Syria

I've been thinking about Syria lately, and wondering what kind of a shitstorm we're getting into this time.

I understand that the use of chemical weapons is not a nice thing.  I also understand that this is not the first time.  Further, I believe that it is not certain whether there actually was an attack, or some numbskull on one side or the other just mishandled the stuff and it went off.

However, I do know this - in Syria they are fighting a civil war, which means Syrians are fighting Syrians. Since they look alike, I don't know how to tell who is on what side, or even whether there are only two sides, or even what they are fighting about (although I am sure someone doesn't like someone else is at the core of it.)

So let's think about it.  Syria has Syrians fighting Syrians.  No interlopers, no outsiders - just the folks that would be there anyhow.

The Current Occupant of the place called the White House thinks that the Syrians should be taught a lesson to reinforce that the use of chemical weapons is Not Nice. He thinks we should throw some ordnance at them, probably a couple of cruise missiles. Now, as far as I know, a cruise missile cannot tell a Syrian from a Syrian - come to think of it, neither can I.  How are we to tell these cruise missiles which Syrians it should spank and which it should not?

Interestingly, most of our European allies are not at all interested in helping us in this foolishness, with the exception of France.  That alone should make one wonder - nothing all that great has come from France in many years, and they are busily ceding much of France to Shariah Law - maybe they need to distract their folks from that, just as our current Occupant would distract us from Benghazi.

In any event, I can see nothing good coming out of our indiscriminate bombing of Syrians when we've no means to tell if the bombs will be falling on the Syrians we do not like or on the Syrians we do like. I have to believe that bombing the hell out of the folks we do like will not leave them kindly disposed to us, and will give the folks we don't like more reason to not like us.

Sounds to me like a no-win. The Current Occupant assures us none of our people will have to actually Go Into Syria - but if we do not have boots on the ground there, how will we tell the effectiveness of those expensive cruise missiles?

I think we ought to let Allah sort it out, and when it get quiet in Syria again, see who won (it will be the Syrians of course) then make nice ((or not)) with the folks who appear to have come out on top, knowing full well that, at least in appearance, they won't look a damn bit different from those who came out on the bottom.

I would still like to know how to tell a Syrian we like from one whom we do not like.  Anyone out there have any ideas?

Boycott

If some business does something that does not please you, it is your perfect right not to spend your money there.  If you feel strongly about how wrong that business is, tell your friends and ask them to go elsewhere with their money.

Don't think that, because you a mayor or something that that gives you imperial power to decide that that business cannot do business where you are.  Simple disagreement over something does not grant permission to deny folks around you access to a business.  If the majority does not like the business, it will go away when there are no profits to be made.

It is also not your right physically to impede the flow of customers.  Picket if you must, shout slogans, behave in a manner guaranteed to disgust most folks but stay out of their way.  You can complain and demonstrate, but you can't impede.  If you are right, others will join you.  If the business has a better day for your presence it is a good bet that you're on the wrong track.

The week's nonsense about Chick-fil-A started all this - and it seems it gave the place lots of business, indicating that a goodly number of folks either like what they make or disagree with the atheists that did not want to hear what the founder had to say - or maybe both.

Just because you have a different viewpoint does not give you permission to try to destroy the persons or business with whom you disagree.  You might try being nice - they might listen to you.  Get in their faces, and all you'll get is a bunch of angry people facing you.

The simple fact is that many are offended by the mere though of someone's being a devout Christian. That is unfortunate, but it is a fact, however it does not confer upon the hater blanket permission to revile, persecute, attempt to damage or otherwise hinder the Christian - although if you do so he might pray for you.  \

You are free to say that he contributes to organizations for which you have no use.  He is likewise free to say the same about you, although he probably will not.  There are lots of Christians around,'t likely to convert many to your way of thinking, and you are likely to get really irritated and generally pissy about your failure, so why not find some other rope to push?

You can be a Christian, a Jew, a Mormon, a Unitarian, a Buddhist, a Seventh Day Adventist, a Jehova's Witness, an agnostic (I do not believe in atheists - they make too much noise about what they believe, and anyhow almost everyone knows at least which church from which they are staying away) a Daoist, or just about anything else and we can talk about things in general, or our differences without becoming shrewish and strident.

