Applied Reality

Shuffle the Deck, Dealer

2009-03-04T08:34:00.000-08:00

UK's Brown is now talking about a "Global New Deal." I used to think that the "Deal," in FDR's "New Deal" meant "a bargain or arrangement for mutual advantage," or, "situation" -- as in "What's the deal?"

I realize now that it is meant literally as "a new deal of the cards". A new distribution: of wealth and favor, with the government being the dealer -- the source. This is the poison that the Left peddles -- the idea that the State is the source of wealth and our best interests lie in competing for those handouts. This is as opposed to the conservative view which knows that wealth is created by the self-interested efforts of individuals (AKA the Private Sector). What is the motivation for productivity when the more you produce the more you are punished (taxed), and the less you produce the more you are given?

"From each according to his ability -- to each according to his need." A recipe for failure -- tried, and tried again with always the same result. But surely, not THIS time...

Safe Haven Unsafe for Society

2008-11-20T16:36:00.000-08:00

Can one ask for a better example of liberalism gone amok? Metaphorically, our coal mine canary has fainted and fallen off the perch. The recent news about Nebraska's so-called Safe Haven law, through which parents have legally abandoned children as old as 15, reveals the true nature of liberal "change" and "progressive" tinkering with societal norms. Change, change, change! Americans voted in the candidate for Change. Well, we've got it now. Nebraska has abandoned the enforcement of a parent's responsibility to their own child. No risk to society there...

I am old enough to remember the "bad ol'" pre-feminist '60s. It seems that every sitcom had an episode -- Dick Van Dyke for example -- in which the couple discovered or thought that their marriage was somehow invalid and hence their child was illegitimate. As a child I knew from the look of horror on Laura Petrie's face that this a BAD THING. Funny how things change.

I am not a professional journalist with access to Lexus-Nexus, so I'm going to have to reach back here into the past with only the aid of my memory. I recall it was about 20 years ago that there was much talk about the plight of poor unwed mothers. Society's shunning of these poor victims was said to be cruel. They needed financial help from the tax payer pocket book, and the reigning in of an unenlightened public's judgementalism regarding these girl's life choices and predicament. A little legislative magic... Presto Change-O! Done! Problem cured. Hmmm... Or not.

Once it became economically and socially feasible to be an unwed mother, why, of course there was an explosion in their ranks. Was that really so hard to predict? Well apparently it is for liberals. Today it seems de rigueur for poor teenage black girls to be unwed mothers. Today we have "Baby Mommas." Are there anymore black female contestants on American Idol that aren't baby mommas?

Given a large population of immature, irresponsible people weighed down with the millstone of an infant, and without a strong cultural ethic to live up to one's responsibilities, it is not surprising that there would then be a lot of abandoned infants. It has been a couple of years since the "D.A.R.E. to Keep Kids Off Drugs" bumper stickers on police cruisers were replaced with "Don't Abandon Your Baby" bumper stickers. I ask, what does the need for such a sticker tell you about the state of a society? And if you don't have the same answer I do, I don't want to be in the same society as you.

On the news, whenever they interview Dems about this Safe Haven debacle, I hear the phrase "unintended consequences," as if no one could have predicted this. Any half-wit without a sociological axe to grind could predict such things. If it wasn't predicted it was only because no one could believe that liberals could be THAT naive.

And so I gotta ask: What might be the "unexpected consequences" of gay marriage? Or unconditional talks with our nation's enemies? Or the elimination of the right to defend oneself with firearms? Or the refusal to enforce our own borders? Or the refusal to drill for new oil in our country's own territory? Or to allow teachers to indoctrinate our children with their political views? Or to elect a president based on wanting to feel good about yourself rather than on his experience and qualifications? Or...

Profiles in Hypocrisy

2007-09-01T10:16:00.000-07:00

As I write this, I don't know if Senator Larry Craig is actually guilty of lewd conduct or if his arrest is the result of an overly zealous policeman. He's probably guilty. I have no reason in particular to doubt it. But for the last few days, all I hear is how he's a hypocrite because he's gay yet he's a conservative lawmaker legislating against gay marriage, etc. So therefore, he's a BAD man. Why, it'd be different if he was openly gay. No problem with openly homosexual Senators having illegal anonymous sex in airport bathrooms. But he's a Republican and therefore he's red meat for the liberal media.

I heard one talking head lawyer on Fox News who asked something on the order of "Is it too much to ask that our Senators legislate their consciences?" Huh? Did she pass the bar exam in Naiveistan? Our legislators are supposed to legislate their consciences? That's a good one. Funny, I though they were supposed to represent the people who elected them and legislate accordingly — never minding personal bias. But perhaps I'm as naive as she...

