Thursday, January 31, 2013

Pastor Asks Waiter Why He Should Get More Than God, Makes Christians Look Awful


Anybody who regularly reads Words From the Right knows that I take issue with a lot of things that liberals do. I find pretty much every one of their political arguments woefully inadequate, their policies downright dangerous, and their behavior often headache-inducing hypocritical.

But that’s not to say I think that liberals have a monopoly on bad behavior. Because clearly they don’t, as evidenced by nitwits such as the pastor in the following story (whom I’m admittedly assuming is conservative)…

Somewhere presumably in the U.S. (since the note is written in English and Europeans don’t usually tip), some cheap, ignorant, obnoxious pastor didn’t feel like paying for what he apparently admitted was great service.

As part of a group of 20, an 18% gratuity was automatically added to his bill. That’s what restaurants do these days for larger groups of customers, a policy that’s non-negotiable, as far as I’m aware.

Yet this pastor had the gall to actually scratch out the marked tip, write “I give God 10% Why do you get 18,” mark the total amount as only what he paid for his food and drink, and then clearly mark his name with the title “pastor” on the receipt.

If I had any say in the matter, he’d be instantly stripped of his pastorship and banned from eating establishments for life. He doesn’t want to tip? Well then, he shouldn’t be waited on.

The jerk.

Now some people might accuse me of being biased, since I waitressed for six or seven years while I was in high school and college. But biased or not, that pastor still did the God he claims to serve a serious disservice, especially since the waiter then went and posted the mistakenly pious receipt – complete with note – on Reddit.com.

It’s since been picked up by at least Yahoo, if not other news dissemination forums, where everybody can see just how nitwitishly arrogant Christians can behave.

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible about tipping. In fact, this pastor only gives God 10%, but the government undoubtedly some portion and himself the rest. So maybe he should be asking why he should get the lion’s share of his earnings when he only gives God 10%.

What it comes down to is that his actions had nothing to do with God at all. They were entirely self-serving, and highly indicative that he’s a self-serving narcissist in general. He wanted to get away with paying less for services he openly solicited, and he wanted to bask in his own self-righteousness, pointing out that he’s a pastor, while he did it.

At the risk of judging, I think it’s safe to say that he is not a real follower of God if he’s treating his fellow human beings with such disrespect.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Walter Shapiro Tries to Tell Us That Obama Isn’t Liberal


Back on Monday, I saw an article written by Walter Shapiro. It was featured on Yahoo! News with the title, “Don’t hem him in: ‘Liberal’ can’t define the Obama presidency.”

He stresses that, while “Obama is indeed a transformational 21st-century leader” who reflects “the end of the white-bread politics” responsible for two terms of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, the President merely “embodies” a new America.

Apparently, “Any discussion of Obama’s newly expressed passion for gun control has to begin with the fact that this Chicago-shaped politician is our first urban president since John Kennedy. Unlike, say, Bill Clinton, Obama never came from a place where guns are equated with hunting rather than violent shootouts. Remember, during the 2008 primary campaign… Obama in a private fundraiser derided rural voters who clings to guns or religion.

Shapiro has similarly stupid points for other issues…

Immigration reform? Well, John McCain – a true bastion of conservatism – George Bush and Karl Rove all supported it back in 2005. Economic policies? He quotes Obama as saying, “My policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican.”

Taxes, Social Security and Big Business? He signed the fiscal cliff deal. He “toyed with” raising the senior citizen status age. He “allowed the Wall Street masterminds behind the economic collapse to go unpunished for their flagrant misdeeds.”

Now, even Shapiro has to admit that the aforementioned Obama quote was “self-servingly hyperbolic,” a fancy way of saying that it’s inaccurate and irrelevant.

Gun control is a liberal position. You come out in favor of them and you’re liberal; it doesn’t matter if you were born in the country or the city. Mocking Americans for “cling[ing] to their guns or religion” is a liberal position. Say any such thing and you’re a liberal.

Moving on to immigration reform… There’s a difference between a Republican legislator and a conservative principle. Citing a wishy-washy politician or two does not make a liberal issue un-liberal. Taxes… Normal Americans’ paychecks just decreased noticeably under Obama, so don’t tell me that he’s anti-tax. Social Security… He “toyed” with the idea. He didn’t actually do it. Not even close.

And big business? It’s a baseless farce that liberals don’t like the rich. They love their rich donors and reward them well. Why do you think that blue-blood, business-central New England and New York always go Democrat?

Yet even so, Shapiro does have a point. Liberal really doesn’t define Obama. Socialist does.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

The Ridiculousness of President Obama’s Football Comments



He says that people get hurt playing it too often and shares that, while he’s a football fan (which is questionable, since he has a habit of saying he likes or respects professions, causes or mindsets right before he tries to take them apart), the game needs some major overhauls to protect players.