I've never eaten at Chick-fil-A - but after the past few days I just might have to - to support folks who don't weasel-word things, but tell the truth when asked questions in spite of the fact there may be backlash.  Honesty is underrated these days, and it is a damn shame.

"Illegal Immigrant"

This is a term that really gets my goat.

Consider, if you will, that an immigrant is a person who gets here having followed a prescribed set of steps, during which process he learns about the nation, about its history, about its government, its language, customs - in short enough to blend in and assimilate.

When you put illegal in front of immigrant, suddenly it makes no sense - because immigrant is a legal thing to be and how does one become an illegal legal person?

It is just another attempt by so-called progressives to confuse us.  The proper term is "Illegal Alien" which makes sense, because we accept aliens too - provided they do a few things, like let us know they are here.

Illegal Aliens are Invaders.

Why not call them what they are?

I'm really tired of having to wait through the Spanish questions on ATM's to get to the language used here.  I think speaking other languges is neat and useful - I've learned several myself - but here we use English.

I also have that folks talk about me in other languages assuming I'm too stupid or ill-educated to know what they're doing.  When I do know, I call them something obscene in their own language as I leave the room - when I don't, I attempt to join the conversation using one of the languages I have learned. It is truly amazing how quickly hispanics have their English improve when I start talking to them in low German.  I can usually remember enough Spanish from almost 55 years ago to put together a good sentence stating that I don't like speaking Spanish when nothing else works.

Folks that come here should come here to be here - not to recreate there - if there was really so great, then whythehell did you leave?

New York

I haven't written here for some time, and probably should sleep on this one before I get yelled at, but somehow this time I just can't keep my big mouth (fat fingers?) shut (in my pockets?)

New York now makes gay marriage legal.

I have a problem with the word "gay" as used here - the word used to have a meaning, something like happy or joyous - now it no longer means just that, and I have to be careful where and how I say it lest I be misunderstood.  Words mean things, or anyhow they did when I was young, naive and stupid.

So let's make it clear for old idjits like me - New York has now changed its law to make marriage between two persons of the same sex legal.  Or anyhow, they are calling the social uniting of two people of the same sex a marriage.

"Marriage" just joined "Gay" in the list of words that no longer has meaning.  For thousands of years I knew what it meant - now I am no longer sure.

I asked a dear friend why another word could not have been chosen to indicate a state like matrimony, but different in that it did not join two people of opposite sexes, could not have a reasonable expectation of procreation, and was an evolutionary dead end within one generation.

What I got was resoundingly denounced as old, meanspirited, sexist, prejudiced, and even probably wishing to keep people of color enslaved.  All this for asking a question....

And I don't see any parallel at all with the old issue of miscegenation - after all, the union involved a man and a woman - the so-called race issue was one trumped up to keep a minority convinced it was a minority in terms of value (about which I'll have more to say later....)

Two men cannot reproduce without the intervention of a third party who is not a man.  Does this mean that two homosexual men should become the object of a woman's polyandrous affections?  I thought the idea was to keep the women out of the males' lives - but they can't reproduce without a woman, so they are going against themselves - where's the fun in that? And how can someone who would scorn the 97% of the population as "Breeders" lower himself/herself (itself?) to couple with a person so obviously inferior or disgusting?

Then I thought about two women having the same problem - in order to reproduce, there has to be a man somewhere - leading to the spectre of a polygynous relationship for the man - when the two women involved want nothing at all to do with men; they have to involve a man or the "race" dies out within one generation.

There was an article in Town Hall this morning, Marriage Cannot Be Redefined that caused me to start to think about this again, and stirred in me the realization that it's a game, and the only end to the game has no words having anything like a meaning we all know.  Kinda like the Red Queen (in "Alice") - "A word means what I choose it to mean, no more and no less!" - except in the case of gay marriage, there are as many red queens as there are marriages, so the word is reduced to a state of meaninglessness.

I don't know the answer, but I do know that, for me anyhow, there is an intrinsic wrongness in allowing 3% of the population to cause a word that had meaning to the other 97% suddenly to become meaningless to that other 97% of the population.  We invent new words all the time - why not here?

