Every generation since the ancient Egyptians have looked upon the next generation with scorn. I try to step back from this as much as possible. I turn a blind eye on school shootings, drug use, tattoos, piercings and the stuff that has been going on for eons and say that the news is just better now but this stuff has always continued. What I'm going to talk about is how entitled today's youths are. This is not going to be about Obama or the economy or anything like that. It's going to be about kids and their parents.
Last weekend I spent some time with a family of four kids. I also grew up with a family of four kids, and the similarities between the two are striking. In both families, 7 of the 8 children feel that even after they've graduated college and gotten a degree, their parents should still pay for everything. If the father complains that he doesn't want to support them and pay all the bills, the kids isolate the mother and vehemently attack their father and try to convince their own mother to divorce their father. I'm shocked by this reckless, vehement behavior. I completely understand trying to separate from your parents and live your own life but I always believed that to mean becomining financially independant as well. These kids want a lifetime of financial dependance but still demand their parents not treat them like little kids. If you're going to act like a little kid and refuse to save your money for paying your bills and instead waste it on Ipads, bars, clubs etc. etc. then I see no reason why you shouldn't be treated like a little kid because that's precisely what they do.
I stayed mostly quiet doing this 2-day tirade that was sparked because the father was upset that his son informed their father that he needed to pay his cell phone bill while he sent him pictures of him partying in Europe. When I did speak I said, "Look, do what I did, get a job, get financially independant so that way when your parents try to control your life you can tell them to fuck off. My parents have no control on where I go and what I do simply because I'm the one paying for it" this was answered with, "Wow, somebody has mommy and daddy issues"
This is coming from the same person who has constantly told me that her younger brother is the favorite of the family. Oddly, the same kid that sparked this entire conversation because the father got pissed that he had to pay for his cell phone bill. This father is paying for all his kid's housings, cell phones, and bills. The youngest of the four is 26 years old. Complaining about your parents is one thing, but trying to convince your mom to divorce your dad because he voices his frustration in having to pay for all your bills so that you can stay at home and play computer games/X-box/online poker/watch TV etc. etc" is just plain asinine. then may favorite insult comes up "Dad is so selfish!"
In these situations I think the dad is too selfless. I think it would be best for the father to cut his children off. Force them to get a job and make something of themselves. You want to move out, than pay for your own place. No, I'm not paying your bills, if you can't afford rent, you should have thought about that before you bought the new Iphone 5 or whatever the latest contraption is. I believe in the virtue of selfishness but I wouldn't call complaining that you have to continually support your kids well into their 30s for every expense as selfish. The problem is kids use their parents unconditional love against their parents. They use it as a weapon "you won't cut me off because you love me." this is dangerous. Parents should and usually will sacrifice their well being for their children. These kids know this so they try to bring their parents to bankruptcy so that they can party and live a slothful life. This is why I think unconditional love is dangerous.
Here's a simple message to kids out there, if you hate being babied by your parents, become financially independant, if you can't cut it, then don't bitch at them for being frustrated. The only blame for your incompetance, despite what society tells you, is you!
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
What you need in a spouse
Many books have been written about the perfect marriage. There are many dating sites that ask a series of questions about your likes and dislikes to set up a profile that they can match you up with people. Me adding my thoughts to the pool seems like a drop in the ocean. Especially since I'm asexual, how can I speak about this? Well, in order to not like something, you have to know something about it. I believe my asexuality helps me to step back and look at relationships from an objective, non-emotive point of view.
If you ask people in good relationships what they like about their spouse, they say things like "he/she has 'it'" but can't describe "it." Or, "There's just something about her (from now on I'm going to speak as a heterosexual male, since that is what I used to be so 'spouses' will be feminine but my comments apply to men as well) Even in the movies they're vague as in "You complete me" or "yin to my yang." But what specifically is it? It's really just the ability to handle you.
The reason why I firmly believe that those who are 100% of a given culture should marry their own culture is becuase members of that culture have a unique ability to understand you. For instance, being Greek is such a large part of who I am. I have friends of other nationalities that range from off the boat to 2nd generations but trace their lineage to a particular country. I find that I can get along with Eastern Europeans because the geography and culture is similar to Greeks. What I realized is that people from other Orthodox Eastern European cultures don't really know how to handle me the way a Greek girl does. I don't even have to be that close to a Greek girl for them to know how to handle me. I do have a short temper and I do stubbornly dig my heels in and a lot of my closest friends either get intimidated or wait it out. The thing is, there is a way to deal with me in that particular situation. Most of my closest friends are girls, and one of them is Greek, she knows how to deal with it better than anyone when I get like this. What I noticed is though, I've never lost my temper and snapped around a Greek girl who didn't immediately know how to handle the situation. Greek casual acquintances of mine knows how to handle me better than my closest and dearest friends.
When you are married to someone, they will see you in every possibly mood that you could be in. You want that person to know what to do no matter what happens. It is not something that can be learned later in life. You can argue that these Greek girls know how to do it because their fathers act like Greek men so they grew up with it. I'll give some credence to this but I will say that I'm thoroughly convinced it can't be taught later in life.
Now some people say "I don't want to be handled" in which case, you're too insecure to be in a relationship. People can talk all they want about how they want someone who's smart, logical, funny,sensitive, can close a restaurant/bar with, balances me out etc. etc. but the most important thing is to ask yourself can this person handle you in every one of your moods. if the answer is yes, then the rest is just details.
I feel I would be remiss if I didn't include this. I spoke about my observance of how Greek girls know how to handle me. The thing is, I'm starting to realize that Dominicans seem to have this understanding too with me the way Greeks do. So, that adds a counter to another claim I made in this passage (If you are of a certain culture, you should stick with that culture) but independant of that claim, the main point is find someone that can handle you. Then, divorce is far less likely.