He even went so far as to strongly imply that football fans are bloodthirsty cretins who should be ashamed of themselves for enjoying such a dangerous sport. (“And those of us who are fans maybe won’t have to examine our consciences quite as much” if we baby-proofed football.) Then he threw in how parents who allow their boys to play football are probably very irresponsible (He’d think long and hard about allowing any son of his to play.)

Sure he’s a fan. Sounds like one to me.

But it’s one thing for the lets-treat-America-like-its-stupid President Obama to make such comments. It’s another to hear the well-paid NFL players share their thoughts on the subject.

There’s Baltimore Ravens’ linebacker Terrell Suggs, who comes across as a delicate conformist by parroting Obama. As ABC News puts it, “Suggs respects and understands President Barack Obama’s opinion about the dangers of football – and hesitation about having a child play.”

And then there’s his fellow Ravens (Parrot? Lemming?) and delicate conformist compatriot, safety Ed Reed, who added, “I am with Obama. I have a son... I can’t make decisions for him. All I can do is say, ‘Son, I played it so you don’t have to.’”

“I played it so you don’t have to?” What is football? A war zone?

That’s the kind of thing that soldiers have the right to say to their children. Not football players. And it sounds incredibly lame and embarrassingly unrealistic to think otherwise.

The fact is that these big, tough guys know the risks involved when they play. Injuries come with any game that involves ramming into other people. And even Obama admitted that the men are well compensated for the risks. According to NFLsalaries.org:

“Athletes are among the highest paid individuals in modern day society. Nearly half of the players in the NFL earn more in salary per year than the top paid Wall Street Executives. According to the National Football Leagues Players Association, the minimum salary that an NFL player can make is $295,000 per year.”

Fortunately, not all of the Ravens are delicate conformists who don’t understand how cushy they really have it. Center Matt Birk unhesitatingly noted that he has no problem letting any of his three sons play the game when they grow up and if they so choose.

But it was a San Francisco 49er who really made the important point. Offensive lineman Alex Boone walked away from the interview asking, “What’s up with all this Obama [stuff]?And 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh flat-out laughed about how ridiculous the whole thing is.

My main comment: If football players want to be babied the way Obama wants them to be, then they should start excepting much, much smaller paychecks. Considering the principles and goals that make it what it is, the game is already baby-proofed enough.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Government Exempts Itself From Proposed Gun Control Law


Back in 2011, the informed American public learned that its government was enjoying far more than taxpayer-funded salaries. Senators and representatives and other such leaders were also making money hand-over-fist through insider trading deals.

Worse yet, it came out that, while normal U.S. citizens were (and still are) prohibited from buying and selling stock based on “insider” information without proper government-approved documentation, the highest echelons of our supposedly civil servants faced no such restrictions at all.

Because public sector hands reach into so many private sector pockets, constantly creating new rules and regulations, they have access to the same exact insider information that CEOs and CFOs do. And government officials shamelessly exploited those connections to make themselves a mint.

After that story broke and people freaked out, Congress passed a new law that set the same rules for themselves as everybody else. Or so they said.

For some reason, I don’t really trust them. I’m paranoid like that, I guess.

But it’s difficult to not believe the government is out to get you when it acts like it’s out to get you. Or, as in this case, that it’s only looking out for itself. How else can you explain the new gun control legislation that would ban assault weapons from everybody but law enforcement and government officials.

Obviously, there’s a case to be made about the former group. But why should our elected leaders have the right to carry whatever gun they want when the rest of us are prohibited?

Clearly, it thinks it’s above us.

We’re plebeians, nobodies, chattel to be manipulated and dictated at will. We’re not responsible enough to own guns or handle insider information or manage the ins and outs of economic life.

But government is. According to government personnel. The people who spend money as if it grows on trees for projects as pointless as a $1,000 pair of shoes.

Nobody actually needs a $1,000 pair of shoes. They just want them. And the same applies for half of the spending projects the government funds.

Yet what government wants, government gets.

And right now, government isn’t content to just take our money. It wants our rights too.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Man Could Get Charged for Saving Boy From Pit Bull (and Two Other Stories of Incredible Ignorance)


Three stories. Three cases of incredible ignorance.

Let’s start with Gawker’s senior writer, Travis Okulski, and his tweet yesterday. “I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that this cold weather is far worse than the Holocaust,” he wrote.

Like I said. Incredible ignorance. Because being really cold is on par with the purposeful extermination of millions of people, many of them children.

That makes about as much sense as the Huffington Post self-righteously comparing Goldman Sachs’ CEO Lloyd Blankfein to Austin Powers’ villain Dr. Evil on one occasion and labeling him a “Vampire Squid” on another... then announcing a partnership with him and his company.

All in the space of a month.

Yet that’s exactly what it did yesterday. That’s story number two.

Story number three? That’s by far the worst.