The distortion is such that it makes noise in my head - almost as if I had a pet cat, which died, so I got a pet skunk, but insisted on calling it a cat even though a deep breath would convince anyone that it was not a cat - except for myself who is sure that it is a cat - it has four legs, claws and a tail - must be a cat, right?

Call the simile ridiculous if it pleases you, but think about it - is it any less strange than calling a marriage "the same" as what used to be a marriage when it now is supposed not to care about the sex of either partner?

I'll probably have more to mutter about this; right now what I see before us is madness - a tower of Babel, if you will, brought to us by the so-called Progressive People, who will not rest until every word we have ever relied upon to have meaning and to help us make decisions is rendered devoid of meaning.

I have spoken (written?)!

Political Ads

These are getting really vicious.  I watched one last night by the O'Malley camp, aimed at Bob Erlich - accusing him of things not germane to being a governor.

He stands accused of making money by working for a lobbying firm.  He's a lawyer; that's what they do, and there is no dishonor inherent in doing this. Were O'Malley not the governor, he's a lawyer too and lawyers need to make money - does anyone have any doubt that he'd take the opportunity that offered him the most?

An issue is made of how much Erlich is alleged to have made - this is nobody's business, and has no relationship to how he would govern - it is a blatant appeal to class warfare. O'Malleys wife is a judge - has anyone aked what she makes?

O'Malley tries to take credit for a reduction in crime - actually the reduction occurred because of excellent police work.  When O'Malley was mayor, he was constantly interfering in the running of the police department - even to the point of putting his own people in office within the department to report to him via a back channel about what was going on.

I don't know what Ehrlich would do - I do know that O'Malley's campaign is getting muddier by the minute, only serving to reinforce my conviction that, in the next election, if it is an incumbent, throw it out!

Wikileaks

Frankly, I think that this is not a really appropriate thing to be doing - some things are secret for a good reason.

It is interesting to note that WikiLeaks, by exposig the latest bunch of documents, has shown that many of the lies that George Bush was accused of telling turned out to be truths.

I wonder how long it'll take the media to report on THAT little item....

"Illegal Immigrants"

First of all, these two words ought never to appear together - the create noise, because an immigrant is someone who comes here legally, goes through all the paperwork and testing.  Anything else is not an immigrant, it is an invader.  I don't know why this is so hard to understand.


Most of us have ancestors who came from elsewhere and did what was required to stay here legally. After doing that, they became a part of the nation - they did not insist upon recreating that from which they came - if what they left was what they wanted, why did they leave?

Believe it or not, we here in the USA have a culture of our own - and folks that come here should come prepared to become a part of the culture - bringing things from their own culture to add in, but not expecting to lift their culture whole and bring it along. 

Start with learning the language - American English is what is used here, and it is not reasonable to expect others to accommodate to new arrivals.  We can try, to be nice - but to expect forms and such to be made available in any language besides English is to expect them to be made available in all 170 or so languages that folks from else where may have arrived speaking - and that is just not a reasonable expectation.

I hear about folks who oppose Arizona's attempt to enforce what is already federal law - how evil and inhumane it is.  Has anyone bothered to see how Mexico treats illegals?  Has anyone read the requirements to enter Mexico with an expectation of staying?  We are in the process of relearning lessons Germany learned in the 60's with its Gastarbeiter program, which lessons include just how much of a drain it can be for folks to send money out of the country.

Anyhow, whatthehell's the point of being a citizen when anyone can walk across a border and get all the benefits of citizenship at the expense of those who belong here?  I have no plan to adapt to folks who don't belong here.  I'd like to help them if they actually want to be here - but if the reason to come here is to send money out of the country and to try to make it into a mirror of what they left, then include me out.  I've loved other places, and am here because those other places could not hold me.

And now I hear some states want aliens to be able to vote!  What's up with that?  I couldn't vote when I lived in Germany, I wouldn't be able to vote in Mexico, I doubt they'd even let me into Saudi Arabia - I don't think we owe anyone who won't even observe convention anything.

