I am demonstrating against the hypocrisy of a free society that seems to insist that I must regard the Gregorian calendar as the only reason for this coming turn of the day, what is commonly referred to as New Year's Day by followers of that calendar.
I do not celebrate New Year's Eve, even though it seems the majority of people in society expect me to adhere to their holiday. They even insist on wishing me a happy new year, so I retort a coy "have a nice day!"
I couldn't prevent the construction of the Times Square crystal ball this year, as I could not in other years. In fact, no one even returned my complaint calls. In other cities, other things drop to the joy of onlookers who are followers of the Gregorian calendar. But it's difficult to target larger cities to prevent such anti-other-calendar practices that infringe on the freedom of others. It seems small cities and towns don't really drop something, unlike all those Nativity scenes that darken the lawns of little city halls all over the place. Those baby Jesus scenes serve as easy targets for sensitive atheists who want to make their personal freedom equal to that of others by berating any community effort to celebrate holidays that the atheists don't want to celebrate. Not so lucky for people who don't want to have to follow the Gregorian calendar nor celebrate New Year's Eve.
But, instead of lamenting the plight of my noble stand against "New Year's Eve" as the closed-minded Gregorian calendar-only holiday that it is, I thought I'd discover what the most important and influential organizations in America were doing to ring in this, empty, offensive, invasive, tyrannical event known as the new year, 2014.
Television channels are, for the most part, not airing anything terribly special. But here is a small sampling of what was shown as available across the dial, the pro-New Year's and the others.
News channels are offering a stimulating variety. Fox News is ringing in the new year with a special, with show hosts Elizabeth Hasselbeck and Bill Hemmer, which should be exciting to someone, but I don't know who. The paragon of journalistic integrity, MSNBC, is not bothering with any new year's sentimentality: they're airing a 2012 episode of the prison documentary series "Lockup: Raw." Not to be outdone by the news channel that ends with the same initials, biz channel CNBC is airing "Porn: Business of Pleasure" featuring interviews with real live porn stars.
Meanwhile, all too meaningful to the occasion, HLN looks back at 2013 with an encore airing of "50 Stories 50 States: What you shared in 2013." If you want a headache even if you don't drink too much without proper hydration, or have sinus problems, or fell from your second story balcony onto your head, on CNN there's "New Year's Eve Live" with CNN nights and morning talk show host Anderson Cooper and... Kathy Griffin. She is reason enough to skip CNN.
On the ole major networks, NBC set the high bar for entertainment for the night, providing as host for the night the sometimes very edgy -- sometimes his hair sticks up, all edgy-like -- Carson Daly. Jane Lynch is co-hosting, making this a true yin and yang event; if yin were an exceptionally dull white man who seems to have never figured out how to not look like a typical, clean-cut and kinda air-headed douche from college, and yang a brash, wacky blonde comedic actress. CBS, it seems, doesn't care about this so-called holiday, offering up their standard fare come midnight: David Letterman. Holiday? What holiday? This is just another Tuesday night to drink heavily and watch Dave!
ABC holds to their tradition of about 150 years (give or take some years) to celebrate this oppressive annual rite, "Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve with Ryan Seacrest." Okay, the Seacrest bit isn't so old. That's fairly recent. Apparently, even though Clark has passed on, his estate still owns New Year's Eve, as far as ABC is concerned. Kinda like how Christians seem to think they own the Winter Solstice thanks to Jesus' birthday being celebrated on December 25 of the Gregorian calendar.
I guess the top brass at ABC figure everyone must want to watch Seacrest on ABC to the very end, so they can hear him say "Seacrest out" and then swoon at their slumber parties. That could explain why ABC Family didn't dare try to compete, and opted to air several episodes of the 1980s Will Smith comedy "The Fresh Prince of Bel Air" to ring in the new year. Just another night for them -- hoorah!
Owned by Disney, ABC outdoes their parent's eponymous channels for the Gregorian-calendar-centric evening. On my satellite service, Disney Channel East is airing "Austin & Jessie & Ally All Star New Year" which, before you go thinking it is something all that special, is a rerun from 2012. Disney Channel West, though, for East Coast viewers is showing at midnight for East coasters the movie "Up." That's just some movie, no new year meaning to it. But by the time the double-O hour reaches the West Coast, Disney West airs the same thing Disney East aired at midnight on its coast.
MTV and MTV2 are showing, respectively, "New Year's Code" and, suitably for many crowds on New Year's Eve, "Jackass: The Movie." VH1 proves that edginess has pretty much intentionally lost their phone number and email and says mean stuff about them on Facebook, because on this, the most amateur of drinking nights, VH1 is running a marathon of a show called "Happy Endings" and the episodes haven't got a damned thing to do with a "happy ending" of the year.
The lineup on TV is even less respective of the holiday beyond that. So, as you can guess, I'm pretty excited that it seems the majority of television channels agree with my estimation of New Year's Eve -- who cares!
I am awaiting a call back from the ACLU regarding my lawsuit preventing us all having to be subjected to the Gregorian calendar. If you wish to join what I am sure can be a class action suit against the government for pushing this archaic, ancient calendar on us all, please email or tweet me.
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
(this is satire)
LEFTIST RACISTS: Herman Cain, America were violated by stereotyping
The lies about criminal behavior of HERMAN CAIN hurt him, and America, in 2011, in the 2012 election cycle. This educated guy, this business leader, this free thinker, this open book, this conservative American, is owed more than an apology (which has yet to be given) from the attention-craving Gloria Allred and the two lying women who made headlines claiming that Cain sexually harassed them (link: http://ow.ly/qF0QX).
Americans are owed better than this lowest of political tactics in the age of social media and in-the-moment news reporting. If leading Democrats had any lack of cynicism among them, they'd have discouraged the effect of these unfounded claims during the campaign. I know some pundits on either side were frustrated by this bad showing, but I heard not a leader among Democrats say a thing against it certainly not the first black in the White House.
This was, in a way, the tale of two black men: the Conservative Black Man and the Liberal Black Man. It allows a comparison of the behavior of media and the supposed spokespeople for black people -- Democrats and black "liberal" pundits. The way they treat Cain, and other non-leftist thinkers such as Ben Carson, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, is not compatible with their pandering habits toward blacks and other "special label" groups (minorities of whatever kind) in general. Yet, they give extra room to Barack Obama and ninnies such as former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin (with a federal indictment on corruption charges and soon to be in court for it) and former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (convicted to 26 years for his office's bribery practices). Democrats and most of the mainstream media looked the other way in the midst of corruption by these last two fellows, until the story was essentially over.
Ruining the campaign of Herman Cain bolstered the left's authority and dominion over blacks in America. The great majority of our black community, it seems, were fine with it, too. Or, they simply didn't speak out against it. Too many are too happy to resent those who have known success to the extent of cheering even unreasonable attacks on the successful, black or not. Sadly, that's another thing that the rhetoric of the Democrats feeds.
Today's "liberals" (modern American leftists, really, sparsely liberals in any true sense) need some of those who are successful on their side, but can only win elections, as I see it, by pandering to the less-informed unsuccessful with promises of... ease without effort. The rhetoric of Barack Obama, especially during 2008 and since his presidency, have only made this cynical tactic of the Democrats more familiar. Not less. Not less, as Obama pledged the divisiveness would be. (He pledged a lot of things that proved to be nothing, didn't he?)
The minority pandering, low-information voter wholesaling, diversity rejecting (they accept diversity only on their terms, after all), status quo adoring, big government, control-addicted Democrats and their media pledges want to keep minority conservatives down, and that hurts America.