Sunday, down in D.C., a man saw an 11-year-old boy being attacked by three pit bulls. So he grabbed his gun, shot and killed the one dog, attracting a police officer with his gunfire as well.

Incidentally, the other two animals didn’t stop after their companion died. They kept right on attacking until the cop shot them both in turn.

Now the boy was shot in the foot during the incident. But it could have been a heck of a lot worse considering that the child “suffered severe lacerations” from the attack, according to The Washington Post. Clearly, the dogs were out to kill.

Yet now the neighbor “could face a host of charges depending on the specifics of the case.” This includes taking “into consideration… whether the man was within his property line when he fired the weapon – a small but significant distinction.”

So let’s recap:

There are people out there who consider it acceptable to compare being cold to the Holocaust.

The Huffington Post is all about criticizing big business but will happily take money from such evil corporations if they can.

And if you see an 11-year-old boy being mauled by pit bulls, don’t intervene. Especially if you have a gun. You might “face a host of charges.”

Better to just let the kid die. I mean, it was probably cold outside anyway.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Hillary Clinton Gives Masterful Congressional Performance on Benghazi Attack


So.

Hillary Clinton finally testified about the terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, in which four Americans died while the Obama administration – herself included – did nothing.

Four and a half months since that attack… long since the first round of reports and misreports and cover-ups were thrown around by the media… well after the White House blamed it on an independent, insignificant filmmaker and then kinda, sorta took it back (but not really)… and some significant time later Congressional Republicans than first started demanding real answers… Four and a half months later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the stand to answer for herself and her gross misconduct (or worse).

Really, I’m surprised that she appeared at all. But she did. And I gotta say she made a decent dog and pony show out of it, getting emotional and exhibiting righteous outrage and everything.

When Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, for example, pressed her on how she and the rest of the Obama administration had blamed the attack and subsequent deaths on a protest gone wrong for weeks on end, she got right back in his face. As the Washington Post so admiringly describes:

“‘With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,’ she shouted at the lawmaker. Waving her arms and then pounding the witness table with her fist, she continued: ‘Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?’

“Johnson stopped interrupting as Clinton continued. ‘It is, from my perspective, less important today looking backward as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice,’ she said.”

She’s got a point too. But that’s the essence of every great deception. Add in some truth, appeal to emotions and throw some blame around while you’re at it.

So no, she never saw any of the numerous ambassadorial requests for additional security, but Congress is being irresponsible to focus on her instead of trying to catch the perpetrators. And yes, she takes responsibility, but Congress never gave the State Department enough money for it to do its jobs correctly. So it’s not really her fault.

Except that it is. Hillary Clinton – along with other members of the Obama administration – is responsible for how that attack played out and how badly the aftermath was mishandled.

And yet as California Republican Dana Rohrabacher wisely reminded her, the only person “in jail right now is the filmmaker.” Nobody else is going to have to answer for the deadly debacle.

At least not in this life.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

President Obama Uninterested in Keeping Promises, Just Wants to Spend More


The “little people” who honestly believed President Obama would stand up for their special interests if elected to a second term are studies in hopeless and destructive naivety. Obama made it very clear during his first four years that he looks out for himself and his cronies. That’s it.

His 100 rounds of golf before Election Day 2012 should have been a decent enough clue. At the very, very least.

So when he stood up in front of those foolishly gathered on the National Mall for Inauguration and spoke about “respond[ing] to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” he actually couldn’t have cared less. It was just empty posturing on an ironically freezing cold day.

And when he brought up gay rights in that same speech, declaring that America is “not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well…” He was spouting more nonsense that he doesn’t believe in and doesn’t care about.

That’s not to say that he wouldn’t object if somebody handed those policies to him on a silver platter. It’s just that, right now, he’s way too focused on making big money for his big donors to support anyone else.

In other words, it’s all about spending. That’s why White House Spokesman Jay Carney downgraded climate change to “not a singular priority” the very next day and wouldn’t speculate on the issue after that. And it’s also why Carney clarified that Obama doesn’t believe in federally mandating homosexual legislation after all; he’s all for the states focusing on that kind of thing (the kind of thing that won’t net him and his cronies huge gains from taxpayers’ checks and futures).

As the Associated Press worded it: Obama already is asking lawmakers for a lot as he starts his second term. He needs their votes to increase the nation’s borrowing limit and approve billions of dollars to keep the government running.”

That’s his first priority.

Not you.

Not me.

Maybe Eric Schmidt and Warren Buffett and most of Hollywood.

But mostly just himself.

And definitely not mainstream America.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Dan Pfeiffer Laments President Obama’s Stressful Situation


“There’s a moment of opportunity now that’s important. What’s frustrating is that we don’t have a political system or an opposition party worthy of the opportunity.”

So sayeth President Obama’s communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, in an interview with the Washington Post.

I’m sure if they could, our Founding Fathers would apologize profusely for making things so excruciatingly difficult for their 21st century predecessor.