Call me islamophobic if it pleases you.

Mosques at Ground Zero redux...

I can think of a way that I could support the mosque at Ground Zero.

Since the primary source of funds for this endeavor is Saudi Arabia, it seems to be that building a synagogue in Saudi Arabia's capital city, along with a Catholic cathedral and a Christian megachurch, and disavowing harrassment thereof would be a start.

But what would really convince me would be Teheran signing up for the same three religious edifices and the same disavowal.

What's that you say, don't hold my breath?

I won't, and I don't expect any of it to happen - which is why I say that I might support the mosque at Ground Zero - when pigs fly out of my arse!

Congress

Several years back, a mistake was made by Congress.

Originally, the House of Representatives was intended to be the representation for the people.  Theoretically, it still is, although I believe it's more an old boys club, where the primary purpose of the inhabitants is to stay there by promising whatever folks want to be promised, usually at someone else's expense.

The Senate, however, was intended to be representation for the various states - and Senators were chosen by the legislators of the various states - insuring that the interests of those states were represented, and that no state was more equal than any other state.  Since we are not a pure democracy, but a constitutional representative republic, the states have a responsibility to the voters of their own representatives in whatever bodies the states hold to be legislative - and the state as a body has responsibility to itself and to its inhabitants at the federal level to have the interests of the state represented when legislation is being made that affects the state as a corporate body.  Senators were to be answerable to the state legislatures, not to the states' individual voters.

By making senators popularly elected we have effectively removed from them any responsibility to represent the state as a corporate entity - they now depend on their popularity with Joe SixPax to get elected rather than the works they have done in behalf of the state legislature.  The interests of the states are thereby not being served.

I think that this is wrong, and I think it should be reversed.  What it represents at present is an excuse for states to ignore whatever duties they may have, to defer to the Federal Government in all matters and, ultimately, to create for all of us one huge Federal state, which we will all hate.

My opinion, folks.

Rights

This particular rant is a long time coming, but (IMHO) relevant.

There's a bunch of discussion today about rights, legisation of and about rights, and the granting of rights.

Let's understand one thing - rights aren't granted, they simply are.  Anything a government, organization or person grants to you is at best a privilege, subject to removal.  Rights preexist governments.

Rights cannot be legislated - if they could, they could be legislated away. If what you may do can be legislated away by your government, you are not a citizen, you're a subject whose very life exists at the whim of someone else.

The Constitution does not either create or legislate rights.  What it does is to recognize that rights exist, and they existed before its writing and acceptance.

Congress cannot grant you a right.  The President cannot grant you a right.  Not even the Constitution can grant you a right, although it can and does recognize rights that already exist.

Anything granted is at best a privilege - and they can be taken away.


Pay attention - this is important, because people who want to tell you what to do will try to convince you that they are creating new rights for you, and they're not - they're creating privileged groups - and theise groups can become non-privileged just as soon as they start to become uppity.

Illegal Immigrants

A more meaningless juxtaposition of words I have never seen.

Think about it - Immigrants are people from other nations who get in line, obey the rules, jump through the hoops that this nation requires for immigrant status.  Immigrants are de jure and defacto legal.

Illegal Aliens are folks from other nations who just bust in and take what they want, secure in the knowledge that we'll put up with it.  Well, I know too many who stood in like and are still standing in line that have more potential to be of benefit to this great nation,  Folks who jump the line and don't obey the rules should be run out of town on a rail.  More members of the criminal class we do not need - and an illegal alien, because it refuses to follow the rules is a criminal.

It's pretty simple to me. I'm sorry that Mexico feels that we are being discriminatory by insisting on a set of immigration rules far less draconian than those which Mexico imposes on outsiders who would live there.  Furthermore, I am astounded that the Mexican Government has the stones to complain that our returning their illegals is putting a strain on their infrastructure - that is not our fault!

I'm gonna have more to say, but this is probably enough for tonight.  I have a bunch backed up since February - and some of it ain't pretty!

Arizona

I've been thinking about all the hooraw about Arizona's law with respect to illegal aliens.


I know how to make sure that there can be no charges of profiling.