Their habit to passionately reject traditionalist, Constitutionalist, limited government, conservative thinkers, and especially those who think this way who are not old white men, hurt America's ability to get beyond the wrongs of racism and social and economic ruts that plague groups of people, black or not. Democrats claim to be the party of caring. Yet they have been proven to be the party of lies, spying, control, monetary abuse, budgetary disregard, growth in bureaucracy, and intolerance toward individualism.
Democrats and others of such thinking are, intentionally or not, pigeonholing people in certain special groups - race, sexuality, sex, regions, etc. - into easy stereotypes that suit them. In an official way. Everyone deserves the sense of liberty that America was founded upon. That's inconvenient for relativist leftists.
They are convinced it is their duty, as folks such as Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Al Sharpton, prove again and again, to be the spokespeople for these groups, to take from others and give to those groups, to coddle them for the sake of the great statist plan. That's not American. That's utopian. It's absurd. It's anti-American.
Black conservatives have for a long time felt they needed to be quiet because Borg-like neighbors who are long entrenched in the pandering, Democratic race machine would think they were betraying race for their affinity for traditional American ideals. So much misinformation about conservatism persists that it's as if being a conservative was equivalent to being a slave salesman in Africa in the 1700s.
Modern Democrats, this current, bureaucracy-loving, conceited, elitist leadership of theirs, seek a wholesale plan to buy votes to take more and more liberties away from Americans in the name of helping everyone reach an equal playing field, with welfare politics, driving the poor to their side in a cynical effort to hold power by mob, rather than by principle or love of the citizen and the individual. They love the idea of the state being the leader of society in every way, it seems, not the servant of a free people.
People like Herman Cain certainly get in the way of that.
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Americans are owed better than this lowest of political tactics in the age of social media and in-the-moment news reporting. If leading Democrats had any lack of cynicism among them, they'd have discouraged the effect of these unfounded claims during the campaign. I know some pundits on either side were frustrated by this bad showing, but I heard not a leader among Democrats say a thing against it certainly not the first black in the White House.
This was, in a way, the tale of two black men: the Conservative Black Man and the Liberal Black Man. It allows a comparison of the behavior of media and the supposed spokespeople for black people -- Democrats and black "liberal" pundits. The way they treat Cain, and other non-leftist thinkers such as Ben Carson, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, is not compatible with their pandering habits toward blacks and other "special label" groups (minorities of whatever kind) in general. Yet, they give extra room to Barack Obama and ninnies such as former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin (with a federal indictment on corruption charges and soon to be in court for it) and former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (convicted to 26 years for his office's bribery practices). Democrats and most of the mainstream media looked the other way in the midst of corruption by these last two fellows, until the story was essentially over.
Ruining the campaign of Herman Cain bolstered the left's authority and dominion over blacks in America. The great majority of our black community, it seems, were fine with it, too. Or, they simply didn't speak out against it. Too many are too happy to resent those who have known success to the extent of cheering even unreasonable attacks on the successful, black or not. Sadly, that's another thing that the rhetoric of the Democrats feeds.
Today's "liberals" (modern American leftists, really, sparsely liberals in any true sense) need some of those who are successful on their side, but can only win elections, as I see it, by pandering to the less-informed unsuccessful with promises of... ease without effort. The rhetoric of Barack Obama, especially during 2008 and since his presidency, have only made this cynical tactic of the Democrats more familiar. Not less. Not less, as Obama pledged the divisiveness would be. (He pledged a lot of things that proved to be nothing, didn't he?)
The minority pandering, low-information voter wholesaling, diversity rejecting (they accept diversity only on their terms, after all), status quo adoring, big government, control-addicted Democrats and their media pledges want to keep minority conservatives down, and that hurts America.
Their habit to passionately reject traditionalist, Constitutionalist, limited government, conservative thinkers, and especially those who think this way who are not old white men, hurt America's ability to get beyond the wrongs of racism and social and economic ruts that plague groups of people, black or not. Democrats claim to be the party of caring. Yet they have been proven to be the party of lies, spying, control, monetary abuse, budgetary disregard, growth in bureaucracy, and intolerance toward individualism.
Democrats and others of such thinking are, intentionally or not, pigeonholing people in certain special groups - race, sexuality, sex, regions, etc. - into easy stereotypes that suit them. In an official way. Everyone deserves the sense of liberty that America was founded upon. That's inconvenient for relativist leftists.
They are convinced it is their duty, as folks such as Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Al Sharpton, prove again and again, to be the spokespeople for these groups, to take from others and give to those groups, to coddle them for the sake of the great statist plan. That's not American. That's utopian. It's absurd. It's anti-American.
Black conservatives have for a long time felt they needed to be quiet because Borg-like neighbors who are long entrenched in the pandering, Democratic race machine would think they were betraying race for their affinity for traditional American ideals. So much misinformation about conservatism persists that it's as if being a conservative was equivalent to being a slave salesman in Africa in the 1700s.
Modern Democrats, this current, bureaucracy-loving, conceited, elitist leadership of theirs, seek a wholesale plan to buy votes to take more and more liberties away from Americans in the name of helping everyone reach an equal playing field, with welfare politics, driving the poor to their side in a cynical effort to hold power by mob, rather than by principle or love of the citizen and the individual. They love the idea of the state being the leader of society in every way, it seems, not the servant of a free people.
People like Herman Cain certainly get in the way of that.
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Put a name to the FAIL: Obama Arab Spring, Obama IRS, Obama Recovery, ObamaMedia
I've got something figured out here, and I'm really excited about it. It is time for some name changes.
It seems to me, where Prezzy Barry O is involved, if a problem doesn't have his name on it, he will not take any blame for it. None. It's Bush's fault. It was the video (Benghazi). It was the weather system. It was the House's fault (shutdown, budget not being passed, etc., etc).
But if his name is on it... it seems even the ever-conceited Obama can't pretty talk his way out of it. OBAMACARE is creating a climate where insurance companies are tossing folks overboard like buckets of water on a sinking ship. Democrats who are up for election aren't thrilled, nor are former Democratic officials. And Obama had to apologize for it. Like, literally said "I am sorry."
SORRY? What a guy. He insisted, 24 times, and there's even content on WhiteHouse.gov that IF YOU LIKE YOUR COVERAGE YOU GET TO KEEP YOUR COVERAGE. PERIOD. But he's sorry. Oopsie!
I'm sorry I ever spanked my kitten for clawing the underside of my foot at night. That's something to be sorry over. People have lost their insurance, a Mr. Obvious outcome of the way Obamacare so infringes on segments of the insurance market. And he's sorry.
The problem of millions losing their insurance is just the latest lameness, of course. It's in addition to lots of other problems with the law and it's policies. It's expected to almost universally raise rates for insurance, not lower them. Plus, there's the unimpressive performance that is known even by those not paying much attention: the failed Healthcare.gov site booting millions off it; in one state, Tennessee, merely 600 people had signed up as of this week; any number of felons could be taking personal financial data over the phone as Obamacare "navigators," because there is no criminal history screening for the position.
The problems with the Affordable Care Act, mind you, were widely expected problems, and widely predicted problems. People chose to ignore it, including the majority of news outlets.
Luckily, I've figured it out. This is what has to happen: We name the IRS, Benghazi, the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood, jobless claims, the jobless recovery, the debt, the budget deficit, the ensuing doctor shortage, the lack of a federal budget, NSA data mining, and media spying tactics, after Obama.
Maybe we should name the mainstream media after Obama, too. Heck, much of the media has managed to be the Obama media for the last six years, haven't they?
Maybe if we name all of these things after Obama, then he'll be cornered into owning up to what's going on with them, too.
That's no bullObama.
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
It seems to me, where Prezzy Barry O is involved, if a problem doesn't have his name on it, he will not take any blame for it. None. It's Bush's fault. It was the video (Benghazi). It was the weather system. It was the House's fault (shutdown, budget not being passed, etc., etc).