Poor Obama. Let’s all take a moment to feel real bad for him.

Monday, January 21, 2013

How in the U.S. Did Obama Get Reelected?


So President Obama is getting inaugurated again today, January 21, 2013.

Big whoop, right?

For my part, I totally forgot that it was happening until I saw a lone Facebook status on the subject. That’s the only reason why I know it’s the start of another four years of lies and condescension, unconstitutionality and immorality, and looking at Joe Biden’s face (Ugh!). Considering that 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 will more than likely just be a revved-up repeat of the last four years, it’s hard to muster up any real feeling about the inauguration.

What I do find noteworthy, however, is Gallup’s report that Obama had a mere 49.1% average approval rating during his first term, a few tenths of a point under Clinton’s 49.6 and a few points over Gerald Ford’s 47.2% and Carter’s abysmal 45.5%.

Then there’s the 68% of Rasmussen respondents who think that government spending is out of control. And the general impatience with Obama’s inability to make any positive change, which is obvious from at least one Yahoo report about inauguration day:

“Gloved individuals donning ski hats and carrying blankets and bags of snacks huddled together at the Silver Spring metro at 5:45 a.m. Monday morning. They were beginning a potentially crowded and arduous trip into the Disctrict to attend President Barack Obama’s inaugural.

“But as the metro car pulled up, it was nearly empty. Everyone got a seat. Some people took two. The car was barely filled by the time riders disembarked at Union Station and Judiciary Square, key inauguration stops.”

It’s not like this disillusion is new. It was very evident during the 2012 campaign, just like reputable polls showed clearly that the public didn’t approve of how much money was being spent well before 2013.

So how in the world did this particular president get reelected to rule us for another four years?

It doesn’t make sense to me. And it shouldn’t make sense to any other logic-lover out there.

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want – though I sure didn’t claim any such thing the first time around – but I think this President of ours so proudly faking his oath for a second time around only made it this far because he cheated.

It’s either that or people don’t vote their beliefs anymore.

Come up with any other explanation and the numbers just don't match up.

Friday, January 18, 2013

A Striking Contrast: Beyonce vs. Albania’s ‘Sworn Virgins’


Yesterday, I somehow got into a conversation with my new officemate about feminism and whether I considered myself one or not.

I answered truthfully: That it depends on how you define the word.

If feminism is defined as demanding the subjection of the male gender, then no, I am not a feminist. Nor do I believe in the “right” to behave abominably and suffer no consequences. I believe in equality and reality, not superiority and continuous levels of irresponsibility.

But I do like to consider myself a feminist all the same. Just not the man-hating, self-loathing kind. The intelligent, classy kind who expects to be respected and works hard to earn it.

I know a lot of women who fit that brand of feminism. But it seems like the ones making the news today are the ones who talk the strong, independent talk and walk a very different walk.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but when Beyonce is posing on the front cover of GQ with the bottom of her breasts hanging out of a super-cropped sports top and a gold chain construction that, rather like a harness, wraps around her naked waist and trails up her cleavage… Well?

She makes it easy to criticize. And not just her. Beyonce makes it easy to criticize her gender.

She’s putting it on display. Making herself obtainable.

Not attainable: something that men can strive for if they only put their best foot forward. Obtainable: something that little boys with oversized egos and undersized talents can have in their bedroom for $5. Maybe less. I honestly have no idea what a GQ goes for these days.

And even Beyonce’s sex-for-sale persona aside, the fairer sex isn’t acting so fair anymore. Cheating on significant others, forming gangs and physically attacking people, and forming gangs and physically attacking people… Yes, I know I wrote that twice, but there are multiple such stories to report these days. It’s hard to keep up without being repetitive now and again.

Ladylike behavior is no longer in vogue. Easy sorority girls like Beyonce; uneducated, uncaring thugs like the teenagers in the last two links; the type of women desperate to blame men for all of their problems: It’s all thrown under the tattered, slashed and filthy cover of feminism, a word that could mean something if we only allowed it to.

The Western world’s tiredly hypocritical or inaccurate mantra of ‘gender equality’ stands in striking contrast to Albania’s ‘Sworn Virgins,’ women who swear to stay celibate for life, dressing up as men in order to enjoy the protection, rights and abilities afforded to men. “Why live like a man?” One such Virgin asks the obvious question. “Because I value my freedom.”

It’s a sad commentary. On both cultures.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

President Obama Is a Narcissist


President Obama is a narcissist.

I’d say that he suffers from narcissistic personality disorder, but that wouldn’t be quite right.

Number One: Saying he has a disorder sounds like an excuse when there is nothing excusable about Obama’s behavior. And Number Two: He doesn’t suffer from anything. He thoroughly enjoys making it all about him.

The attention. The glory. The power. The potential for more.

