and smears do not count.  Hanging chads do not count.  A stray pencil mark somewhere in the general vicinity of a candidate does not count.

Anything is else complete gamesmanship, and is a corruption of the electoral process.  You can claim all the nobility you want, with a lofty air and a sniff of the nose aver with conviction that “every vote should count” and that you are just trying to serve the greater good.  The fact is, you’re not fooling anyone.  Truth is, every vote SHOULD count, but not every vote does.  Only those votes which are properly cast should.

 And John?  Don’t tell me that 100 votes magically found in the back seat of car are statistically insignificant when Franken is now forecast to win by only 78 votes? 

Here’s an interesting discussion threat with more details.

As the continuing travesty of Al Franken’s blatant attempt to cornhole the electoral process in Minnesota senatorial election continues continuing, I have a brave and cutting edge prediction to make.

Right about the time he is “found” to have enough votes to clinch the election, all the recounts will miraculously stop.

Because, well, that’s just what they DO.

I seem to remember a certain series of Florida recounts that also seemed to continually pump up mostly Al Gore numbers.  And the Dems then screamed bloody murder because they weren’t allowed to keep finding more “mistaken” votes and other such nonsense until they won.

Looks like they might finally get their way this time.  Only this time it won’t be a “stolen” election, it will be vindication and preserving the accuracy and validity of the ballot process, and then I will go vomit in my kitchen.

We’re starting to make the third world look like a bunch of freakin’ saints when it comes to this election thing.

Region paralyzed by snow

Snowplow crews worked furiously Thursday against a wintry onslaught that dropped record amounts of snow over the Inland Northwest, repeating a pattern left from the brutal 2007-’08 winter.

At nearly 2 feet, the snow was so deep that it forced Spokane crews to focus on major arterial routes in an effort to keep the city from being completely choked.

Stores and government offices closed. Workers stayed home on the advice of authorities on both sides of the state line.

Forecasters warned that there may not be much time to dig out, and the work will have to be done in single-digit temperatures today and Saturday.

Another snowstorm could bring 5 inches or more Sunday with yet another storm in the offing for Christmas Eve or Christmas Day.

Spokane ended up with 23.3 inches over 34 hours ending at 4 p.m. Thursday. Coeur d’Alene had 25 inches by Thursday morning. Other locations had more.

It was the most snow received in both Spokane and Coeur d’Alene in a 24-hour period since record-keeping began.

Now, I’m not an atmospheric scientist, or a Nobel-laureate sitting on the UN Climate Change panel, and I didn’t help invent the Internet, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.  Okay, not really.  But I did have a nice continental-style breakfast this morning, so that ought to be close enough.

See, I’m kinda wondering how the Global Warming “exspurts” are going to be able to cook these numbers to make it fit the trend graph?  Here in Germany there are having more snow in my area than they’ve had any of the last five years.

So, let’s recap shall we?  NASA basically puts a stake into global warming’s liver by (rather grudgingly) revealing that a great deal of the hysteria around globular varmening is based on completely bogus data.

Shrill chest beaters declare that if the polar ice cap melts, then sea level will rise by a CATASTROPHIC 20 feet!  Except that, the North Polar ice cap is completely free floating.  There is no land mass underneath.  It is, in effect, one giant ice cube.  Which if it all melted, would result in a net DROP in sea level due to some pretty basic hydrodynamics.  Jr High chemistry and physics (the Archimedes Principle – Google it!).  But it doesn’t read as well in the headlines that way.

There is snow in southern California.  Las Vegas.  The ever-mutha-frickin’ D-E-S-E-R-T.  So how do gaseous, corpulent blatherskites like Al Gore still get paid exhorbitant speaking fees to climb up on stage and pound a pulpit about the coming Global Warming CatastropheTM?  Why are they not laughed off the stage?

The fact that there is such an overwhelming and ever-growing sea of evidence completely debunking the severity, impact, and/or causality, nay, the very existence of anthropogenic global warming, and yet it is still heralded by the likes of  Barack Obama as one of the single greatest concerns facing our nation and world today, suggests to me that there is a great deal more going on here than noble, well-intentioned science.

It’s about pushing the g/w agenda in order to force compliance with an ever more extensive and intrusive series of rules and regulations and policies designed to centralized authority, remove personal autonomy, and destroy nationa sovereignty.  For our own good, of course.  Actually, no.  For the good of the earth.  Mother Gaia and all that.  Your own personal well-being be damned.

And if you can’t see that, you deserve what is coming to you.

Ya know, I was all set to pen some snarky post about how people just need to get over themselves, highlighting all the manner of mental flatulence surrounding peoples’ bizarre and over-compensating back-bending with regards to political correctness and not “offending” anyone with the grim specter of a baby in a manger.