But if his name is on it... it seems even the ever-conceited Obama can't pretty talk his way out of it. OBAMACARE is creating a climate where insurance companies are tossing folks overboard like buckets of water on a sinking ship. Democrats who are up for election aren't thrilled, nor are former Democratic officials. And Obama had to apologize for it. Like, literally said "I am sorry."
SORRY? What a guy. He insisted, 24 times, and there's even content on WhiteHouse.gov that IF YOU LIKE YOUR COVERAGE YOU GET TO KEEP YOUR COVERAGE. PERIOD. But he's sorry. Oopsie!
I'm sorry I ever spanked my kitten for clawing the underside of my foot at night. That's something to be sorry over. People have lost their insurance, a Mr. Obvious outcome of the way Obamacare so infringes on segments of the insurance market. And he's sorry.
The problem of millions losing their insurance is just the latest lameness, of course. It's in addition to lots of other problems with the law and it's policies. It's expected to almost universally raise rates for insurance, not lower them. Plus, there's the unimpressive performance that is known even by those not paying much attention: the failed Healthcare.gov site booting millions off it; in one state, Tennessee, merely 600 people had signed up as of this week; any number of felons could be taking personal financial data over the phone as Obamacare "navigators," because there is no criminal history screening for the position.
The problems with the Affordable Care Act, mind you, were widely expected problems, and widely predicted problems. People chose to ignore it, including the majority of news outlets.
Luckily, I've figured it out. This is what has to happen: We name the IRS, Benghazi, the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood, jobless claims, the jobless recovery, the debt, the budget deficit, the ensuing doctor shortage, the lack of a federal budget, NSA data mining, and media spying tactics, after Obama.
Maybe we should name the mainstream media after Obama, too. Heck, much of the media has managed to be the Obama media for the last six years, haven't they?
Maybe if we name all of these things after Obama, then he'll be cornered into owning up to what's going on with them, too.
That's no bullObama.
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Defense: most Muslim nations, Israel & U.S. far more heavily armed than others
Below is an edited version of a post I originally shared in 2010. It still reflects 2010 numbers. I revised and highlighted the material for this post.
Since the Syrian civil war and the alleged Arab Spring gave the world a bunch of broken states (to add to the generally iffy Iraq and Afghanistan), I think this general review of militarization of nations, though it's now outdated, is worth posting again as food for your thoughts. World security and peace relies on a mix of freedom and security (military and otherwise) where the "good guys" have the balance. America and NATO allies do not need to be the world policeman forever, do they? Many of these highly militarized countries were thrown into a revolution or civil war of some sort during the so-called Arab Spring. The Arab Spring felt more like an Islamist Chill to some, including me, except for Tunisia.
I'm not trying to suggest that just because a nation is Muslim it is dangerous, because some are modern and positively aware of ideas such as women's rights and tolerating a diversity of religions, such as wealthy, civilized little Brunei.
What this list does suggest is that many Muslim nations have been very well armed. In some cases, that's not good news for the West, but in other cases, you have to ask questions such as: "When was the last time Eritrea attacked a neighboring country, or was attacked by another country?"
Since the Syrian civil war and the alleged Arab Spring gave the world a bunch of broken states (to add to the generally iffy Iraq and Afghanistan), I think this general review of militarization of nations, though it's now outdated, is worth posting again as food for your thoughts. World security and peace relies on a mix of freedom and security (military and otherwise) where the "good guys" have the balance. America and NATO allies do not need to be the world policeman forever, do they? Many of these highly militarized countries were thrown into a revolution or civil war of some sort during the so-called Arab Spring. The Arab Spring felt more like an Islamist Chill to some, including me, except for Tunisia.
I'm not trying to suggest that just because a nation is Muslim it is dangerous, because some are modern and positively aware of ideas such as women's rights and tolerating a diversity of religions, such as wealthy, civilized little Brunei.
What this list does suggest is that many Muslim nations have been very well armed. In some cases, that's not good news for the West, but in other cases, you have to ask questions such as: "When was the last time Eritrea attacked a neighboring country, or was attacked by another country?"
"... most of the top 20 military spenders are Arab and/or Muslim-dominated nations."
The CIA World Factbook provides many bits of information about the world we live in, such as the discernible numbers for a variety of subjects, such as population, average income and GDP - gross domestic product. (Think of GDP as similar to being all household annual income before expenses, but for a whole country. That's perhaps not exactly right, but you can read up on GDP on your own.)
An interesting thing gleaned from the information provided on military expenditures is that most of the top 20 military spenders are Arab and/or Muslim-dominated nations (the Muslim nations in the top 20 are bolded). In the top 20 is Israel, too. There are 14 predominantly Muslim countries in the first 20, 12 of which are essentially Muslim states (as in, I see them as being run by Muslim religious law).
So are these nations insulating themselves from the non-Muslim world, concerned about their safety from enemies who would come at them from the outside, or are they more worried about some internal enemies?
The world average for military spending is 2% of GDP. The U.S. is just over double the average, at 4.06%. The U.K., by contrast, matches India and Iran, at a mere 2.50%.
The US military commitment is massive, of course. So is its GDP. So the US military outlay far outweighs these much smaller economies, pound-for-pound. In 2011, US production output was about three times that of China, our closest economic competitor. Even though China's population is three times larger than the U.S. headcount. China's military outlay is 4.60% of its GDP.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rawdata_2034.text
Raw Data:
1 Oman 11.40
2 Qatar 10.00