He basks in it all. Because that’s what narcissistic people do. It’s only a wonder that, like the Greek myth that inspired the term in the first place, he isn’t spending every waking moment staring at his reflection and contemplating what he sees as the amazingness of himself.

But I guess he really doesn’t have to, does he? Not when he can so easily acquire clueless lackeys to do that kind of thing for him.

Like at his inauguration in just a few days. According to the Associated Press, “President Barack Obama is featuring eight Americans as ‘citizen co-chairs’ of his inauguration, a new role created to highlight his first-term accomplishments with examples of lives that have either been improved by his actions or inspired his presidency.”

Let me stop them right there and highlight a few words, such as:

·         New (as in no other president was this blatantly, shamelessly self-promotional before Obama came along)
·         First-term accomplishments (like he had any other getting people killed, harming the economy, playing golf and undermining the Constitution of the United States of America?)
·         His, His, His (his first-term accomplishments, his actions, his presidency)

The article continues: “Inaugural planners say the honorees include a woman with a brain tumor who no longer is denied health care for a pre-existing condition [even though she and the rest of America will soon have to wait three months to book an appointment to treat a cold]; an autoworker who got her job back after the General Motors bailout [even though General Motors didn’t deserve to be bailed out and so many other companies are collapsing without any shed tears on Obama’s behalf]; and a gay pilot-in-training kicked out of the Air Force before the president repealed the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy [even though he’s bound to lose his job or worse before too long with the way Obama is slashing military support].”

Knowing all of that, let me revise my initial statement. President Obama isn’t just a narcissist. He’s a shamelessly, blatantly lying narcissist. And he thinks we’re all really, really dumb.

These next four years should be fascinating.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Angry and Confused


I don’t feel like being angry anymore.

Angry at people for thinking the way that they do. Acting the way that they do. Voting the way that they do.

I don’t feel like tearing my hair out exclaiming about how stupid, hurtful and destructive people can be. How they don’t think about others. How they behave as if they’re the only ones to consider. And how the innocent (or at least innocent-er) have to suffer for it.

My seemingly righteous anger has resulted in nothing worthwhile from what I can see. The emotion might have been justified, but that doesn’t mean it was productive.

I’m not really sure that this world is capable of being productive anymore. Not in the way that it really counts, at least. Not enough to make a big difference.

But my anger doesn’t make a difference either. So why bother holding onto it?

I also don’t feel like being confused anymore.

Confused at why people think the way that they do. Act the way that they do. Vote the way that they do.

I don’t feel like trying to dissect people’s educational backgrounds, their psychological upbringing or the physical environments that they grew up in. Nor how they use their childhood or their bad breaks or their lost opportunities as excuses to hurt others or themselves.

My constant state of questioning hasn’t led to any amazing breakthroughs. I already knew the truth anyway. Just because I don’t agree with the rationale doesn’t mean that the answer isn’t obvious.

People are not born good and kind and loving, only to be messed up by the situations that they can’t control. I know people who came from horrible backgrounds but rose above them, and those from good households who behaved as if they’d been raised by rodents.

What’s to understand or not understand? It’s very simple how complicated we make things when we choose to make them so. Nothing confusing about it whatsoever.

None of this philosophical, English major-esque ramblings is going to change the fact that I will get angry again and confused and even scared again sometime further down the road. But for now and in the long-term, I think I’m simply going to accept that there are things in this life that are maddening and baffling.

I can try to call them out or refute them. I just don’t have to let them rattle me quite so badly. Or at all.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Jodie Foster's Golden Globes Speech a Tragic Reminder of How We Just Don’t Get It


Yesterday, everybody was talking about lifelong actress Jodie Foster’s Golden Globes speech.

Out of a complete lack of interest, I didn’t watch the Golden Globes on Sunday. And for the same basic reason, I don’t really care if Foster officially came out as gay or not.

First off, coming out in Hollywood is like birds chirping. It happens every day. Leonardo DiCaprio could announce he was gay tomorrow and it wouldn’t be all that shocking. (Not that I’m saying he will or has any reason to, just that it’s Hollywood and that’s what they do, then congratulate themselves for being daring.)

Secondly, I don’t have a relationship with Foster in any way, shape or form; her personal business really doesn’t affect me anymore than any other American’s does, so why should I pay her particular interest?

Don’t have an answer? Neither do I. Nor apparently neither does she, judging by the rambling hodge-podge of an acceptance speech that she gave the other night. As incoherent as parts of it were, towards the end, she uttered some very memorable words:

“Jodie Foster was here. I still am. And I want to be seen, to be understood deeply and to be not so very lonely.”

That sad, semi-final statement and not her admission to being gay is what really strikes me.

I truly find it tragic that she can feel like that. Amidst all of that glamour and money and beauty that she has worked so hard to achieve, she’s still “very lonely.” And why wouldn’t she be when everybody thinks they know her based on the playacting she’s done all of her life? She stays so busy presenting an image to the public and trying to enjoy “the good life” that she’s losing herself and suffering in the process.