The evil that Senator Craig is being accused of is not so much lewdness as hypocrisy. Acts gay — but votes anti-gay. Shocking! Well, I wish the Left would admit that Republicans too are human, and subject (as are Democrats) to personal failings and Personal Demons. There is such a thing as telling others what to do, yet thinking the rules do not apply to you (hypocrisy). And then there's promoting values that one believes in but are personally having trouble living up to. By the Left's definition of hypocrisy, a person who is bad at math yet promotes more rigorous math education would be a hypocrite. I might say he's just "wiser for wear..."

The Left, not big on promoting traditional social values, has a different standard of "good." For instance, the Most Holy "Zero Carbon Footprint." What if the Reverend Prophet Al Gore, who exhorts us all to lower our carbon footprints, himself lived in a huge energy-hog of a mansion? He what...? He does...? Well, I'm sure he's not a hypocrite. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his actions are the result of a Personal Demon. Some sort of energy addiction... Perhaps he wasn't allowed to play with electricity as a child.

Look, probably no one knows better about the evils of gambling than a gambling addict. A gambling addict who is a law maker might be very much inclined to pass laws against gambling, knowing full well how it can destroy people and families. He might even do so in an attempt to stop his own addiction. I don't think that makes him a hypocrite, I don't think that it invalidates his anti-gambling efforts, and I don't think it argues against anti-gambling laws. I do think it makes him a sick person — and probably not fit to be a legislator.

The same may be true with Craig. Assuming he is compelled to seek the illicit thrill of obscene, dangerous, nasty, anonymous, and illegal sexual encounters (gay or otherwise), that does not mean — as the Left heavily implies — that his socially conservative legislative efforts to the contrary are hypocritical or somehow suspect. And, to please our Fox News talking head (sorry, didn't catch her name), it might well mean that perhaps Craig is legislating his conscience. He may indeed feel that gay marriage is destructive of the fabric of society — but that conviction doesn't stop the cravings of his shameful Personal Demon.

Contrast this with Governor McGreevy who publicly humiliated his wife by having a homosexual affair and then went onto say he was proud to be a "Gay American." (Prefixing the word "American" with another group is a way of glomming onto protected status, like African American, or Native American.) He violates her trust and then goes out on the talk show circuit declaring his "pride"! What an everlasting scumbag.

If the accusations against Craig are true, then I do think it appropriate that Craig has stepped down, and not because he is a homosexual or a hypocrite, but because he engages in compromising activities. Any person who is privy to national security secrets should not have skeletons in his closet. And that leads me to a story told by a good friend of mine who used to work for a government contractor. She tells of a person who was being interviewed for a Secret Clearance. One of the things they look for is a situation that the candidate wants to keep hidden as it could be used as leverage for blackmail. The interviewer asked the applicant, "Is there anyone in your family that you're ashamed of?" The applicant, not grasping the implication of the question, replied, "Well, my little brother's a bit of a wuss, but we're hoping he's gonna grow out of it." Ah, if only the Left would just "grow out of it".

Zero Tolerance? CYA!

2007-08-28T16:57:00.000-07:00

Joe Woe’s latest rant (see “Dangerous Doodles” below) concerning “Zero Intelligence (Tolerance)” policies in the public schools has its heart in the right place, but the arrow of blame is slightly off the mark.

I was familiar with this most recent episode at Payne Junior High in Arizona via James Taranto’s “Zero Tolerance Watch” in the Wall Street Journal Online blog. Unfortunately, these incidents of vanishing common sense occur with such regularity as to warrant an ongoing feature in his column. The Payne Junior High sketch of a “laser pistol of some sort” is only the latest, but certainly not the most egregious.

As Taranto quipped “Somebody must have told the School Board that ‘drawing a gun’ was dangerous. School Boards have correctly identified a “danger”, but their remaining common sense assures them it’s not a danger to the students in their charge, but rather a danger to their budgets, their legal bills and the thing that they value highest: their careers.

This is the appalling legacy of Columbine – an educational system so frightened of litigation that it negatively affects every aspect of its core mission of teaching students.

With every new (and it must be pointed out – rare) horrendous incident of violence at a school, I have no doubt of the sincere heartbreak and agony felt by administrators and teachers for the victims, as they wring their hands and beseech “what could we have done to prevent this?” – followed immediately by a paralyzing fear of crucifixion in the courts of law and public opinion.

I have some first–hand experience in the administration and governance of schools – albeit, private schools. I can assure you that the burden of legal protection from real or perceived faults of the teachers and administrators weighs heavily on most decisions that must be taken. At our modest private elementary school, located in the sleepy burg of Topeka Kansas, we had parents who wanted eight–foot tall chain link fences and armed guards at the door and other parents who wanted no security whatsoever (That wasn’t the kind of school they wanted THEIR children to attend). The governing board had to attempt to square this intractable circle. Our little school had only a couple of administrators and less than twenty teachers – but we had a dedicated legal counsel.