3 Saudi Arabia 10.00
4 Iraq 8.60
5 Jordan 8.60
6 Israel 7.30
7 Yemen 6.60
8 Armenia 6.50
9 Eritrea 6.30
10 Macedonia 6.00
11 Burundi 5.90
12 Syria 5.90
13 Maldives 5.50
14 Mauritania 5.50
15 Kuwait 5.30
16 Turkey 5.30
17 Morocco 5.00
18 Singapore 4.90
19 Swaziland 4.70
20 Bahrain 4.50
21 Bosnia & Herzegovina 4.50
22 Brunei 4.50
23 China 4.30
24 Greece 4.30
25 United States 4.06
26 Libya 3.90
27 Russia 3.90
28 Tajikistan 3.90
29 Cuba 3.80
30 Zimbabwe 3.80
31 Djibouti 3.80
32 Cyprus 3.80
33 Namibia 3.70
34 Angola 3.60
35 Colombia 3.40
36 Turkmenistan 3.40
37 Egypt 3.40
38 Algeria 3.30
39 Botswana 3.30
40 Guinea-Bissau 3.10
41 Lebanon 3.10
42 United Arab Emirates 3.1043 Australia 3.00
44 Sudan 3.0045 Solomon Islands 3.00
46 Pakistan 3.0047 Indonesia 3.00
48 Cambodia 3.00
49 Rwanda 2.90
50 Comoros 2.80
51 Kenya 2.80
52 Chile 2.70
53 Korea, South 2.70
54 Azerbaijan 2.6055 Sri Lanka 2.60
56 Lesotho 2.60
57 France 2.60
58 Bulgaria 2.60
59 Congo, Democratic
Republic of the 2.50
60 Iran 2.50
61 Vietnam 2.5062
62 India 2.5063
63 United Kingdom 2.4064
64 Croatia 2.3965
65 Portugal 2.3066
66 Sierra Leone 2.3067
67 Uganda 2.2068
68 Taiwan 2.2069
69 Burma 2.1070
70 Malaysia 2.03
71 World 2.00 < avg
72 Seychelles 2.00
73 Uzbekistan 2.0074
74 Estonia 2.0075
75 Finland 2.0076
76 Afghanistan 1.9077
77 Mali 1.9078
78 Norway 1.9079
79 Romania 1.9080
80 Fiji 1.9081
81 Slovakia 1.8782
82 Guyana 1.8083
83 Zambia 1.8084
84 Thailand 1.8085
85 Italy 1.8086
86 Hungary 1.7587
87 Poland 1.7188
88 Brazil 1.7089
89 Chad 1.7090
90 Ghana 1.7091
91 Slovenia 1.7092
92 South Africa 1.7093
93 Nepal 1.6094
94 Netherlands 1.6095
95 Uruguay 1.6096
96 Togo 1.6097
97 Cote d'Ivoire 1.5098
98 Sweden 1.5099
99 Peru 1.50100
100 Nigeria 1.50101
101 Germany 1.50102
102 Albania 1.49103
103 Czech Republic 1.46104
104 Belarus 1.40105
105 Belize 1.40106
106 Kyrgyzstan 1.40107
107 Papua New Guinea 1.40108
108 Tunisia 1.40
109 Ukraine 1.40
110 Senegal 1.40
111 Mongolia 1.40
112 Bangladesh 1.30
113 Cameroon 1.30
114 Denmark 1.30
115 Liberia 1.30
116 Niger 1.30
117 Malawi 1.30
118 Bolivia 1.30
119 Belgium 1.30
120 Burkina Faso 1.20
121 Spain 1.20
122 Venezuela 1.20
123 Ethiopia 1.20
124 Lithuania 1.20
125 Latvia 1.20
126 Canada 1.10
127 Guinea 1.10
128 Benin 1.00
129 Switzerland 1.00
130 Paraguay 1.00
131 Panama 1.00
132 New Zealand 1.00
133 Madagascar 1.00
134 Bhutan 1.00
135 Central African Republic 0.90
136 Congo, Republic of the 0.90
137 Ecuador 0.90
138 Gambia, The 0.90
139 Ireland 0.90
140 Luxembourg 0.90
141 Tonga 0.90
142 Somalia 0.90
143 Philippines 0.90
144 Kazakhstan 0.90
145 Gabon 0.90
146 Argentina 0.80
147 Sao Tome and Principe 0.80
148 Mozambique 0.80
149 Japan 0.80
150 Austria 0.80
151 Barbados 0.80
152 Bahamas, The 0.70
153 Malta 0.70
154 Dominican Republic 0.70
155 Costa Rica 0.60
156 Honduras 0.60
157 Suriname 0.60
158 Nicaragua 0.60
159 Jamaica 0.60
160 El Salvador 0.60
161 Georgia 0.59
162 Antigua & Barbuda 0.50
163 Mexico 0.50
164 Laos 0.50
165 Cape Verde 0.50
166 Guatemala 0.40
167 Haiti 0.40
168 Moldova 0.40
169 Mauritius 0.30
170 Trinidad & Tobago 0.30
171 Tanzania 0.20
172 Bermuda 0.11
173 Equatorial Guinea 0.10
174 Iceland 0.00
61 Vietnam 2.5062
62 India 2.5063
63 United Kingdom 2.4064
64 Croatia 2.3965
65 Portugal 2.3066
66 Sierra Leone 2.3067
67 Uganda 2.2068
68 Taiwan 2.2069
69 Burma 2.1070
70 Malaysia 2.03
71 World 2.00 < avg
72 Seychelles 2.00
73 Uzbekistan 2.0074
74 Estonia 2.0075
75 Finland 2.0076
76 Afghanistan 1.9077
77 Mali 1.9078
78 Norway 1.9079
79 Romania 1.9080
80 Fiji 1.9081
81 Slovakia 1.8782
82 Guyana 1.8083
83 Zambia 1.8084
84 Thailand 1.8085
85 Italy 1.8086
86 Hungary 1.7587
87 Poland 1.7188
88 Brazil 1.7089
89 Chad 1.7090
90 Ghana 1.7091
91 Slovenia 1.7092
92 South Africa 1.7093
93 Nepal 1.6094
94 Netherlands 1.6095
95 Uruguay 1.6096
96 Togo 1.6097
97 Cote d'Ivoire 1.5098
98 Sweden 1.5099
99 Peru 1.50100
100 Nigeria 1.50101
101 Germany 1.50102
102 Albania 1.49103
103 Czech Republic 1.46104
104 Belarus 1.40105
105 Belize 1.40106
106 Kyrgyzstan 1.40107
107 Papua New Guinea 1.40108
108 Tunisia 1.40
109 Ukraine 1.40
111 Mongolia 1.40
112 Bangladesh 1.30
113 Cameroon 1.30
114 Denmark 1.30
115 Liberia 1.30
116 Niger 1.30
117 Malawi 1.30
118 Bolivia 1.30
119 Belgium 1.30
120 Burkina Faso 1.20
121 Spain 1.20
122 Venezuela 1.20
123 Ethiopia 1.20
124 Lithuania 1.20
125 Latvia 1.20
126 Canada 1.10
127 Guinea 1.10
128 Benin 1.00
129 Switzerland 1.00
130 Paraguay 1.00
131 Panama 1.00
132 New Zealand 1.00
133 Madagascar 1.00
134 Bhutan 1.00
135 Central African Republic 0.90
136 Congo, Republic of the 0.90
137 Ecuador 0.90
138 Gambia, The 0.90
139 Ireland 0.90
140 Luxembourg 0.90
141 Tonga 0.90
142 Somalia 0.90
143 Philippines 0.90
144 Kazakhstan 0.90
145 Gabon 0.90
146 Argentina 0.80
147 Sao Tome and Principe 0.80
148 Mozambique 0.80
149 Japan 0.80
150 Austria 0.80
151 Barbados 0.80
152 Bahamas, The 0.70
153 Malta 0.70
154 Dominican Republic 0.70
155 Costa Rica 0.60
156 Honduras 0.60
157 Suriname 0.60
158 Nicaragua 0.60
159 Jamaica 0.60
160 El Salvador 0.60
161 Georgia 0.59
162 Antigua & Barbuda 0.50
163 Mexico 0.50
164 Laos 0.50
165 Cape Verde 0.50
166 Guatemala 0.40
167 Haiti 0.40
168 Moldova 0.40
169 Mauritius 0.30
170 Trinidad & Tobago 0.30
171 Tanzania 0.20
172 Bermuda 0.11
173 Equatorial Guinea 0.10
174 Iceland 0.00
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Very American, Tea Party Republicans
This 2013 shutdown showdown is like a Charles Dickens story, except in this story the thing that represents the controlling, mean old man is the protagonist, not the outnumbered, mocked and chastised orphan
MORE FAKE BLAME: It's almost entirely the Republicans' fault we have political discord and federal economic problems. Oh yeah?
Aside from the helping-nothing partisan bias and rampant mass media affection for sloppy budgeting, the tragically disinterested and ignorant (the nanny state lovers among which the Democrats are fully invested in pandering to), and the feckless "I wanna be on the smooth talkers' side" fanboy-ism among otherwise seemingly healthy population, there's this:
Obama called GW Bush's efforts to lift the debt limit "un-American" in a lengthy lecture about how terrible it is back when he was a senator and our fiscal situation was far less dire -- thanks to the Bush and Obama agendas, however, it is worse.
But Obama has seen to it that it got much more worse, while he and the Democrats had all the cards. In Jacksonville, Fla., recently, as Sunshine State News spelled out, "Obama boasted of 'halving the deficit.' That means every year [of his administration] the government has spent FAR MORE than it took in but now the OVERspending has diminished yet STILL IS MUCH HIGHER than the highest deficit that occurred under [GW Bush]. That's his (OBAMA'S) measure of success?"
Uh, yes it is?