Foster is a very prominent reminder that we’re living in tragic times, when people don’t really understand who they are or what they have the potential to be. Too many of us are too busy focusing on all of the things that don’t matter to take the time to consider what we’re really doing.

We’re all about living in the moment, but dying in the long-term… about seizing the day, but giving up the future.

Maybe I’m rambling as badly as Foster did up on that stage (though admittedly to a much, much smaller audience). But it seems an injustice to her to not point out the obvious in her speech: that she’s hurting, and that the probability is high she’s not alone.

So here’s hoping she finds what she’s really craving before it’s too late.

Here’s hoping that for us all.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Misguided Compassion Only Ends up Getting Mouse Killed Anyway


I like mice.

Seemingly random statement, I know. But I do. I think they’re adorable with their little whiskers and twitchy noses, and seeing one even inside the house makes me automatically go “Awwwww!!!” and want to keep it.

When I was a little girl, I remember the day that my parents caught a mouse in our basement with one of the traps they’d set up. My first thought? I figured I was getting a pet out of the deal. Little did I know that the critter’s carcass was destined for the garbage heap.

But that was when I was little. And as cute as I still find mice, I understand that they’re destructive nuisances when they’re running rampant through one’s house. They chew up electrical wiring, drop poop everywhere and have a tendency of carrying disease. So once you got ‘em, you do what you can to get rid of ‘em. Or else you’ll probably regret it.

Some people think that’s cruel. That killing animals is morally wrong and should be avoided at all costs. That apparently includes the young man featured in a new YouTube video, a good (yet misguided) Samaritan of a sorts.

From what we can tell from the 1-minute clip, he found a mouse inside his home and tried to do the “humane” thing by driving it out to some wooded area and releasing it. Only problem was that, in less than 60 seconds, a hawk came along and scooped the mouse up, presumably for lunch.

So the mouse died anyway. And it probably wouldn’t have lasted long regardless. If it wasn’t a bird of prey, it would have been a snake or something else. That’s the way the wild works. It’s the circle of life. Watch the Lion King already.

So what’s the moral of this little story?

Essentially, being nice without being realistic is a big waste of time. No matter how cute a mouse is.

Friday, January 11, 2013

How Little the White House Thinks of Us


Yesterday, we had some very sad commentary coming out of the White House, specifically from Press Secretary – and all-around pansy stooge  Jay Carney who was busy parroting lines from President Obama.

Admittedly, Carney regularly says bewilderingly stupid things to cover for his arrogant, irrational boss. So it’s sadly no surprise what came out of his mouth this time around. Pretending to have a grown-up discussion about America’s debt problem, he had the audacity to say that:

“… deficit reduction is not a goal – a worthy goal unto itself. This is all about making our economy stronger, making it more productive and allowing it to create even more jobs. That is the most important thing when it comes to economic policy as far as the President is concerned.”

First off, that’s a lie. Second of all, it’s a really stupid lie. And thirdly, it’s a really insulting, stupid lie.

Every. Single. Bit of it.

I wish that somebody had challenged him to give a logical reason as to why “deficit reduction is not a worthy goal unto itself.” Just one. I’m not even asking for the standard, intellectual three supporting arguments. Just one single rationale for that notion will do.

But of course there aren’t any.

There isn’t anything good about spending this much more than our means. There isn’t anything mature about borrowing money (i.e. from China) to squander it on unnecessary agendas (i.e. giving money to China, supporting insupportable business ventures, paying off cronies, commissioning idiotic studies, etc, etc., etc. ad nauseam). There’s absolutely nothing noble about forcing others (i.e. taxpayers) to support your bad habits, demanding that they pay for your over-privileged lifestyle and lavish wishes.

And speaking of taxpayers, how is taking more money from businesses ever going to foster economic growth?

Exceptionally easy answer: It’s not.

If President Obama had a single shred of compassion or Jay Carney a single bit of decency, they’d at least stop trying to tell us otherwise. The fact that they keep promoting the same really insulting, stupid lies…?

Well, it says it all.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Another Argument for Second Amendment Rights


Over the last few weeks, we’ve had local, state and federal leaders threatening to revise or downright revoke Americans’ Second Amendment rights. They’re saying that there’s no reason we need guns, especially when guns are used by psychopaths to murder helpless school children.

No decent human being can argue that what happened to those little six and seven-year-olds and their teachers up in Connecticut was unfathomably evil. It was disgusting and depraved how another such criminal mastermind plotted out the best way to shoot up a crowded movie theater earlier in the year. And every other illegal shooting – mass or isolated, planned or carried out in the sick thrill of the moment – is just as heartbreaking and senseless and tragic.