No, the fault here is not lily–livered dolts running our schools, but rather the litigious “gotta blame and sue somebody” mentality that has taken hold of our modern culture. I accuse the ambulance–chasing trial lawyers (like John Edwards) with their TV ads encouraging every jamoke with a pain or a grievance to sue their perceived enemies into oblivion. I accuse popular movies like “Erin Brockovich” which glamorize these tort–bar–bastards as selfless heroes. And I particularly accuse the otherwise upstanding Americans who decide to assuage their pain and loss by suing the pants off somebody.

In the mean time every school board is advised by their legal counsel to institute “zero tolerance” and other nonsensical schemes, not to protect the children, but to protect their own wary behinds.

Dangerous Doodles

2007-08-25T00:41:00.000-07:00

A 13 year old boy attending Payne Junior High School in Arizona doodled some sort of gun on a homework paper he turned in. The school district, with a "zero tolerance" policy suspended him for three days. Are these people insane? The joke is too obvious so I'll get it out of the way up front — Zero Tolerance? More like Zero Intelligence! Children learn lots of things in school. Some of it is scholastic — some of it is behavioral. Adult authority-figure behavior is on display here and what we see is a total lack of common sense. Gone. Gone. Gone. No common sense in adults, but now in children, a fear of breaking bizarre, arbitrary, unknown, and unknowable rules. Shouldn't the rules make sense? I assert that no kid could predict that such doodles would be considered "threatening," (because A) they aren't, and B) they haven't yet had common sense beat out of them by the "educational" system.)

How is a this doodle a threat? This is stupid beyond belief. Almost certainly I handed in some paper as a child with a gun drawn on it (as well as cars and airplanes). The teacher probably utterly ignored it as what it was — meaningless scribbling.

I saw some talking head lawyer on Fox News sticking up for the "zero tolerance" policy, stating, "If someone handed me a legal brief with a gun drawn on it, I'd feel threatened." Where to begin... Where to begin... Well, I suspect she's just a blithering idiot, but I will try to address this rationally. If a GROWN UP drew a gun on a LEGAL document it MIGHT mean something significant, whereas if a CHILD scribbled a gun on HIS OWN HOMEWORK it might mean HE'S A CHILD!

I'm going insane because this is all so blatantly, flagrantly, painfully OBVIOUS and it is maddening to explain the blatantly, flagrantly, painfully OBVIOUS to what are supposed to be rational, mature, intelligent, responsible adults! (False assumption in there somewhere. Can you spot it?) But they've got their "zero tolerance" policies — which I suspect are just a way to avoid the chore of actually thinking and responsibility. More importantly, it's a means of avoiding the "J-word" — judgmental.

There's more to this madness than zero tolerance of weapons. My daughter is still in high school. They do not have a medical care for students because they are evidently afraid of lawsuits. They have some guy in the "clinic" — a room with a cot. I don't think he's a nurse even. There is, of course, a "zero tolerance" policy on all drugs (all medications). The "clinic" guy cannot give out any medicines such as Advil, Tylenol, etc. He does not even have ice on hand for first aid for sprains, etc. Apparently he's only there to call parents and watch kids lying down on the cot until they are picked up. Why aren't my children being medically cared for in school? I am baffled by the school district's irresponsibility. I have placed my child in their care but they are not caring for her.

Crap! it just hit me! School just started again. I need to register her medications so she can take her asthma inhaler to school without being expelled. Yes, if we have not registered it, she can be expelled from school for possessing her potentially life-saving medication. It's a topsy-turvy world.

I try to make reasoned arguments on this blog, but it feels like all I can do here is scream at the incredible lack of common sense displayed by school administrators and their moral cowardice in the face of imagined potential lawsuits. Won't someone "Think of the children!"?

Even One Life

2007-08-21T18:46:00.000-07:00

How do solve a problem like Geraldo? How do you hold a moonbat in your hand?

I have long believed that Fox News has a real problem concerning their association with Mr. Geraldo Rivera. I understand ratings and buzz and diversity and all that crap – but giving a clearly intellectually and morally biased person like Jerry Rivers an international prime–time platform is selling out to the least common denominator. I expect better of FNS.

Recently Geraldo has carved out quite a niche for himself as the designated “indignant voice for the downtrodden brown–skinned people” as it relates to any and all matters concerning immigration. He drops the “R–word” with the ease of a disciple on a morally superior crusade.

I was therefore very interested to hear Mr. Rivers explain himself under the typically persistent and withering questioning of the reigning Queen of Talk Radio, Ms. Laura Ingraham.

http://hotair.cachefly.net/audio/2007-08/li-gr.mp3

I heard it live yesterday, and it was one of the most pathetic interviews/performances that I have ever heard in my life. Laura asks one “tough” question (and it wasn’t even that tough!) and Jerry immediately pulls out the whiny “why don’t you like me?” complaint. The guy has nothing – no moral, ethical or intellectual defense of his indefensible position other than feeling sorry for brown–skinned people.