But then I figured, screw it.  Screw them.  They aren’t worth the trouble.

If you are so insecure in your personal beliefs or religious convictions that the sight of someone else celebrating their faith traditions is just THAT unsettling, then you’ve got a lot bigger problems than just being “offended.”  I’m sure extensive counseling and perhaps an aggressive course of psychotropic medication could be helpful in dealing with your “issuses.”

See, me, I don’t understand how the sight of cross around a neck is something to be avoided as being potentially “offensive,” but the sight of a traditional head scarf or a penitent on a prayer rug facing Mecca is just something I’m supposed to embrace as diversity.  Why I can celebrate Earth day in honor of defending Mother Gaia, but a jolly man in a red suit and a bunch of reindeer is of such deep concern because of the clear religious “undertones.”  Heaven forbid we have “undertones.”

Ah heck.  Here I’ve gone and done it.  That snarky post I was trying to avoid.

I just have a hard time taking seriously some twittering, hand-wringing Prog busy-body with nothing better to do with her time than worry about who might be offended by the idea of a Savior sent to earth by a loving God. 

Perhaps it is the overall disregard with which this crowd holds babies in the first place.  I’m sorry, I meant to say “unwanted fetus” there.  Of course, we have to realize that these are people that bring their kids to a pro-abortion rally.  Wrap your head around that one.

Because, you see, I really do understand.  I understand that this is not about preserving anything, it’s not about protecting anyone’s china-glass sensitivies or tender wittle feelings.  It can’t be.  It’s simply too preposterous to lend any credence whatsoever to the idea that someone is “offended” by Christmas. 

I’m offended by human sacrifice, genital mutilation, gassing the Kurds, grown men having sex with pre-teen boys, mass graves, car bombings, biological weapons, concentration camps, dumbass rioters burning cars, human trafficking, child prostitution, drug dealers and gang bangers.

I am NOT, however, offended by Christmas.  I’m not offended by Kwanza; amused perhaps, but certainly not offended.  I am not “offended” by Hanukkah or Eid al-Adha or Ramadan. 

To me, this isn’t about preserving anyone’s views…it’s about quietly, inexorably silencing one.

Let’s keep this in perspective, shall we folks?  And to help you all keep it in perspective, I’m going to engage in a little civil disobedience.  I’m going to wish you a Merry Christmas, and if you get all frothed up and offended, well, I’m just going to let that be your problem, not mine.  I’m going to wear my cross over the top of my green and red Christmas sweater when I go shopping at the “Holiday” sales at the mall.  I’m going to send out Christmas cards with a manger scene and angels and all that other chest-clutchingly disturbing religious imagery, and if it bothers you that much, you can throw the card away.

Cuz you see, my problem is that I expect people to act like grown-ups.  I expect people to learn to get along, and not required that I be censored and discriminated against just so they don’t get a bad case of the vapors when their precious little world view isn’t all coddled and stroked and cooed over.

I’m just wierd that way.  So, please.  Have a Merry Christmas.  Or don’t.  It’s a free country.

UPDATE:

Here’s last years post.  Jeez, I’m predictable. 

Merry Christmas…except for YOU!

Get over yourself.  I don’t require you to celebrate Christmas.  I DO require you to let ME celebrate Christmas.  That’s not called intolerance.  It’s called f-r-e-e-d-o-m.

So, we’re all sitting around the dinner table, having a variety of discussions as we often do, and the Medium Sized child throws this one out on the table and lets it flop around for a second:

“Dad, what’s ‘abortion?'”

GULP! Cue slightly stunned and discomfited pause the Imperial Wife and myself. Uh……

“Hon, that’s not really a good question to ask at the dinner table.”

“Hmmm.  Okaaaaay…”

But, we could tell that that only made him even more curious.  So, after one of those quick eye contact/meaningful glances between the two parental units, resulting in the requisite unspoken agreement, the Wife lays it out there:

“Abortion is killing a baby before it’s born.”

“…Oh.”

He didn’t ask any follow up questions.  Kind of a conversation killer, I guess.  That, and I suppose that it’s pretty much self-explanatory.  I asked him where he heard about abortion, and he said it was in one of the news stories he read during class. 

I guess it’s one of those inevitable questions in today’s day and age, but it’s certainly nothing you look forward to having to do:  explaining to your children that there is a whole industry out there dedicated to killing babies before they are born.   I have to wonder how that gets processed in his mind, where does it get filed?

This after years of telling him how we had nicknames for him in the womb, how I used to read him Frog and Toad stories with my head resting against my wife’s pregnant stomach, how I used to love feeling him press against my head with an elbow or foot as he moved around in there.

I’m rather hoping that the whole concept of abortion always bothers him as much as it does me.