Just make sure that everyone who interacts with police at any time are asked for papers.  If everyone has to do it, there can be no discrimination.  I am accustomed to being asked for ID in a traffic stop, and I'm a native-born old fat bearded white guy - no profiling there, although I do ride a motorcycle, so maybe I can make a case for profiling after all?  I guess not - more damn trouble than it is worth.

I think Eric Holder needs replaced with someone who can read who doesn't hate white folks.

But that's just my opinion, folks.  Meanwhile, I applaud Arizona, and regret that I work for a city that can't meet its obligation to its inhabitants but does advertise itself as a Sanctuary City - no damn wonder they can't pay their bills!

State of the Union

Our President has been with us for a year.

I didn't vote for him, although I had hopes for him.

He has managed to dash all hopes that I had. In its simplest form, he lies.

He apparently thinks we proles have no memory, and that we don't know that he promised to air debate on (among other things) health care.  This did not happen.

He promised bipartisan efforts, then shut out the opposing party, saying "I won!"

He promised that the Constitution would be uppermost - then appointed Czars to do things not constitutional, effectively nationalized industries, gathered up a crew of hangers-on in high offices for which offices the first requisite seemed to be having failed to pay taxes.  You and I would end up in jail for such silliness - his buds get high-visibility well-paid jobs - which pay comes form us proles.

His wife has hired more assistants than the past 20 presidents' wives have found either needed or useful - all of which are paid, you guessed it, by us.

He makes generals wait - not a good thing, and gets troops killed just by doing nothing.

He believes we are all too stupid to breathe unassisted, and that there is not a question that he has not heard so he has all the answers - and all the answers involve growing government.  He fails to understand that Government produces no profit, and sucks the life out of profit-producing organizations by demanding tribute that is used to pay , guess what, more government "workers."

He says no lobbyists will be around to influence anyone, but apparently he meant that no more than all of them will be allowed through the door.

His congress creates libraries of rules for us regarding how health care will be managed, and then exempts itself from those rules. 

It's time to unelect the house of representatives - all of them and get some folks in there who are truly interested in representing the interests of the folks who put them there.

It's also time to return the selection of senators to state legislatures, although I don't think I'll live to see that happen.

I still believe that the Founding Fathers had their heads screwed on straight, and that we tamper with what they devised at our own peril.

/end rant

Shooters, Fanatics and Political Correctness

Am I the only person in the world who finds it odd that our president urges caution, and urges us not to assume anything about the Fort Hopd Shooter, yet he himself went off not even half-cocked at that cop in New England who confronted his pal, mr gates (lowercase purely intentional)?

What am I failing to understand.

First of all, if ever there should have been a backlash against American Muslims, it should have been about the day after 9/11 - and it didn't happen. Unlike some folks in other places in the world, we do not permit ourselves the luxury of mob rule, and the American Muslims among us are far more likely to be good Americans than they are to be Jihadisti.

Does anyone else recognize the irony in a guy who is born in the USA of Jordanian parents calling himself a Palestinian? There's a red flag right there that got ignored for too long.

If there was any doubt about his intent, the choice of weapon (a pistol with magazines up to 30 rounds available, firing ammunition designed to defeat the vests of law enforcement personnel) and location (the place overseas troops go to turn in their weapons) should dispel any doubt about his intentions.

I am naturally suspicious of folks whose primary allegiance is to other than this great nation - particularly those who would be citizens and accept the benefits that that citizenship confers. I am suspicious of those who identify themselves as something else first, and then American. I am not German-American - I am American and if anyone cares my ancestry is German.

I am also suspicious of those who come here and then expect the nation to remake itself in their image. Come on, folks - if the place you left was superior, why did you leave? If, for instance, you consider us to be weak folks and think Sharia law is more appropriate, why did you not seek out a place to land where that is how things are run? Can it be that our ease acceptance of others causes some to think we are weak?

I have lived in other places for extended periods as a consequence of military service - but ultimately I returned home, because I am an American, and being something else required alterations in feelings and custom with which I was not wholly comfortable.

We need not fear unreasoned backlash against any group, but we do need to fear being so politically correct that we are afraid we'll piss someone off. That's cowardice, and it sets our values to whatever outsiders would have, not what we ourselves hold to be true.