Here is an interesting take on the “criminal illegal immigrants” story. Disingenuous mush–heads immediately argue that illegals are generally more law–abiding than regular Americans (where do they get this bogus statistic if it is generally impermissible to ask a criminal defendant his citizenship status? A wild bullshit guess?). They then assert that even stating the immigration status of the criminal is “racist”, because, after all, we are talking about Mexicans here. The conservative/immigrationist (to use Geraldo’s pejorative epithet) replies “But this man committed a heinous crime and he shouldn’t have ever been here”. The mush–head counters with “crimes are committed everyday by ordinary Americans” as if that means anything.

So, let’s turn it around. How many times have we heard that specific laws that abridge personal freedoms are justified “even if they save ONE life”?

Seatbelts, Speed Limits, Bike Helmets, Drunk Driving Laws, Anti–Smoking laws, Trans-Fat Bans, Restrictive Gun Laws, etc, etc.

Aren’t the libs being very hypocritical about a core philosophical issue? If keeping illegal immigrants out of the country saves EVEN ONE LIFE, isn’t it worth it?

Primal Instinct

2007-08-15T21:21:00.001-07:00

I have observed that dramatizing our primal survival mechanisms is a source of great pleasure. Not just in humans — animals too. You'll never see our dog happier than when given the opportunity to chase, catch, chomp on the throat, and shake till the neck is broken of a stuffed squirrel, duck, fish, etc. This is good times for our dog. She knows it isn't a real duck but she sure gets a bang out of pretending she's just tracked down and killed her dinner. That's a predator's instinct. What about prey, or "flight animals"? Well, of course they like to run! Like horses. Run horsey, run! See if you can beat the other horses to the finish line! Or our bunny rabbit. He loves to be chased around and around and then make it back into the safety of his hole (or cage, in this case). You can see that he's having a grand time at evading the make-believe coyote.

And so it is with the human animal. Males in particular are programmed for hunting and killing — hence the popularity of violent video games where kids and grown ups alike are offered the safe, legal, and clean opportunity to dramatize acts of violence. Long before the advent of agriculture the urge was developed for use against animals so that man could eat. But genetic programming dies hard. To be happy we need ways to activate this primal instinct. Sports are of course one way. Boys wrasslin' and fightin' like we did when I was a kid is another. Playing Soldier, Cops and Robbers, Cowboys and Indians. Of course we love this stuff because it activates within us the mechanism that has kept us alive.

But the do-gooder lefties can't stand this horrible retrograde behavior. Once I was at a toy store and witnessed a preschool boy asking his mommy for a toy gun. His well meaning (oh, aren't they all...), but utterly misguided, mother chastised him, "Billy, you know you aren't allowed to play with guns." I wanted to kick her ass (but somehow I restrained myself — perhaps because I could take advantage of other violent outlets). I really feel sorry for this kid. He's growing up being denied a central part of his being. I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the kind of kid that winds up actually committing horrific crimes later in life. Was Seung-Hui Cho denied toy guns when he was a kid? I wonder.

Compared to conservatives, liberals produce less offspring and therefore have far less aggregate experience in raising children (the pre-parenthood of liberal youth, the exercise of "a woman's choice", the childless freedom of blue state sophisticate urbanites, the biological childlessness of homosexuals and trannies, etc.). Yet somehow liberals are qualified to tell me how to raise my kids (let's face it — they think that only they are qualified and the actual parents are not!). These fonts of behavioral wisdom are always making a fuss over the violence of video games ("the average 12 year old has witnessed over 500,000 violent deaths in movies and video games..." or some such horse hockey statistic.) Meanwhile they coddle truly dangerous violent inner-city criminals. For a gang banger, killing someone is a ticket to respect and gangland promotion, unlike what it used to be — a ticket to the electric chair. But, of course, "It's society's fault. These youths are disadvantaged and disenfranchised and they are exposed to too much violence in video games." Funny, my son hasn't killed anyone, despite having been a Grand Theft Auto San Andreas fiend in his formative years. The solution to true (not pretend) violent behavior are prison cells and electric chairs — and not virtual ones.

Certainly, the urge for violence is primarily a male drive in humans. When men were out hunting woolly mammoths with spears, the women were gathering fruits, berries, and other edibles. Skills required: seeking and finding objects of value, discriminating amongst them (ripe? unripe? rotten? poisonous?), and bringing them back to camp. Sounds like shopping to me, and I don't know anything that makes my wife and daughter happier. Personally, I detest shopping — as is common for men. Disappointingly, my son, enjoys it. He's not alone. It seems this is now common among young adult males these days. Admittedly he's a bit of a metro... It's the feminization of America. I keep meaning to take him out to the gun range and teach him a man's activity... Maybe that'd get his attention off of shopping for jeans and shoes.

The left will probably want to genetically engineer a new, superior, peaceful, non-violent man — free from his genetic baggage of violent behavior. I imagine it could be done. I also reckon this new race would be exterminated pretty quickly by the old, violent humans. So much for "progress" (and progressives).