But that doesn’t mean that there’s no reason to have guns. In fact, there have been a few prominent cases in just the last few weeks alone proving that the Second Amendment saves lives.

For instance:

·         In Tallahassee, Florida, a 26-year-old went to rob a convenience store armed with a cattle prod, which he used repeatedly on the clerk. Fortunately, the employee had a gun on him, which he brandished IN SELF DEFENSE, scaring the attacker off.
·         In Brookfield, Massachusetts, a 53-year-old and his 15-year-old nephew were randomly attacked by a bobcat. While both of them were bitten and scratched up and now have to go for rabies shots, it could have been a lot worse if the man’s wife didn’t have the presence of mind to grab their legally owned handgun and shoot the creature IN SELF DEFENSE.
·         In Georgia, a mother hid in her closet with her 9-year-old twins after an ex-convict broke into her house using a crowbar. When he opened up the closet door, she fired on him IN SELF DEFENSE, effectively protecting herself and her children.

Clearly, a gun trumps a cattle prod, bobcat or crowbar, which brings me to my second point…

People intent on committing violent acts have a wide array of options, with or without guns. A San Francisco man, for example, set his girlfriend on fire on Monday. A white supremacist brat was apprehended the same day in Alabama for seeking to set off a bomb at his high school. And a recent FBI report shows that, according to their annual crime statistics, more murders are committed every year with hammers and clubs than rifles.

But above and beyond the need to protect ourselves against the kind of narcissistic sociopaths our society seems so intent on producing these days, we also need to protect ourselves against a narcissistic, sociopathic, overspending, overreaching government that seeks to enslave us with propaganda, taxes, rules and regulations that hinder our individuality and chop our choices in half.

That’s why the Second Amendment is so necessary. Because otherwise, we only have the government to rely on to protect ourselves. And that’s a really scary thought.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

The Bewilderingly Stupid Saga of Rob Parker’s RGIII Issue Continues


There’s bewilderingly stupid. And then there’s ESPN commentator Rob Parker.

It wasn’t that long ago that the race-crazy nitwit was calling Redskins Quarterback Robert Griffin III a “cornball brother” and lamenting that: “He’s not real. Okay, he’s black. He kind-of does the thing. But he’s not really down with the cause. He’s not one of us. He’s kind-of black, but he’s not really, like, the guy you want to hang out with because he’s off to something else. We all know he has a white fiancée. There was all this talk about he’s a Republican.”

Well, people freaked out on him for being so ignorant, as well they should have. The outcry was enough that Mr. Parker was suspended for six days, upon which he did apologize. But apparently he’s too stupid to really understand what he did wrong in the first place, because, as of Sunday, he was back at it again.

In an exclusive interview, he expressed bewilderment that his comments had caused such a ruckus, claiming that he was taken out of context and adding that he had never meant to “condemn the young man. RGIII is a great young man with a bright future. It was more about concerns, not condemning.”

Concerns, apparently, about how “athletes or famous entertainers or whatever push away from their people. And that’s really what it’s about. You saw it with O.J. Simpson and some other people where they say, ‘Well, I’m not black; I’m O.J.’ So it’s more about that, not about RGIII and what’s going on. It’s more about this thing we’ve battled for years and why people have pushed away from their people. It’s more about that.”

“Pushed away from their people?” By that reasoning, I should embrace everything Italian American, mafia included. Maybe go by Jennie the D (D standing for Death, of course. Very intimidating, right?), pack heat and eat more pasta?

Ok, ok. I don’t think it’s possible for me to eat more pasta than I already do, but you get the point. Hopefully. Unless you’re as neurologically-challenged as Rob Parker.

RGIII, meanwhile, should clearly start acting much more like the ego-tripping thug, Terrell Owens, who never gets accused of not being black enough. Maybe if he knocked up a liquor store or two and made himself a baby daddy a few times over, Mr. Parker would approve of him a bit more.

Griffin might not be able to respect himself anymore, of course. But who cares?

Clearly, self-respect isn't the point. The point is to be authentically black as defined by bewilderingly stupid, really racist people like Rob Parker.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Taxes Go Up on the Even the Lower Middle Class


Back on January second, I wrote about the fiscal cliff deal and taxes going up on only some of “the rich,” Hollywood excluded. I also mentioned that I vehemently disagreed with the so-called solution, even though my current place of employment was too cheap to pay me enough for my salary to suffer directly from the new round of regulations.

Then I got my first paycheck of the year on Friday, January 4th, only to find out that apparently I and my income aren’t nearly as lowly as I originally thought. At this point, I have to assume that the greedy, good-for-nothing government will be taking at least an additional $60 out of each month’s wages, since it already stole an extra $30.

On the one hand, that’s a bad thing. I was planning on putting more money towards my student loans this year, along with building up my savings and, I don’t know, paying for stuff like the ever-rising cost of living.