Fort Hood was an act of terrorism on American soil. It took advantage of a number of circumstances peculiar to America, and it is time that we stopped trying so damned hard to be 'understanding' and called it what it is, Terrorism. Terrorists are, in my opinion, at their best when three days dead.

Fort Hood

For some time now I have been waiting for a terrorist act on US soil. I think it finally showed up. Now that our leadershit is busy apologizing for us to all the available tyrants and despots, I expect there will be more - the natural result of appeasement and attempts to stall off a confrontation that only gets worse when delayed. Think what you will of George Bush, his actions kept the terrorists offshore - and now that the anti-Bush is in place, the terrorists are assured that if they act the only thing they'll reap will be more apologies and "understanding."

Make no mistake - the Islamic terrorists have only one plan - the elimination of anyone who finds Sharia law to be anything less than ideal. Ladies, get used to being cattle again, because that's how they like it. They are not interested in compromise, and their understanding of understanding is not agreeing to disagree, but capitulation.

One of the things that frightens these folks so about us is that we are a pretty tolerant bunch - they don't understand that folks who have disagreements do not have to kill one another over them. They feel that one of our strengths - the willingness to learn about others and adapt - is a huge weakness, because in the process of thinking there are folks who might be swayed to a point of view other than that with which they grew up - in short, they fear folks who think their own thoughts and are guided by them. They'd rather be surrounded by folks who don't think at all but do what they're told.

In that regard, they have a lot in common with Nancy Pelosi, although she'd be the first to go if they were in charge because, as you know, she is a mere woman, and woman can't be educated and are suitable only to keep the house, do what their husbands decree, make babies and take abuse.

I am no fan of warfare, but I believe that sometimes it is the only thing that works - appeasement only delays it (read the history of the World Wars for a set of good examples of this) but absent a regime change in the recalcitrant nation, appeasement eventually results in devaluing of the mores of the nation doing the appeasing, or its subjugation.

I am also slowly coming around to the belief that one of the qualifications for higher office ought to be prior military service. Most of our leaders today have no understanding of the military, and are inclined to treat it as if it were a gang of thugs, stupid at best. This is not the case and we have been proving since the war in Viet Nam that when the military is run by dithering civilians, people die unnecessarily. We are about to prove it again in Afghanistan - the President dithers, the generals are left holding the bag - insufficient resources, no direction yields dead soldiers who did not need to die. This is unconscionable unless you subscribe to the belief that the military is composed of folks better left out of the breeding pool.

Enough. In summary, I think Fort Hood is only the beginning. I'd like to be wrong. I think our Commander in Chief is in over his head, and innocent soldiers will die. I think that Congress has no credibility at all because they won't subscribe to the health plan they are going to try to force on all of us and won't make their plan available to all of us. I also find it stupid that they will fine us and jail us for not taking their "Health Plan" which will cost more and deliver less than I paid for years buying my own private health insurance.

And, if anyone cares, I did serve. I am a Viet Nam era vet who served four years in the Air Force Security Service.

Have a nice day.

Government Budgeting Problems

I have the good fortune to work in a relatively large city as an employee of the Police Department. This means I fall under civil service, and when the city is running low on money, they give us days off without paying us.

I understand how that happens, and this is not a polemic about the fact that these things are necessary, but it is an expression of wonderment at the procedures used.

Here, there were three levels of furlough for civilians -

1. Earnings up to $50k - 5 furlough days
2. Earnings up to $100k - 8 furlough days
3. Earnings over $100k - 10 furlough days

The days were to be taken whenever, and the deduction, instead of occurring during the cycle in which the days were taken, was spread over the balance of the payroll year.

Someone who thought that the folks in range 1 probably need everything they make, and was more interested in getting a bunch of Fridays off than in getting rich, offered to take those days as added furlough days allowing the other folks whose days he was taking to avoid losing money - and in the process save the city more money, since his pay was in range 2 of the furlough groups.

The offer was made, but it went nowhere. No explanation was offered as to why the city wanted not to take the opportunity to save more money - it just could not be done.