Los Angeles Hillbillies

2007-07-29T23:13:00.000-07:00

Come and listen to a story about a man named Juan,

A poor gard-en-er, just look'n for a lawn,

Then one day he was swim'n Rio Grand',

And next thing you know he was up in the land...

...of plenty that is — good jobs, free health care.

Of course you remember the Beverly Hillbillies. Poor, uneducated mountain man Jed Clampett and family strike oil, move to sophisticated Beverly Hills, bring their hillbilly ways with them, don't adapt — hilarity ensues. Unfortunately this is happening to us every day and we are Mrs. Drysdale. Yes, I know she was an unsympathetic character in the TV show, but seriously, would you want a bunch of hillbillies living next to you if you lived in Beverly Hills? How about if you live in Dallas? Or Los Angeles? No one wants to be around people of a significantly lower socioeconomic status. Nobody, including the liberal elites. Hey, Ms. Streisand? You mind if these day-laborers hang out on your property? You do mind? They're just trying to make an honest living... Come on now. Have a heart.

Look. I'm not a racist. I even married outside my race — an Asian (Japanese to be precise). But I sure wouldn't want a poor Cambodian family moving in on my block. It's not because I don't like Asians. It's because I don't like poor, uneducated, third-world Asians. Just like the affluent, educated Japanese don't like them (and they don't, I can tell you).

We live in a first-world country — abundance, opportunity, low crime, low corruption, good health and good health care (despite Michael Moore's lies) — the things that third-world countries don't have. That's why they come here. Unfortunately, they bring with them their third-world attitudes. Why is it that Mexico, for instance, is a third-world country and the United States is a first-world country? Liberals would say it is lack of resources, lack of health care, lack of education. Solution? Shovel money at them — the way that we do with numerous third-world countries. Result? Continued poverty, crime and corruption. I believe that the reason is very simple — it is their third-world attitudes and culture that create their third-world economy. Our attitudes — our culture — built this wonderful country that others will risk their lives to sneak into. As long as immigration was restricted to reasonable numbers, the immigrants could be absorbed as they embraced our culture, assimilated, and became first-worlders. The massive size of today's illegal immigration does not allow this and assimilation is not the goal of the majority of illegal aliens. They want to continue being hillbillies in Beverly Hills. They've put Granny's rocking chair out on the porch.

Now the Clampetts, despite being American "third-worlders," did bring with them a very valuable thing — their money. By putting Jed's millions in Mr. Drysdale's bank, the bank was able to create further wealth by lending money. Liberals, Granny, and others who do not understand economics seem to think that money is simply parked somewhere — or stuffed into mattresses. The truth is that money in banks is invested. It is borrowed by businesses and homeowners and is used to create new wealth — a benefit to all (isn't capitalism wonderful?) But the Los Angeles Hillbillies, the illegal immigrants, are exporting wealth back to relatives in Mexico. A net flow of wealth out of the United States. We get Tejano music and clogged E.R.s — they get U.S. dollars. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we just built a wall and threw money over it?

My Aching Back

2007-07-20T22:45:00.000-07:00

I have a back problem, but despite that, I sometimes lift heavy things, fully knowing ahead of time that it is probably going to aggravate my condition — perhaps even dramatically so. But instead of saying to myself or others, "No, I cannot lift that heavy thing. I need help," I employ Wishful Thinking and do it anyway. Why do I do this? Well, because I want to be a man. Or because I don't want to stop being a man. Because I would be ashamed or embarrassed to have to ask others — to show weakness, to be useless. Some sort of "macho" thing? I suppose so, but the point is, I value masculinity and the ability to do things for myself and to not depend on others. I value this highly. Unfortunately, this value sometimes propels me to do irrational things — like lifting something heavy when I full well know that if I'm ever going to get over the problem, I should not.

Where does this bit of personal confession lead to?

Realization: one can embrace a value so highly that it must be chased or maintained even if it forces one into acting irrationally — even knowingly so. I'd consider dubbing it "raison irrationnelle," but that’d be speaking French.

One thing I've cogitated on for some time is how liberals who are, more often than not, intelligent people, endorse patently stupid ideas. Ideas that can logically be shown to be fallacious and harmful by simple explanation. Explanations that would be understood and accepted by anyone with half a brain — yet they will not listen. They will make excuses and rationalize and find absurd arguments and make accusations — anything other than listen to reason.

Giving money to the poor hasn't eliminated poverty. Throwing money at schools has not improved education. Banning guns has not reduced the murder rate. Appeasing our enemies does not make us safer. The results are never as promised and, in fact, the opposite effect usually comes about — crime goes up, test scores go down, murder goes up, our enemies are emboldened.