What else is there to brag about, but backing out of Iraq (leaving a mess: how very hopey changey and caring that was, Mr. President) and killing bin Laden (ooo, no other president would have signed off on that, what a big man)? What else: ObamaCare? That isn't a success and probably won't be, because the very propaganda about it deceives everyone and the nearly all the mass media IGNORES THE GORILLAS PANTING IN THE CORNERS.
One example: the WH and nearly every story I stumbled across does not mention -- and certainly aren't doing it clearly, if they do -- that the deductibles under Obamacare's "low-cost" health coverage plans are ENORMOUS. Like, around $3500 or $6000 per year, to start. So, are we just wanting to have the poor to pretend they have insurance that means something, like the poor were allowed to pretend they could afford to buy a house under a horrendous 1990s federal mortgage program?
The unseemly propaganda machine behind ObamaCare seems to me to be simply a multilayered, purposefully confusing pressure sales effort to badger anyone who's breathing, a citizen, and not insured (or insured and looking) into getting this subsidized insurance. As if those who use ERs for general medical care will no longer do so, just like that, in a matter of years. Problem solved.
Nope. Still going to happen.
We need to change the system, and Obama deserves respect for being idealistic enough to put health care reform out front back in 2008-09. But too much about ObamaCare is just bureaucratic and regulatory carpet-bombing of the medical industries, hurting professionals, certain types of jobs, various providers, small businesses, and even the economy as a whole. Health care is often claimed to be 1/7 to 1/5 of the entire economy.
Yet, Obama and the Democrats REFUSE to consider adjustments to that one-party law -- no Republican voted for ObamaCare. The Democrats are casting outrageous names and phrases against those who have refused to accept no for an answer from the White House, regarding fiscal compromise. That is the White House and Democratic leaders compromising? How so, exactly??!
ObamaCare's estimated costs have risen so fast, and it's tie-in with the growth of the IRS (what's the IRS got to do with health care otherwise, for crying out loud?) is so ominous, that it seems obvious that it is more a government growth plan than a help to citizens. It will mostly build federal and state bureaucracies and burden a chunk of medical industries and not really "save money" for government or industry, or help poor and uninsured people. Why is this OK with people? Lack of awareness? Is it the desire to adore the U.S. President, no matter what? Is it a blind belief it will help the poor?
Don't discard all that is ObamaCare, but work it into something... less pro-government.
But maybe too many Americans are no longer in favor of America. A recent poll showed that the huge majority of people in the U.S. think government is supposed to control the people. Guess what: America was founded on the idea that government isn't supposed to do that. Ever heard of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Look it up if you haven't. Government is supposed to be servant, not master, in America. Kinda the reason why we busted Britain's chops in the 1700s -- too much elitism in government.
There's no reason to stop piling regulations onto private industry if the public and the industries don't push back. So, who's pushing back?
In the case of ObamaCare, it looks like it's primarily some House Republicans who are treated like the unwanted stepchildren of a miserable dysfunctional home, by the crusty, nanny-state bureaucrats they are acting out against. This 2013 shutdown showdown is like a Charles Dickens story, except in this story the thing that represents the controlling, mean old man is the protagonist, not the outnumbered, mocked and chastised orphan.
Tea Party Republicans are traditionalists, not radicals, not extremists, except by contrast to the sad state of politics in America today. Their views are simple: limited government, less taxes, and fiscal responsibility. In other words, more freedom for the people, not for the government to control the people. That's radical? I would think desiring MORE government would be the extremist leaning in America.
If there were something big worth celebrating out of the Obama White House, why would the Democrats' top echelon of leaders -- for starters, Obama, Reid and Pelosi -- be tossing around half-arguments, practice in so much schoolyard name-calling and peddle in such outright untruthful propaganda about Obamacare, the shutdown and the fiscal realities of today?
Name-calling, you ask? Yes, name-calling. How about the terms "anarchists" and "extremists", and the phrases "taking hostages" and "gun to the head"? It that meant literally? Of course not. Is it still absurd to use? Yes, it is. Apparently, Florida Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson (of "just die, and die quickly" ObamaCare rhetorical infamy from his first Congressional term) has opened a school for crazy-talk. Or is it Ed Schultz? Maybe Reverend Wright?
If you don't think that these fringe-worthy phrases from the heart of the Democrats are desperation, then you should just return to your previous state of apathy, distraction and unawareness, because you're just not paying attention. How about "Jihad"? A Democratic congressman (who I won't name because I never heard of him before and hope I don't hear of him again) called Tea Party Republican actions to fight stubborn Obama with equal stubbornness a jihad against ObamaCare. At least he said an intangible not that it was a jihad against people -- the congressman was more civil than Obama, Reid and Pelosi, as a result.
People elected Obama because they wanted change. But it seems they didn't want healthy change, just more of the nanny state, irresponsible spending, un-American (as Obama himself put it years ago) deficit spending that will turn America into the next has-been world power in another generation or two.
Let Obama be the one to blink for a change. Force him to bend for a change. Instead of claiming he's trying to compromise in silly, baseless sound bites, actually have Obama sit at the table to really, truly compromise, in the spirit of Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and other less rabid political dogs. Obama's easily agitated ego won't allow him to do this without a full-force, duck-and-cover excuse to cover him, but that will at least be fun to watch.
Seeing Obama be a tad fiscally conservative will be a lot more fun than seeing the political orphans in the House GOP get beat up and kicked to the street by their less principled party members and Democrats.
Let the insanity continue, and pray that each sides relents a bit so our fiscal mess won't become even worse. Go on, play chicken with the debt limit, use fiscal conservatism to push some of the left's buttons. Let Obama think about being the president under whom America failed to pay its bills, if he so chooses. Because it won't matter who we blame today. He'll be remembered for it. Let the most stubborn one, Obama, be forced to bend to some of what the political minority in the federal government wants. Other, less cynical and shrill presidents have done so. No reason to Obama should win every time in his chosen game of highly cynical political tactics where tax dollars are concerned.
This country was designed the way it was so that a simple majority rule is weakened by the lesser force of minority opinions. That's part of how the Founders assured that a monarchy would never take hold so long as we didn't reject the essence of the Constitution. America is not designed from a true majority rule concept -- which is often, in effect, mob rule -- as partisan Democrats so often insist. This is a checks and balances design with an ear for the minority, no matter who's in charge.
Like it or not, the POLITICAL MINORITY in this country's federal government isn't the black president, but the Republicans. The GOP ought to get the same regard of any minority. Funny how all the liberals' talk of pandering to minorities disappears when it comes to political choices while they are the majority. Suddenly, the minority is petulant, radical, extreme and threatening to the country.
A small group of Republicans, the Tea Party Republicans, are trying to make the proven self-absorbed, egotistical cynic in the White House blink. If it doesn't actually reach the point of being honestly dangerous to the country (read: legitimately extremist, not bullshit political name-calling extremist), it isn't to destroy the country, it's trying to make a principled, reasonable minority voice heard amidst a din of pro-government misdirection and hysterical rhetoric.
That is very American.
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
What went wrong in Obama-conomy? Too much, even the NYT saw it (update)
First, they promised jobless numbers well below 8 percent. Then, 400,000 job per month. Then, shovel-ready jobs in the spirit of FDR's CCC. Those jobs were not "so shovel ready," admitted the president. And within all of it, Obama and his folks blamed Bush.