The individual involved did try to do something good for his fellow workers and for the city, and the offer was not even acknowledged, nor was a reason for the impossibility ever offered.

How it can be that a city so troubled that it can't make a payroll without hacking away at the number of days of work its employees has can afford to fail to double the savings in one small area is beyond me - but it did happen just as I describe - I was there.

Free Lunch

I've been watching this health care thing, and have finally had my gutful.

First off, it looks to me like Congress believes that we're either serfs, fit only to be taxed for their giveaways, or perhaps retardates, too stupid to think for ourselves.

In either case, I resent their inferences.

The avowed intention of all too many in congress is to take away from me part of what I work for to give it to someone else. What does that do to my incentive to excel? I can tell you, nothing at all. I can also point to places like what used to be East Germany, what used to be the Soviet Union, among others where the government ran everything. It didn't work well. Maybe everyone (except, of course, the ruling class in the otherwise classless society) got the same gifts, benefits, or accommodations, but they weren't great, and if you wanted better, there was nowhere to go.

The latest incarnation of the Health Care bill has left in it all the crap that turned me off to it at first , to wit:

• The Death Panels (not so named, but it amounts to the same thing - rationing care, and determining by committee (of mostly young folks [which, to me, is anyone under 60])) when the extended care for an elderly person is no longer worth the cost - something which families tend to be able to determine right now
• Forcing insurance companies to take folks that would otherwise not be insurable - I know, this is a kinder, gentler thing - and it is also what is accomplished by open enrollment periods.
• Fining or penalizing anyone who might decide that being uninsured was an acceptable risk. This will impact only us serfs, as the rich guy can afford either to be insured or to pay his own bills.
• Exempting Congress form all the requirements of this 1,990 page document allowing Congress to keep its own superior system for which, of course, we are paying.
• No checks on citizenship before enrollment - which means that some of my money (and yours, too) will go to procure benefits for folks who are not here legally.
• The requirement that benefits be offered by businesses now too small to afford them - which means that some places will close, and some jobs will be lost.
• The absolute refusal to place any limits upon lawyers, even so trivial as to insist that, when they lose they pay the other side's costs, one place that England got something right. Of course, most congresscritters are lawyers, so I guess my surprise is misplaced. The end result will be fewer doctors, and lawyers better paid than the folks with which we would trust our lives.
  

The Current Occupant has the colossal gall to assure us that there will be no added cost to the consumers for all this added "Service" since they'll be killing off medicare waste and fraud - quite probably by redefining what constitutes acceptable quality of life for old folks like myself until we are all dead just before Medicare qualifications allow its use.

This used to be a free nation, where personal responsibility was prized, and a way of life. It is being turned into England, a gimme nation. If I wanted England I'd be there, not here.

When all choices are made for you, they are no longer choices - and you'll learn that thinking about choice is frowned upon, not proper, and antisocial. Is this what you want?

I don't want my money to pay for illegals, regardless how 'kind' it might appear to be. My ancestors played the game as it was defined, waited in line and came here legally. They were poor but they grabbed the opportunities and made better lives. The choice to do this is gradually being taken away from you in the guise of kinder, gentler, caring government.

BOHICA and TANSTAAFL come to mind - principles that are learned in a hard way and once learned generally are learned when it is far too late to fix the root cause.

The way things are going, in another ten years or so this expression of my opinion will likely get me locked up. Think about that, folks.

I'll have more to say later. Meanwhile, I would encourage folks to visit Townhall.com and read at least anything that Thomas Sowell has to say.

BTW - for those that may not recognize my acronyms,

• TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Things As A Free Lunch
• BOHICA - Bend Over Here It Comes Again
• BTW - By The Way

Have a pleasant balance of the diurnal episode.

WE had an inauguration!

This has been an interesting week to work in an interesting place. I work in a police department, and this week we had holidays, new almost-presidents making speeches, crowds downtown to look at the new almost president and (perhaps) listen to what he had to say, and then to wave at him as he got back on the train to Washington, DC.

The next day, Washington, DC turned into a crowd scene worthy of Cecil B. DeMille - and some of our cops were there, including the motorcycle guys. Even with electric suits, I imagine they were plenty cold....