I think that this is the liberal's version of my Wishful Thinking. If you could pin them down, (you can't), they'd have to admit that liberal "solutions," are unworkable. But over and over again they will insist on trying to "lift the heavy load" with little hope of actually getting away with it. They have in place a value that they must heed above logic. It certainly isn't manliness. Its some sort of feel-good, humanitarian ethic that they must pursue at all costs. I guess it's "liberalism," or "progressivism." They value it like I value being a man.

I guess that might be fine — to each his own, you know. However, it's one thing when I do something stupid and hurt my own back. It's entirely something else when liberals want to pursue their folly with OPM (Other People's Money) and OPL (Other People's Lives).

MBA (Morons in Business Administration)

2007-07-08T09:32:00.000-07:00

My blog is intended for political and cultural rants. This one is a bit off topic, but it's short and sweet (or is that sour?).

I walked into my local OfficeMax today searching for some particular item. The store had evidently just undergone a major reorganization. Everything was in a new place. I am convinced that businesses make stupid decisions all the time. This is one of them. Don't they understand the value to customers of knowing where to find something? It seems not. In fact, I'd say that there are some places that I shop, groceries for instance, that I choose the store not for locality or price but because I know where to find what I'm looking for. And if they erase that advantage, well then I might as well take my business elsewhere. Apparently this bit of wisdom is not taught in the MBA classes to these business geniuses. Or maybe it's just me.

Since the store was in complete disarray — or re-array — it would have been nice to have some helpful staff on hand to guide customers to the new locations of products. I walked isle after isle looking for the object of my visit. It was a large store. I left without a purchase. I saw exactly one store employee.

Contrast this with the times when I've gone in and some pimply-faced kid interrupts my evident study of an item to ask me if I'm finding everything OK. What's with these idiots? Here's how it should work. If the employee is looking for people to help, then he should hover nearby and if someone needs help they'll spot him and ask for help. Instead, they insist on interrupting you when you don't need help. No, I can't be pleased.

I almost never ask for help. Oh, this is one of those "man" things about not asking for directions, isn't it? No, it's not, and it's simple. These people are, in general, idiots and a waste of my time. I firmly believe I can do much better with my own eyes and intelligence. Occasionally I give in and ask, only to have my conviction reinforced that it's a waste of time. They march you across the store to show you what you clearly DIDN'T ask for. Or they don't know if the store has such a thing and look at you like you asked for something bizarre like a neon purple steam-powered squid. Or they say that the store doesn't carry it, simply because that's the easiest thing for them to say and get rid of you.

When it comes to interrupting customers, nothing perhaps beats Best Buy's "greeting" when you enter the store. You walk in, and there's this guy facing not the entrance but into the store. This is the guy that checks your bag and uses the hi-liter to mark your receipt. To do that job it makes sense that he's facing away from entering customers. But after you've walked by him, he shouts out his corporately-mandated greeting from behind you. At this point, you have three alternatives:

The polite thing: Turn around, and make eye contact and acknowledge his salutation (note: this requires stopping or at least slowing down lest you run into someone);

Do a "half-ack" where you turn your head a bit, maybe to the point of seeing the guy out of your peripheral vision, and raising your hand in sort of a semi-wave;

Lastly, you can ignore him altogether and pretend you didn't hear him.

At various times in my life I've gotten the reputation of being a jerk, yet despite my apparent jerkness, I just can't seem to do be rude enough to completely ignore the guy. I usually do the polite thing, turn and acknowledge him, and in doing so, take another swig from the bottle of resentment.

To sleep! perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub

2007-06-12T22:38:00.000-07:00

Dr Kevorkian was recently released from prison after serving 8 years. I was always a bit of a fan of his. Modern medicine extends the life of people who previously would have died much sooner. And it often just extends their suffering and the suffering of those who love them.

For those cancer patients in great pain — who are going to die — if they wish to end their suffering should they not be allowed to do so? With assisted suicide they can do so with dignity and minimal pain. What are the alternatives? Slit your wrists? Blow your brains out? Leave a bloody horrible mess for your loved ones to clean up? Is that the final memory that you wish to leave your children? Or what if you are truly unfortunate enough to contract some horrible debilitating disease? Should this happen to me, I would prefer that my children remember me as strong, independent, and healthy. I would not want to burden them with the disgust of cleaning up my vomit or changing my diapers. Nor to leave them with sad memories of me wasting away in frailty. Should I be so unfortunate I would not want to inflict this on those I love. I would instead probably choose suicide, but I would not want them to have to clean up my spattered brains from the walls. I would want to end my life in a practical, reliable, clean, and as pain free method as possible. Thank you, Dr. Kevorkian for promoting this alternative.

To me it is a contradiction that conservatives tend to oppose assisted suicide and the right to die. I see a direct extension from the root of conservative philosophy to the freedom to end one's life. At the root of Conservatism is the belief in responsibility for one's own life and actions. Conservatives believe in the autonomy of the individual. My life is my own. It does not belong to the State or the King. So IF my life is my own, then who can tell me that I don't have the right to end it?