This isn't even leading from behind. This is more like a coach boasting about his successes as a leader and blaming the failures of everyone from other coaches, school administration and game officials, from the sidelines. On Business Insider, this:
"The whole problem can probably be summed up in the infamous chart [image above] made by economic advisor Christina Romer, showing what she projected the unemployment rate would do if the stimulus were enacted vs. what it would have done if it had never been enacted. As you can see, it was way too optimistic, given that unemployment is still over 8 percent."Update, Oct 2013 (originally published Oct 2012): The quote, above, was from an October 2012 article. The sour economy didn't ruin Obama's reelection bid, however obvious it is that his vows were mere overconfident bluster from an elected leader with far more arrogance about his own knowledge about everything under the sun than actual understanding of economics and job creation. He may have won the election, but he's still losing the economic battle, and a year later, he still refuses to accept his economic and business shortcomings.
Read the Business Insider article: http://www.businessinsider.com/david-leonhardt-on-obamanomics-2012-9#ixzz283o...
ObamaCare: best of intentions, awful law, let's make that awfully clear
Patience is a virtue. For government, patients would be a gold mine.
Via someone I follow on Twitter (and stupidly forgot who it was), I found this essential guide to the health care law.
(Revised Sep 26, 2013) What else do you need to know but how many initial claims about ObamaCare have been proven WRONG? With the best of intentions (or not, if you're totally skeptical about them), Democrats took a terrible approach to reform the United States' health system, in the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare. Intentions aren't worth a damn if you ignore everyone affected by a law. The supporters of ACA all but ignored whole groups of people affected by the law, including: independent professionals, medical professionals and other small business owners, and many employees. It's one thing to try and help the needy, or to try and give the poor better health care, but it's another to spit in the face of those who would, effectively, pay for it. It is not good to effectively hurt employees through the resulting cuts in hours. ACA, like other government medical reimbursement plans, ignores the legitimate work of medical professionals, who will do the services, as they would get bargain basement returns from government plans that appear to be not at all interested in reasonable compensation for services rendered.
ObamaCare is not a bible for a health care cure, it is a bible for centralized medical decision-making, whether by intent or not. Solzhenitsyn wrote of the failures of large-scale centralized health care in the former superpower, the Soviet Union, and while ACA is only a step in the same direction, Obama is on record as supporting a "one-payer" health care system (which means government health care for all).
The U.S. government started out in the spirit of doing exactly the opposite of what ObamaCare wants. The American Experiment is going in reverse, thanks to ObamaCare (it is in addition to the impacts of Homeland Security measures and other big government expansions of recent years).
The Democrats appear to have been quite wrong about ObamaCare. Or, cynically, they were intentionally misleading us about what was in it. Yet they are still convinced, or at least trying to convince us, that this gigantic addition to the cost of government and health care is a good thing for the country. How? I don't know. I can't see anything that's good about it any longer. The good intention to fix the system no longer exists in the enforcement. It is not fixing the system, it is making it worse, it seems to me.
I applauded Obama for bringing health reform to the forefront of national discussion in 2008-09. To broach the subject was laudable, but it was only a start. Yes, the intent to fix health care was noble. But the approach? It was not just bad, but to me it was, and is, disturbing. It is the way Democrats handled it from the beginning, all but cutting out Republicans and others (maybe they included socialists and the Green Party), and the resulting law, that has been calamitous. Three years later it is being trashed by some once-convinced Democrats, leaders of unions and businesses.
In light of national spending negotiations (Sept. 2013), ObamaCare is being defended, breathlessly, by Obama and some other Democratic politicians and sycophantic pundits, as if it's the only thing that'll assure a decent life for millions. Alternately, they claim that the (pick your cowardly labels given by leftists:) racist, poor-hating, greedy, selfish, angry, ignorant, dumb redneck conservatives are trying to destroy the country by way of refusing to fund ObamaCare.
Democrats are accusing GOP House of trying to close government, of ruining the country out of political greed, by defunding the Affordable (not) Care Act. The House is not preventing the funding of anything else, really, but yet the supposedly (self-appointed) "more reasonable" White House and Democrats are accusing House Republicans of horrible political maneuverings. The political selfishness seems truly to be driven, hard, from the left. The far left. The few remaining supporters of ObamaCare on the left.
Meanwhile, even some union leaders, and many employers, rail about how it'll hurt families, because it'll hurt jobs. That, because it will force companies to make cuts to retain their profitability (which doesn't matter to liberals, because many are too dumb to realize that profits should even matter at all to regular Americans).
The briefly all-controlling Democrats -- in early 2010 having the WH, Senate and House they barely passed ACA -- cannot today force us all to follow their bidding. So, the most power-drunk among the Democrats still turn to absurd, desperate rhetoric defending a tragically, pro-socialist, anti-liberty law that would force most employers and employees and the medical industries into a corner, in the long run. They fight for ACA out of ego, not leadership: it is they who will lose if ACA loses funding, therefore loses its place in government. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and more, will all be seen, by more people, as failed leaders when it fails. So as Obama said recently, the argument isn't about the American people. He's leaving one of his biggest concerns out of his discussion of the matter, though. Who's name is on the bill, and who is okay with that? Obama. He is desperate to have a legacy, and Obamacare may be his only big domestic "success." The argument from his side is about retaining greater government control over health care, not about saving the middle class, as he claims it is. His goals may seem to be about American people, but if so, it is a very different America where the government rules with a bureaucratic supremacy. Some citizens foolishly support that. But with such a foolishness, the American Experiment is dying. Liberty is fading. The control of government over greater parts of everyone's lives is succeeding. That's not the America that a freedom pursuing populating wants. So I have to conclude that too many Americans have been lulled into believing government is the solution to their problems. Which, of course, is a pathetic fantasy. But when such fantasies are believed, even partially, we see government expanding its control. People are dreaming that government is a caretaker. I am not asleep with that dream, nor are many others. It's a tough effort to wake others to it. Gotta keep at it.
What else do you need to know but how many initial claims have been proven WRONG? There were the best of intentions, but a terrible approach, in ObamaCare. And the promises have been proven to be a lie. I don't see why it should be funded, and I don't see a reason to even recognize the ridiculous language from the chief architects (and posers) behind ObamaCare. They've lost the war of reason, because all their claims are shown to be lies. Don't fund the damned thing!
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Obama's decision on Syria: just a pragmatic coward's choice?
It shows that Obama wanted the job of president really bad, but he didn't want the WHOLE job. Perhaps he should have hired a stand-in Commander in Chief?
I don't know who talked Obama into facing the Syrian chemical attacks like a leader, but they must be silver-tongued advisers who aren't the peacenik hippy-bred types like Obama and most of those surrounding him.
I cannot imagine he'd have even brought up this idea of a missile attack himself, seeing how painfully long it took him to make his "decision" to act. Such magnificent drama must be going on in that self-adoring head of his: cowardly, academic, hippy-raised, political animal that he is!
It's a rare sight to see him forced to put on "big boy pants" and make some tactical decisions as a leader of a country of great military importance and substance. That's why he should never have been made CiC, but we don't elect presidents to be leaders of our military anymore, do we? We've enjoyed a relative freedom from ominous threats in the U.S. since WW II -- no matter what you think of Sept, 11, 2001. And it seems, even despite any concerns over terrorists, the impact has been so indirect that we are electing overzealous camp counselors (or professional campaigners, if you prefer), rather than experienced leaders of substance. Or, so the election of Obama twice would suggest.
This Syrian decision, slow-roasted as it was, suggests something at a broader level. It shows what a comparatively spoiled, entitled, isolated, coddled, misinformed, blissfully ignorant population can do to muddle up, through elections, a very free country, despite having options otherwise. It appears that, in the U.S., the slight majority of active voters are mainly interested in yet even greater domestic comforts (read: petty, selfish interests) compared to the citizens of much of the world. Consider such delusions in the US as a "fairness" doctrine or the silly notion that safety can be guaranteed by "gun-free zones." People who uphold such ideas are not interested in choosing leaders who wish to deal with the planet as it is, which is a "law of the wild" place. This world can be cruelly hierarchical (far worse in other countries than in the US), ruled by a specific pack of elites, with many peoples without basic liberty, many governments of tyrants, nations packed with populations who have deeply broken and haggard lives. People who dream of even being among the poor in America are all over the world.
