Archive for the ‘Blitherings’ Category

I’ve found that there is so much going on in the world today, about which my own loud-mouth self will simply not shut up, and spamming my Facebook friends and relatives with partisan hooey may not always be the best course of action.


While I cannot guarantee how often I will be able to post anything, given the hurricane of activity my life is, and the festering pile of steaming excrement it may become shortly, I am going to fire this thing back up.

Hopefully I can regain a few of the readers I have so callously shunned over the last however the hell long it’s been; but regardless, there’s just too much angsty froth boiling up within me, and I’ve just gots to gives it some release.

So, there ya go. For what it’s worth.

Life is kicking me in the scrotum.  Wearing track cleats.  So…yeah.

This year I resolved not to make resolutions.  I resolved not to resolve, but rather, to DO.  So, one of my not-resolutions is to get back into the blog business, and start posting more regularly.  Maybe even try to build this site traffic back up from more than just you seven hard-core fanatics who still seem to swing by semi-regularly.

So.  I’ve culled through my blogroll and purged quite a few of the links.  Basically if the blog was a dead link, just plain dead, or hadn’t posted anything in a year or so, it went by-by.  I also dropped a few that I had just because, but never actually read, or if I did read at one time, have so changed their focus or format that I don’t any more.   Generally, if you link to me, I’ll probably link ya back, unless you blog exclusively about cats or unicorns or something; in which case, the likelihood of you actually linking me in the first place is pretty slim, so it’s probably not an issue.

If you want a link  just post a comment saying so, and I’ll check out yer site.

My goal is to lighten things up a bit, but still keep my hand in with the politcal commentary and general social whinging and gritching.   If you’re willing to stop by, I want to give you something worthwhile to read while you’re here. 

So. with that blathering aside, perhaps I’ll get on with it!

Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.

Posted: January 5, 2012 in Blitherings

You know, for all the froth and high dudgeon we had to endure for the better part of eight years as the Left carried on about Bush/Cheney and Haliburton, cronyism, etc., I have to wonder what we’re going to here out of Media Matters and Code Pink about Obama’s unconstitutional “recess” appointments of three of his Big Labor cronies to the NLRB?

What would Michael Moore and Jeneanne Garafalo have had to say if Bush had said that Congress was essentially irrlevant, and if they got in his way, he’d just do what he wanted anyway via Presidential Executive Orders, and like it, bitches?

Or, you know, had Bush taken a $4 million Hawaii vacation for the whole family while the rest of us struggled with upwards of 15% unemployment?

Hmm. I guess we’ll never know, will we?

How Obama’s ‘Other Half’ Lives

Census data shows 48 percent of Americans are either “poor” or “near poor,” the Associated Press reported yesterday, perplexing everyday people and delighting the nation’s harshest critics here and abroad.

The AP story implied this staggering news was the result of deteriorating economic conditions. In fact, though, the number of “near poor” Americans increased dramatically because the Obama administration dramatically (but quietly) changed the official definition of poverty.

Traditionally, a U.S. household was considered “low income” or “near poor” if it had income below 200 percent of the official poverty income thresholds. The Obama administration has raised those income thresholds and thereby transformed the way the government measures poverty and near poverty.

Under President Obama’s new definitions, a family of four in Oakland is “near poor” if their annual pre-tax income is less than $89,700 plus medical insurance. In metropolitan Washington, D.C., the near-poverty line became $80,500. In New York, it’s now $78,500; in Boston, $68,900; and Chicago, $68,600.

Now, one would think that, after three years in office, a President would take pains to minimize the reported numbers of poor in his country, as this unfortunate statistic could be laid firmly at his feet.  Ah, yes but.  IF it is a fundamental component of your social agenda to highlight how many distressed, poor, disenfranchised, needy, hurting people there are in the country who are desperately in need of your federally-funded social programs, well then perhaps you’d want to spin the numbers a different way.

People dependent on a government for their subsistence are, in fact, dependent on the government.  They are beholden to the people who control their income. And as such, are that much more susceptible to influence, coercion and control.