Then again, it’s rather gratifying to see my fellow middle classers’ reactions to the tax hike, particularly those who voted Democrat. As Washington Times correspondent Joseph Curl writes, “With President Obama back in office and his life-saving ‘fiscal cliff’ bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.”

Take the poster who took to DemocraticUnderground.com, a liberal website, to complain: “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me…”

Curl also records the words of user RomneyLies, who aired his grievances about expecting “between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th.” And DemocratToTheEnd jumped in with: “My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help.”

But BlueIndyBlue might have had the best comment, at least of those that Curl reported in his article. That person blames it on the “payroll department [which] didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”

Unlike BlueIndyBlue, intelligent human beings recognize that it isn’t the payroll department’s fault. It’s the voters’ fault for either supporting Obama in his re-election bid or just not voting for Romney. The people who allowed the President to retain office – for whatever reason, be it extreme ignorance, racism, dislike for the other guy, etc. – deserve to have their taxes go up.

They literally asked for this, though admittedly they asked for it to happen to “the rich,” not to them. But they’re still to blame for ignoring the car salesman sleaze that Obama regularly oozes.

He lies. He cheats. He steals. After four years of his bad behavior, this is not surprising.

It’s just a shame that the rest of the country has to suffer for their mistakes along with them. Otherwise, this might be worth a real laugh or two.

Monday, January 7, 2013

The Delusion of Thinking Oneself Automatically Special


There’s a very interesting article circulating the web right now that can currently be found on the UK’s Mail Online. It’s all about the me generation, an era of young adults who have been brainwashed into believing that they’re automatically awesome just because they exist.

Here are a couple of the more telling quotes from the article:

“Young people's unprecedented level of self-infatuation was revealed in a new analysis of the American Freshman Survey, which has been asking students to rate themselves compared to their peers since 1966… over the last four decades there's been a dramatic rise in the number of students who describe themselves as being ‘above average’ in the areas of academic ability, drive to achieve, mathematical ability, and self-confidence.”

“Researchers also found a disconnect between the student's opinions of themselves and actual ability… objective test scores actually show that their writing abilities are far less than those of their 1960s counterparts. Also on the decline is the amount of time spent studying, with little more than a third of students saying they study for six or more hours a week compared to almost half of all students claiming the same in the late 1980s.”

The article continues with… “Though they may work less, the number that said they had a drive to succeed rose sharply. These young egotists can grow up to be depressed adults. A 2006 study found that students suffer from ‘ambition inflation’ as their increased ambitions accompany increasingly unrealistic expectations.”

Immediately, I have to think about the 20-something hairdresser who cut my hair early last year. While she snipped away, I couldn’t help but notice how she was far more focused on telling her coworker all about her aspirations to become a stylist for the stars. She was so intent on her dreams, in fact, that she ended up lopping one side of my curly locks a decent two inches shorter than the other. And never noticed.

Why? Because she was so busy thinking herself something special that she was practicing at being someone special.

She’s hardly alone either. Think about all of the other young people out there wasting time on their blogs or YouTube videos or countless other pointless, hopeless pursuits in order to showcase some “cool” talent that will supposedly make them rich and famous.

Of course, real adults realize that isn’t the way it works. Sure, sometimes you just make it big for no good reason. Dumb luck certainly does appear to play a part in some success stories. But even when that does happen, it requires hard work and know-how to retain the benefits of that dumb luck.

That’s something that real adults recognize. Clearly, this “above average” generation is sorely lacking in anything so grown up.

Friday, January 4, 2013

Rampant Stupidity on Display


People are stupid.

I actually don’t enjoy saying that, but it’s true nonetheless. People are incredibly, bewilderingly stupid.

For example, that New Jersey woman who served as a photo opportunity for President Obama after Hurricane Sandy hit? She’s an idiot for honestly believing that the President of the United States was going to take time out of his day to personally help her out.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

I feel very bad for her for losing her business the way she did and getting no help from the insurance company. But I can’t feel bad that she’s so incredibly naïve to actually believe Obama would follow through on his promise of “immediate” assistance. That’s on her head.

Even if Obama hadn’t proven himself to be a reprehensibly self-focused man and worse than useless in sensitive situations, his job description still wouldn’t include focusing on a single citizen like that.

Sorry, but it’s stupid to think otherwise.

It’s similarly stupid to think that what our government needs is simply more female representatives.

Yet speaking about the historic number of women now holding Senate seats in our nation’s capital, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) promoted that idea by erroneously claiming women to be “less confrontational” and better “problem solvers.” And Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) waxed silliness, saying, “What I find is, with all due deference to our male colleagues, that women’s styles tend to be more collaborative.”

While they’re stereotyping, can we also predict more catfights and crying? Because all women do those too, right?

Contrary to their pathetic platitudes, it’s not women we need in government. It’s decent people of either gender who have common sense, integrity and humility.

Claiming anything else?

It’s just stupid.