This Syrian chemical weapons attack response decision-making drama shows that we elected a president who is only a political animal, and who is a mere government bureaucrat at heart, and a coward (where leadership is concerned, not where campaigning is concerned). This Syrian response shows that Obama wanted the job of president really bad, but he didn't want the WHOLE job. Perhaps he should have hired a stand-in Commander in Chief?
We elected Obama twice to be Commander in Chief. But, not really, because the duty of CiC doesn't really matter to his voters, it seems. The Coddler in Chief is more their style, maybe. Whoever is the star of the news and gets on magazine covers matters. To hell with substance, right? Well, no, actually, but it is what's important to the uninformed problem children of society. It seems they are topping the voter rolls.
It is stunning to me how the majority of voters would prefer to choose the lying rhetoric that feeds their delusions about domestic bliss rather than taking ownership of themselves and letting this robust nation be the caretaker that fights the tyrants of the planet. What's worse, the domestic bliss Obama has been peddling isn't working out either, is it? Unemployment, race relations and other issues are not improving under him.
Don't let anyone give you killing bin Laden as an example of Obama's brass. He just signed the paper and then shamelessly used the epic military covert action for himself, politically, like any coward would use others' heroism to prop themselves up. Some were even impressed by Obama's swagger after bin Laden's death. Fellow cowards.
Obama will likely use the missile action against Syria the same way he used SEAL Team Six. He will use it the way someone unaccustomed to being a leader would use such an action: for political advantage.
GUN CONTROL PATROL: so now it's only about "expanded background checks"?
Obama says it's all about "expanded background checks" now. (Facebook post)
GUN CONTROL PATROL - Suddenly it's all about "expanded background checks"?
This started as nothing short of a call for complete gun registration, a ban (or, witch hunt, mostly by Democrat nitwits) on rifles only because they LOOKED like military guns, and a severe limit on magazine capacity of 7 rounds in a handgun. (Here's one hilariously obvious thing non gun owners, and blissfully uninformed "leaders" in Congress, might not know: most non-revolver handguns today hold 8 or more rounds, so this was either a clown posse from the start (idiot kings trying look responsive after a tragedy), or it was an attempt by snakes leading doleful mice to the nest (cynical attempt to ban virtually all handguns, or require customization of virtually every gun, or magazine, out there).
A retired police chief wrote an op/ed, just after Sandy Hook occurred, saying the FIRST THING we should do in response to Sandy Hook is repeal the 2nd Amendment (#2A on Twitter). The first thing! An anti-Constitutionalist sissy with a law enforcement badge (must've sucked working for him, unless you thought as simply as him). Of course, he is not alone, as a search of the Internet would show. Didn't hear anyone from the White House reacting to that insanity. So what? Well, this self-interested, blame-gaming, absent-minded professor in the White House had a beer summit after a minor misunderstanding in Cambridge, Mass. But Obama can't react to an op/ed, or other rants, insisting we repeal the 2nd Amendment? His, and the Justice Department's, silence on these few calls to end 2A is deafening. The clowns are running the circus. They are not in charge of it all, thankfully, as shown by this fall back from demanding gun registration and gun and magazine bans, to a call for broader background checks. The typical, supportive DailyKos readers of the world are not controlling the rest of us (their numbers are far too small).
This change in priorities by the anti-gun brigade in August shows the regrouping, behind their lines, of the cynical power ploy that's standard by the nastily control- and power-hungry Democratic leadership today. They will grab for it all in moments of upset or advantage - as they did with ObamaCare - and retreat if they must, as they had to with gun control. But they are going to instead slowly work their way back to that big goal, which is centralized control of anything possible to wrench control of, weakening states and creating a stronger federation run from DC, all the while insisting it isn't about control, but doing what's better for every individual.
So to them and their supporters it makes sense that a massive federal bureaucracy can offer more attention to individuals than individuals can on their own? Or that a centralized, Soviet-like state can care better for everyone than several somewhat sovereign states? That's what the Democratic Party political idea is today. Not democratic at all, but socialistic. Like, the Borg, from Star Trek, if the term Soviet makes you think of Stalin and Lenin too much and hurts your feelings. No matter, is that such a good idea?
I'll take my government in SMALL DOSES, just as the US Constitution demands, thanks.
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
GUN CONTROL PATROL - Suddenly it's all about "expanded background checks"?
This started as nothing short of a call for complete gun registration, a ban (or, witch hunt, mostly by Democrat nitwits) on rifles only because they LOOKED like military guns, and a severe limit on magazine capacity of 7 rounds in a handgun. (Here's one hilariously obvious thing non gun owners, and blissfully uninformed "leaders" in Congress, might not know: most non-revolver handguns today hold 8 or more rounds, so this was either a clown posse from the start (idiot kings trying look responsive after a tragedy), or it was an attempt by snakes leading doleful mice to the nest (cynical attempt to ban virtually all handguns, or require customization of virtually every gun, or magazine, out there).
A retired police chief wrote an op/ed, just after Sandy Hook occurred, saying the FIRST THING we should do in response to Sandy Hook is repeal the 2nd Amendment (#2A on Twitter). The first thing! An anti-Constitutionalist sissy with a law enforcement badge (must've sucked working for him, unless you thought as simply as him). Of course, he is not alone, as a search of the Internet would show. Didn't hear anyone from the White House reacting to that insanity. So what? Well, this self-interested, blame-gaming, absent-minded professor in the White House had a beer summit after a minor misunderstanding in Cambridge, Mass. But Obama can't react to an op/ed, or other rants, insisting we repeal the 2nd Amendment? His, and the Justice Department's, silence on these few calls to end 2A is deafening. The clowns are running the circus. They are not in charge of it all, thankfully, as shown by this fall back from demanding gun registration and gun and magazine bans, to a call for broader background checks. The typical, supportive DailyKos readers of the world are not controlling the rest of us (their numbers are far too small).
This change in priorities by the anti-gun brigade in August shows the regrouping, behind their lines, of the cynical power ploy that's standard by the nastily control- and power-hungry Democratic leadership today. They will grab for it all in moments of upset or advantage - as they did with ObamaCare - and retreat if they must, as they had to with gun control. But they are going to instead slowly work their way back to that big goal, which is centralized control of anything possible to wrench control of, weakening states and creating a stronger federation run from DC, all the while insisting it isn't about control, but doing what's better for every individual.
So to them and their supporters it makes sense that a massive federal bureaucracy can offer more attention to individuals than individuals can on their own? Or that a centralized, Soviet-like state can care better for everyone than several somewhat sovereign states? That's what the Democratic Party political idea is today. Not democratic at all, but socialistic. Like, the Borg, from Star Trek, if the term Soviet makes you think of Stalin and Lenin too much and hurts your feelings. No matter, is that such a good idea?
I'll take my government in SMALL DOSES, just as the US Constitution demands, thanks.
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
While polls find King's 'Dream' is elusive, so are commonsense attitudes about racism
Check out this quote from a recent Pew Research finding on race in America (under the heading King's Dream Remains an Elusive Goal... ). I make a few points in reaction to it, and the circular problem of misusing racism in today's America:
Incarceration. Black men were more than six times as likely as white men in 2010 to be incarcerated in federal and state prisons, and local jails, the last year complete data are available. That is an increase from 1960, when black men were five times as likely as whites to be incarcerated.
SIX TIMES as likely?! Some want to call that racism. They are FOOLS of the highest order. Or, sad, piteous, willing victims of narrow-minded suspicions.