I have been through a number of inaugurations in my life, and I don't recall one so well attended, so well secured, or so flashy. Lots of people, secure in their jobs now for a time had a lot of things to say. Included in those things were glittering generalities, promises that will not be kept, expectations that will never be met, and lots of feel-good stuff, positive-sounding, but somehow giving me at least the feeling that the folks there were determined to look out for me and mine regardless of my wishes, and convinced that they already knew what was best for me and mine regardless what we might happen to think about what they think they know.

I have been distressed about all the time given to a black man who is our next president. I saw a man who was properly elected and frankly, to me, he looks more Arabic than black, and anyhow I had truly hoped that we were beyond the point that simple appearance qualified or disqualified one for higher office.

Now, I am not wholly convinced he was the right choice - but he's there now, and it is part of my job to help him all I can, in whatever way I can to excel - because if he does things well, my life goes well. Nothing like a little enlightened self-interest here. Frankly, I was and remain impressed by Mr. Obama - he is obviously bright, speaks well, does his homework or has good people to do it for him and he listens well to them, and either is sincere or one hell of an actor - and I prefer to believe that he is real.

I don't have a clue what the future holds for the nation as a whole. I'd like to think that it will go on and that we as a people will grow to be better than what we are. In many respects, even though he wasn't my choice, I'm pleased that he was elected - his very election proves that most of us are beyond a particularly ugly point in our history (although I have to tell you, Colin Powell would have had my vote in a New York minute) and that we as a people are growing in understanding and in tolerance (or at least most of us are and that's the best I can hope for.)

So we are once again embarking on an adventure in this great nation. We do this each four years, and I would wager that nobody gets exactly what they want or expect out of the four years that follow - but it will be interesting, educational and occasionally scary and at the end of four years we'll either throw him out or put him back for another four years - and hopes and expectations will be dashed no matter which way it goes because there's no way for one man to deliver on all the promises, particularly once he starts interfacing with legislators who have pork with which to woo votes.

Meanwhile, the nation will muddle through and things will change - sometimes for the better, sometimes not. It has been written that a nation gets the government it deserves and I'd like to think that we're headed for a good patch.

I'm not fond of socialist programs - and in Europe, which apparently some think is the source of all that is good, the folks are finding that socialism costs too much and delivers too little.

I get upset at treating illegals like citizens, particularly when they become thereby entitled to breaks and programs that citizens don't get offered. Maybe I'm old and cynical, but free lunch draws parasites - and Europe has been busily proving it for decades.

I don't believe that we can do anything good about terrorists by appearing weak - and yet that is exactly the posture that many would have us take in its face. That way lies madness. Predators will take a weak victim if available, and terrorists are nothing if not predators - preying only on the helpless, shrinking from anything resembling a fight.

But I have faith that somehow we'll be all right. We live in the best place in the world to be, and it will only get better. And no, I'm not whistling in the dark - if I were, I'd be headed either for Germany or New Zealand.

My misgivings notwithstanding, I think I'll watch a while - I could always get a nice surprise; it wouldn't be the first time, and surely won't be the last. It's what keeps life interesting.

The one thing that is certain is that things will change. Have a nice day, y'all.

Patriot MicroChip

THE PATRIOT MICRO CHIP is intended to be implanted in terrorists. 
 
The implant is specifically designed to be installed in the forehead.

When properly installed it will allow the implantee to speak to God.  

It comes in various sizes.

The exact size of the implant will be selected by a well-trained and highly-skilled technician. The implant may or may not be painless. Side effects, like headaches and nausea are temporary. Some bleeding or swelling may occur at the injection site.

Politics, redux

I have just watched President-elect Barack Obama's victory speech.

I was impressed. Even if he was not my candidate, he will be my president, and there's a lot to the man. His speech was temperate, measured, and had something for everyone present.

The next four years will be interesting. It will be a learning experience for all of us - including the president-elect, and I am confident that he retains the ability to learn.

More history has been made today, yet there is much more to be made.

The system does work, and it is still the best system in the world.

I have to go to sleep - tomorrow is a workday - and sleep I shall.