Obama is pushing with everything he has to implement more and more “social controls” on our society.  Re-branding the middle-class as “near poor” greatly widens the pool of proles to whom he can refer when justifiying both his war on “the rich”, and progressive and onerous taxation to fund all these programs for the poor.

Tea Party vs OWS

Posted: December 9, 2011 in Blitherings

Yeah, what HE said.

Via Retired Geezer


Do Crosses at Catholic University Violate “Human Rights” of Muslims?

“The complaint was filed by John Banzhaf, an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School. Banzhaf has been involved in previous litigation against the school involving the same-sex residence halls. He also alleged in his complaint involving Muslim students that women at the university were being discriminated against. You can read more on those allegations by clicking here.

Banzhaf said some Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.”

Don’t think for one minute that this isn’t part of a long-running agenda to impose Muslim influence in all areas of American life.  When Muslims talk about religious freedom, they mean freedom to worship Allah unimpeded by the distracting influences of other faiths.  Their religion CAN NOT BE ecumenical.  It’s an all or nothing game for them, and if we play by their rules, we lose.

“It may not be illegal, but it suggests they are acting improperly and probably with malice,” he said. “They do have to pray five times a day, they have to look around for empty classrooms and to be sitting there trying to do Muslim prayers with a big cross looking down or a picture of Jesus or a picture of the Pope  is not very conductive to their religion.”

Here’s a thought my Muslim friends  – If you are a bothered by Catholic “imagery” and don’t want to “have” to pray in a Catholic chapel….DON’T GO TO A CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY!

That’s what we, in this country, call freedom.  You can go to whatever school you want.  So go find one that doesn’t get your burqa  in a bunch, mkay?

“‘Iron snail’ inspires new armor”

I think it’s great how much modern science can learn from the natural world. Our best analytical minds finding amazing “engineering” feats in what are billed as “random adaptations.” Accidents. Iterative changes based solely on survival of the fittest.

And yet, once again, they seem constrained to use anthropomorphic language to describe these amazing “designs.”

“Nature generally uses really weak materials but arranges them in a geometry that amplifies their mechanical properties,” said Ortiz.

So, Nature is “using” materials and “arranging” them in a pattern “designed” or “intended” to amplify their mechanical properties.

Isn’t it just a tad intellectually dishonest to attribute will, purpose, and intent, while maintaining that there is no intelligent force behind it all? How do you continually leap those mental hurdles every day and not end up laughing at yourself?

‘Cuz, lord knows, I’M laughing at you.

There’s a telling line from an old Rush song, which says, “If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” Truer words were never spoken. Refusing to stand on the strengths of your convictions is simply deciding to let someone else make the decision for you.

“Pro-life nurse forced to assist an abortion” -abortion

“Cenzon-DeCarlo reminded her supervisors of her religious objections, but was told that if she did not participate, she would be charged with “insubordination and patient abandonment,” which could result in disciplinary action and the possible loss of her job and nursing license”

This was a reprehensible decision on the part of the hospital, and I think it’s pretty clear from the article that she’s probably got pretty solid grounds for legal action, either statutory or on the basic of “religious” discrimination. if it had been a Muslim potentially being “forced” to slice ham in a Supermarket deli, I think we all know which way it would have gone. However.

While I certainly sympathize with this woman’s struggle, and given the job market these days, facing the loss of income has to incredibly compelling. All that aside, she was only “forced” to assist in performing an abortion in that she was “forced” to chose between assisting in the termination of a pregnancy, which she believed to be killing a child, and the loss of her job.

She chose to keep her job.

As the Democrat-controlled Congress churns and grinds its inexorable way towards enshrining socialized medicine into the American lexicon and socio-economic structure, I find myself wondering what other “rights” we can expect our Progressive overseers to legislate into law over the next four years?

More than that, I am curious as to how health care became an “inalienable” right guaranteed by the Constitution?