The disparity of prison time for whites versus blacks is about as much to do with race bias as someone being overweight has to do with food being advertised on TV. Not to mock actual racism, but those blame, the victimhood, and the paranoia that surrounds so much allegations of racism. That is: one's weight is about them, not food ads.
With criminal incarceration, it is about people being criminals, not some grand scheme to "keep them down." Racism exists, light and hard, but to run to it every time there's a philosophical or physical scuffle is a cycle of failure. That's not to minimize the matter, when facts prove racism had a hand in some event, but unreasonable aspersions ought not to be batched in with actual racist activities. Paranoia and habitual distrust isn't a reliable source for social change.
Committing crime and going to prison is a problem that cannot be solved through blame, racial or otherwise, but through improving one's plight. That's not easy, or simple, when one is steeped in a culture of victimhood, self-pity, misleading heroes, and a habit of blaming others for your problems. Changing the response of those who cry victim when it's not the case is what will change such a disparity as this prison one, not crazed claims of rampant racism in the courts.
Such lashing out is a cycle of failure, whether it is about racism or any other suspicion of being wronged. There is an understandable lingering sense of betrayal, frustration and anger in impoverished or dysfunctional communities, but that does not prove systemic racism.
How can getting jailed for committing a crime be racist, certainly to such an overwhelming degree, without it being proven as more than a mere suspicion? These claims amount to claims of having seen Bigfoot, though. Sometimes there is racial problems, but often, it's something else. You cannot call someone a racist for jailing a black criminal -- unless they let white criminals go SIX TIMES for every black criminal, for the same crime. Is this happening? Where's the exposés on that today?
Are we to all damn our lying eyes with regard to race and racial biases, or racial hypocrisy? I hope we can recover MLK's dream, but it won't be easy while people insist on pointing the finger, like stabbing their sword at imaginary dragons.
Let freedom ring, indeed. And let REASON reign!
- See the findings and comments by Pew Research: King's Dream Remains an Elusive Goal
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Ten years on, I regret its start, but I love what could have been in Iraq
We toppled Saddam Hussein, and he was found in a spider hole. He was tried, and hanged.
How dare we, huh? I guess Iraqis would have been better off if nobody died but the hundreds of thousands who would have died at bequest of the maniacal psychopath Saddam Hussein.
Or, is it only that tender-footed Americans would be better off had we not engaged his deadly dictatorship?
It was upsetting and offensive to me and many that the invasion happened over what proved to be bad intelligence. No matter the political or overemotional regard or hatred for Bush and his team, the bad intel stung him, and America. But once you're in, you're in.
Bush and his team knew, while America in general is afraid to accept it, that the only way to change a place in the Middle East is to look after it for an entire generation to prevent another brutal dictatorship. But we don't care enough to hold out that long, do we? Time to shut up and do your best, once you're in, though. And so many did their best, and, yes, many died in the pursuit of more freedom in the world, hardly meaningless despite what some cowards have said against the effort in Iraq.
So Bush wanted people to die? He enjoys death? Yes, the left is certain of it. Rumsfeld is EVIL, just like Cheney and Bush. Who cares that we toppled the most evil, imperialist bastard of his region?
Hussein kept his country in order, I recall several cowardly, halfwitted people noting, their apparent reason to regret our invasion. Like pinning a butterfly to a cork board keeps the insect in order, Hussein kept things in order. We should have let it be, those who demonize Bush suggest either directly, or indirectly. I guess these Middle Eastern furr-nurs are abstractions to some living the good life (whatever their intelligence or economic level) in the United States of America, huh?
- jR
(revised, July 2013)
How dare we, huh? I guess Iraqis would have been better off if nobody died but the hundreds of thousands who would have died at bequest of the maniacal psychopath Saddam Hussein.
Or, is it only that tender-footed Americans would be better off had we not engaged his deadly dictatorship?
It was upsetting and offensive to me and many that the invasion happened over what proved to be bad intelligence. No matter the political or overemotional regard or hatred for Bush and his team, the bad intel stung him, and America. But once you're in, you're in.
Bush and his team knew, while America in general is afraid to accept it, that the only way to change a place in the Middle East is to look after it for an entire generation to prevent another brutal dictatorship. But we don't care enough to hold out that long, do we? Time to shut up and do your best, once you're in, though. And so many did their best, and, yes, many died in the pursuit of more freedom in the world, hardly meaningless despite what some cowards have said against the effort in Iraq.
So Bush wanted people to die? He enjoys death? Yes, the left is certain of it. Rumsfeld is EVIL, just like Cheney and Bush. Who cares that we toppled the most evil, imperialist bastard of his region?
Hussein kept his country in order, I recall several cowardly, halfwitted people noting, their apparent reason to regret our invasion. Like pinning a butterfly to a cork board keeps the insect in order, Hussein kept things in order. We should have let it be, those who demonize Bush suggest either directly, or indirectly. I guess these Middle Eastern furr-nurs are abstractions to some living the good life (whatever their intelligence or economic level) in the United States of America, huh?
- jR
(revised, July 2013)
Abortion Horror: Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Major News Story
The Atlantic (where I read pieces of an article, linked below), USA Today (commentary, linked below), National Journal, for examples, and much of the conservative media are addressing the story of the Phillie mad doctor who essentially killed babies if they didn't die during late -term abortions. Not only that, he allegedly killed patients getting abortions, too.
While most conservatives are known as against abortion, certainly against abortion as a form of birth control, this story of Dr. Kermit Gosnell has little to do with the eerie media blackout on this horrid tale: this story goes beyond the abortion issue. Far beyond.
Web-only media are reporting this horrific story, too. But while standard-bearers for the common man's news have no problem skewing news against conservatives and skewering conservative views even on pretty lame evidence sometimes, they ignore this story. Why?
What's wrong with "mainstream media"? They are cliquish, posing, sheep. But some folks deep in the media business are noticing and worrying about it.
The rest of the half-blind leftist media can try to bring this horrific manner with which to control population and subvert sexual irresponsibility with an awful act of depravity, but they have already proven -- added another sample into the list -- that they are not reporting relevant news, but trying to lead society to a direction that suits them, the liberal, poorly engaged, weakly objective media elite.
Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Major News Story - Yahoo! News
Also see Powers' piece, subtitled "We've forgotten what belongs on Page One."
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
While most conservatives are known as against abortion, certainly against abortion as a form of birth control, this story of Dr. Kermit Gosnell has little to do with the eerie media blackout on this horrid tale: this story goes beyond the abortion issue. Far beyond.
Web-only media are reporting this horrific story, too. But while standard-bearers for the common man's news have no problem skewing news against conservatives and skewering conservative views even on pretty lame evidence sometimes, they ignore this story. Why?
What's wrong with "mainstream media"? They are cliquish, posing, sheep. But some folks deep in the media business are noticing and worrying about it.
Conor Friedersdorf wrote a long piece about it, that I stumbled across, for The Atlantic and National Journal. I cannot stand to read the great detail he goes into. It stirs me into an internal rage while skimming what he's presented. But I found the following, well into the long article, and thought it suited sharing because I think it locks in my feelings about this story and the media's failure with it:
Says Kirsten Powers in her USA Today op-ed, "Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams intoned, 'A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh,' as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed -- a major human rights story if there ever was one -- doesn't make the cut."Well done, non-sheep media folks.
The rest of the half-blind leftist media can try to bring this horrific manner with which to control population and subvert sexual irresponsibility with an awful act of depravity, but they have already proven -- added another sample into the list -- that they are not reporting relevant news, but trying to lead society to a direction that suits them, the liberal, poorly engaged, weakly objective media elite.
Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Major News Story - Yahoo! News
Also see Powers' piece, subtitled "We've forgotten what belongs on Page One."
- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)