Unfortunately, many conservatives do not grasp this crucial right. Most conservatives, having religion, and in the West generally Christianity, they believe that God gave us life and therefore only he has the right to take it away.

I understand the argument but I do not agree with it. I sure don't remember "Thou shalt not commit suicide" as one of the Ten Commandments. And I don't think "Thou shalt not kill" covers it, as I also don't think that covers killing in defense (personal or national), or in punishment. If God had meant for us to never take our own lives then he should have worked it in there — perhaps instead of that one about graven images. Somehow that was more important.

Does the Bible prohibit suicide? Not that I can find out. I am no Bible scholar, but my search revealed the following key points: The 4th century theologian Augustine posited that suicide was "self-murder" and therefore violated the Sixth Commandment. Later, Thomas Aquinas opined that suicide was contrary to observed nature and therefore contrary to God's ordained laws.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1911

Eventually Christian doctrine held that suicide was a mortal sin.

http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/ideas/suicide1.html

On a personal note, the first I ever knew about the "sin" of suicide was from Hamlet. In the graveyard scene the gravediggers, talking amongst themselves, wonder why a woman who killed herself is receiving a Christian burial…

"Is she to be buried in Christian burial that willfully seeks her own salvation?"

No Christian burial for suiciders back then it would seem. On the other hand, many other religions and cultures (the Japanese come to mind) respect those who take their own lives, especially for honorable reasons.

I find these arguments against the right to die to be unconvincing. I see no holy message from God against it (and frankly, that wouldn't mean much to this "reluctant atheist" anyway...).

A Little Backbone Please?

2007-06-04T10:38:00.000-07:00

I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Never crazy about the guy but with choices like Reverend Gore and John (Lurch) Kerry, he looked pretty good. He’s definitely disappointed me a few times. His appointments of Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales were pretty obvious mistakes — made up however by stellar appointments such as Roberts, Snow, and Bolton (although that last one is sadly undone). And now his America-destroying pro-illegal stance... Well, on with my point.

What’s wrong with Bush, really? I’ve thought for a long time that his worst quality is that he’s just a ridiculously bad public speaker. The only reason he did well in the debates against Kerry is because he was debating Kerry. I guess the Dems decided to play weakness against weakness... Good plan.

But I do believe though I’ve come to understand what I don’t like about Bush — He doesn’t fight back. He’s weak. He’s a microcosm of modern America. He’s got enough gumption to do what he thinks is right, but he is disappointingly silent in his own defense (and, yes, I do watch Fox News). He’s attacked by the main stream media 24/7, but when has he ever reamed any of his attackers a new one? In recent memory I can remember only incident even remotely close — when he chided those attacking his immigration "reform" as spouting "empty rhetoric." Sadly, he was attacking his own party and political base. Thanks, G.W... Why can’t he get some balls when the libs attack him? You’ve seen those White House Press briefings... Ostensibly an opportunity for the press to ask questions, it has turned into a spear chucking, foot frying, monkey poo flinging contest to see which “journalist” can score the most points. The reporters' so-called questions are merely attempts to trap, discredit, and embarrass the White House (funny, it wasn't like that during the Clinton presidency...). Why does the White house even bother with this weekly flogging? At least Tony Snow knows how to deal with these hecklers (although sadly he’s forced to carry water for Bush on this sickening immigration "reform" giveaway).

At any rate, the problem with Bush is that he has just enough backbone to begin to do what’s right but then he is weakly, foolishly, and ineptly silent in defense of his policies to the American public. The "Great Communicator" he's not. And, in my opinion, this is EXACTLY what invites attacks against him. The libs know they can fling poo and Bush (like Jesus?) will just turn the other cheek. That’s why he’s like a microcosm of American foreign policy (and why I don’t think Jesus would make a good President). We’ve proved to our enemies that we can’t stand the heat in the kitchen. That’s what the whole Mogadishu / Black Hawk Down lesson was about. Bin Laden has said so! Show weakness and you’ll continue to get attacked (this of course is not a new lesson from history but a very old one). Fortunately Bush knows this about Iraq. But somehow he doesn’t know this about the DNC.

So You Think You Can...

2007-05-29T23:14:00.001-07:00

My favorite TV show is back on... So You Think You Can Dance. It's not that I'm a fan of "The Dance". But I do love the freak show... the schadenfreude. It's much better than American Idol even. At first, it was jaw dropping -- amazing. These obviously talentless people would audition, and when told they had no talent would blow a fuse! They go ballistic. Have a conniption. Or melt down. Cuss and give the finger to the camera. How DARE anyone tell ME that I can't dance (sing, etc)! This first show of the season there were two such delusionals. The first, a girl who was chubby, awkward, and couldn't dance to save her life. I seem to recall that she said she was a dance instructor. When she left she was crying on the phone to someone about how the people here were so mean. Next up was Sex, as he calls himself. Motto: "I AM the best." Somehow saying it makes it true. Nigel, the producer and head judge straight out told him and his whacko mother that he's delusional.