See, here’s the deal. Say I’m too damn lazy or broken down or busy to mow my own lawn. The thing’s looking pretty scruffy, the wife is all up in my knickers because of how it’ll look to the neighbors, and soon I could start making a little extra money running safaris through the back yard. So, I hoodwink one of the neighborhood teens to do it for me. And you know what? I fully expect that I am going to have to pay him to mow it for me.

Say I need my house painted, my car tuned up, or my appendix removed. Do I expect that somehow it’s my “right” to have a freshly pained house? Do I expect that there is “someone” out there who is morally obligated to overhaul my small-block Chevy for me just because I’m a helluva guy? Moreover, what kind of quality can I really expect from someone willing to do it or free? I’m reminded of the old car care commercial that shows the inbred goober playing with the water house, who drools out the statement, “Lemme try, boss. I’ve always wanted to fix a transmission!”

No, in this society, in this economy, I fully expect that having a trained, competent, and experienced mechanic fix my truck is going to cost me a pretty decent chunk of change. To hire someone to paint my house who won’t make a complete nightmare of the job is going to cost me some pretty serious cash. And to have one of my internal organs removed, an MRI of my brain, or a chunk of burgeoning skin cancer excised from my arm are things for which I should reasonably be expected to pay as well, right?

Do I really want my health and life put in the hands of the lowest bidder? There is a very simple and nearly immutable truth which I have seen borne out time and again in this life; whether it relates to cars, or VCRs, hookers or housepainters, the inescapable reality is that more often than not, you really DO get what you pay for!

Is it really realistic that we should expect anything different from our health care providers? Can we realistically expand coverage nearly three-fold without a commensurate increase in doctors and nurses, clinic and hospital beds, all the while promising that it’s going to cost less? Seriously?

I don’t expect to be provided free lawn care as some sort of right. That teenage do-gooder provides a service, he expects to be paid for it. I don’t expect that my right to comprehensive auto maintenance is enshrined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. And yet, apparently my “right” to a free colonoscopy is immutable and inalienable, right up their with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Wait a sec. “Liberty.” Hmmm. Liberty is a guaranteed right. Can’t argue with that. Synonymous with “Freedom.” What about when my government forces me to spend thousands per year on insurance I may not want or need, or face prison? Is that Liberty? Is that Freedom?

According to, “Liberty” is defined as:

~ freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
~ freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
~ The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
~ A right or immunity to engage in certain actions (or NOT engage, I would submit) without control or interference:

Notice that you can’t define liberty without using the word “freedom.”

The big tear-jerking heart-string puller in all this is that everyone should have “access” to health care. Newsflash: everyone already DOES have access to health care, they just may not be able to afford it. There is this meme that millions of Americans are being “denied” health care, as in prevented “back of the bus” style from purchasing health care, relegated to second-class status behind the “rich people only” health care system.

Another news flash: The more you pay, the better plan you get. This is not “unfair,” is basic economics. I don’t whine that it’s “unfair” that I can’t buy a Mazerati for what it costs me to finance my Impreza, right?

I’ve been on the outs. I’ve struggled to pay for health insurance, eating hefty co-pays for mediocre coverage. It sucked. That doesn’t mean I had a “right” to anything better, it just meant that that was all I could afford at the time. But it wasn’t any official law, or policy, or armed thug that was “denying” me better health care; it was my paycheck. In effect, the only person “denying” me better health care was me.

Since then, I’ve gotten a better job, so I can afford better health benefits.

I find it tragic that we, as a nation, have developed such an overweening sense of entitlement that we are so readily able to turn such a blind eye to the basics of economic realities in our pursuit of gifts given, not benefits earned.

Governments do not provide freedom. A government merely helps ensure an environment wherein freedom CAN flourish if allowed to. However, true “freedom” is not obtained “from” government, it is instead achieved by those who require it from themselves and others. What so many fail…or refuse…to see is that government can become the enemy of freedom, for the more we require from it, the more it will, in turn, require from us.

True freedom is found in self-sufficiency, in personal responsibility, and moral fortitude. Too readily forsaking any one of those three in exchange for unearned largesse or unwarranted comfort is a certain path towards becoming “subjects” rather than “citizens.