Where did all these nutters come from? I have a theory. For some time now we've been told about the supreme importance of self-esteem. Teachers embraced this philosophy whole-heartedly. All the flower needs is a little water and it'll blossom. So take your typical ugly, awkward, and not-too-bright kid and tell him how utterly swell she is. And of course, the further behind they are, the dumber, the uglier, the more awkward... why, of course they get extra heap'n helpings of esteem. Pile it on! Extra strokes for Harold! You know Harold. Yes, that, Harold. Makes perfect sense if you've bought into the concept. Result? A now young adult who has been fed a steady diet of "You are so special" for years suddenly meets reality. That is, others who for some reason (they're just plain mean! They're jealous!) don't agree to blow sunshine up Miss I. M. Special's ass.

I've been studying this for some years now. I first took note of it when Kipland Kinkel killed fellow students in 1998. The scenario has played out many times. Anger at fellow students who don't see him as special. His teachers tells him he's special. His parents tell him he's special. Damn those mean students! How dare they not validate his specialness! Why, they deserve what they get!

What is the origin of this madness? I don't know for sure but one connection is fairly obvious -- a fundamental, and intentional, misinterpretation of the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." This declaration of course meant that the new country did not recognize different classes of people endowed with different rights -- i.e. commoners and nobility or a caste system. All people were equal before the state. Equal rights. The left has morphed this statement of political egalitarianism into one of physical egalitarianism. There actually are people who refuse to admit that everyone is NOT born with the same talents, intelligence, looks, skills, strength, etc. It would be Politically Incorrect to do so. We are all created equal, but somewhere along the line you just lost your sense of equality so let's give you some extra strokes. Good idea. Well, at least it makes for interesting television.

So, tell us how you really feel...

2007-05-29T21:54:00.000-07:00

I love it when people actually tell you how they feel. At the 2007 Miss Universe Pageant, held in Mexico City, the audience booed and heckled Miss USA. Why? Because she accidentally fell down on stage? Well, no, and in fact any cultured audience would take that as an opportunity to show empathy. But I said cultured. This is the culture of La Raza and "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!" Because the majority of American citizens are opposed to unchecked illegal immigration, to the dilution of American commonality and identity, to increased welfare spending and corresponding taxation, to conversion of taxpayer funded hospitals to free clinics for another country's citizens (and the domino effect as money-loosing ERs are closed), to the massive importation of Third World behavior, crime, and disease (there ARE reasons why it's better to live in First World countries!), to the basic unfairness to legal immigrants who play by the rules... America is booed.

Thank you, citizens of Mexico, many soon to be illegal residents of the US, and possibly citizens of the US, for telling us how you really feel.

Relevant stores:

Miss USA's spill not taken in stride by Mexico City audience

Doing the Booing Americans Won't Do by Michelle Malkin

Night at the Nauseum

2007-05-27T15:24:00.000-07:00

I watched this stinker with my daughter the other night. I like some of Ben Stiller's work but anyone could have played his role in this movie.

Not end of review.

OK. I admit that I tend to be overly serious. That fault surely had something to do with my wholesale embracing of Objectivism years back and it was probably not the best thing for me in that sense. But my awareness of liberalism allows me to often see it where other's shrug it off and say that I'm making too much of it. Well, so be it, but here it is:

In Night at the Museum, there's a scene where Stiller confronts Attila the Hun who wants to tear him limb from limb. Stiller, psychoanalyzes Attila, pointing out that his need to hurt others comes from being hurt himself as a child. While Attila's dad was out plundering and pillaging (didn't mention raping), poor little Attila was abandoned at home. Well, this leads to a realization and subsequent bawling like a baby by Atilla who now is a nice guy who wants to be friends. Hilarity ensues...

Well, yes, it's a comedy movie and not to be taken seriously. BUT, let's face it -- this is a pillar of belief of liberals. No one is really implacably evil. Why, they're just misunderstood and society is to blame. All it takes is getting in communication with your enemies, stop doing things that make them mad, and in no time at all they're gonna put their differences aside and become our friends. This is the basis of their so-called Foreign Policy. It is how they feel about murderers and rapists. Prison doesn't rehabilitate they say so they should be freed. OR, they claim that terrible criminals HAVE been rehabilitated and so should be freed. The criminal, Tookie Williams, who murdered a 7/11 employee execution style must be released because he has written children's books in prison. He's not bad anymore so what's all this about paying one's debt to society? They believe in the absolute workability of rehabilitation, yet no one has come up with any reliable, proven way to rehabilitate anyone. Threat of punishment works when the threat is severe and actually carried out. No one executed has ever committed another crime. Separation of criminals from the public obviously protects the public. But none of that matters to liberals, all that matters is rehabilitation. They truly believe in it and that is the basis of the joke in this movie. There, I've said it.