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this site
If you ask people in good relationships what they like about their spouse, they say things like "he/she has 'it'" but can't describe "it." Or, "There's just something about her (from now on I'm going to speak as a heterosexual male, since that is what I used to be so 'spouses' will be feminine but my comments apply to men as well) Even in the movies they're vague as in "You complete me" or "yin to my yang." But what specifically is it? It's really just the ability to handle you.
The reason why I firmly believe that those who are 100% of a given culture should marry their own culture is becuase members of that culture have a unique ability to understand you. For instance, being Greek is such a large part of who I am. I have friends of other nationalities that range from off the boat to 2nd generations but trace their lineage to a particular country. I find that I can get along with Eastern Europeans because the geography and culture is similar to Greeks. What I realized is that people from other Orthodox Eastern European cultures don't really know how to handle me the way a Greek girl does. I don't even have to be that close to a Greek girl for them to know how to handle me. I do have a short temper and I do stubbornly dig my heels in and a lot of my closest friends either get intimidated or wait it out. The thing is, there is a way to deal with me in that particular situation. Most of my closest friends are girls, and one of them is Greek, she knows how to deal with it better than anyone when I get like this. What I noticed is though, I've never lost my temper and snapped around a Greek girl who didn't immediately know how to handle the situation. Greek casual acquintances of mine knows how to handle me better than my closest and dearest friends.
When you are married to someone, they will see you in every possibly mood that you could be in. You want that person to know what to do no matter what happens. It is not something that can be learned later in life. You can argue that these Greek girls know how to do it because their fathers act like Greek men so they grew up with it. I'll give some credence to this but I will say that I'm thoroughly convinced it can't be taught later in life.
Now some people say "I don't want to be handled" in which case, you're too insecure to be in a relationship. People can talk all they want about how they want someone who's smart, logical, funny,sensitive, can close a restaurant/bar with, balances me out etc. etc. but the most important thing is to ask yourself can this person handle you in every one of your moods. if the answer is yes, then the rest is just details.
I feel I would be remiss if I didn't include this. I spoke about my observance of how Greek girls know how to handle me. The thing is, I'm starting to realize that Dominicans seem to have this understanding too with me the way Greeks do. So, that adds a counter to another claim I made in this passage (If you are of a certain culture, you should stick with that culture) but independant of that claim, the main point is find someone that can handle you. Then, divorce is far less likely.
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this site
Monday, November 12, 2012
hugs
I have no qualms about admitting that I'm a hug whore. I really enjoy a nice passionate hug and I seek them out and can't think of one time where I shied away from one. I've always looked at hugs as the feminine equivalent of a hand shake. Like handshakes, I do judge people on the way they hug. With a handshake, however, it's very simple, was it firm or was it not firm? Ever since I was young, I always respected someone that when they shook my hand, my hand hurt afterwards. I actually have a moral problem with shaking without a firm grip, which gets me in trouble with women since a lot of times they will shake their hand in pain. I do feel bad when this happens, but I really can't shake with a non-firm grip. this is why I try to hug women. In Ohio,where I grew up, this is almost always taken the wrong way and the women cower back thus leaving me in an awkward position since I went in for a hug, got denied, shook hands and now I just have to hope I don't hurt her hand. I have never gotten in trouble for squeezing too hard on a hug. That's why I like European and New York culture where women and men (and in Europe men and men) hug as a greeting even if it's their first. Hugs are so much cooler than handshakes because the way people hug is as unique as people get. Here are some examples.
Almost always when a guy hugs another guy, there is a last second pull back as they don't fully commit and use their arm lengths to cover the slight distance they pulled back just before impact. Now, when I'm hugging another guy, I expect and don't mind this. I realized though that when I hug my homosexual guy friends, they don't have this last second pull back. This is regardless of if they have a boyfriend at the time. It also crosses gender lines the other way, one of my female friends does hug me like a guy. Now, how big of a deal is this? Well, I used to have another female friend that hugged me like a guy and I will briefly talk about her.
Throughout the time i've known her, we were very close friends. I believe a lot of people have a hierarchy of friends but I'm one of the few that puts a lot of thought into it. There are 9 people I have let in my highest hierarchy of friends. Three of them were mutual friends of hers. Although I loved hanging out with her and I was a guest at her house on many many occasions, I always put her just a hair under the highest hierarchy. When she hugged me, she hugged like a guy, and more often then not only used one arm. It was just enough so that I didn't complain. During the first couple years of our friendship, I would call her out if she didn't hug me good bye, which is why I thought these hugs were just to stop me from calling her out. I came up with other reasons why she wasn't welcomed into my hierarchy but I realized that was wrong when in 2011, after we had been close friends for 8 years, we decided to go on a trip to Europe together. I saw her at JFK and she walked up to me, wrapped both arms around my waist, interlocked her hands where my spine meets my buttocks and pulled hard toward her. Immediately my posture straightened and I hugged her back passionately. At that exact second, she was elevated as the 9th member of the hierarchy. it turns out that the only thing that kept her out was the way she hugged me.
The other interesting thing about a hug is that it shows how well you know someone. Unlike hand shakes, I don't hug everyone the same way; since i know what they're going to do I react accordingly. One of my best female friends hugs by lunging forward and literally jumping into your arms. Usually when I hug, I lean in, but with her, I plant my feet because I know that I'm not only hugging her but I'm going to have to catch her. My friend's cousin also comes at you with a running start but rather than jump, she wraps her arms around you and twists to her left (your right) so, when I hug her, I relax the right side of my body and twist to ease the impact. when she shifts, I ease her back. My friend's other cousin will not let go until I pick her up. She affectionately wraps her arms around my neck and nestles her head in my chest and waits. Since I'm a foot taller than her, I'm leaning down to hug her, I merely straighten and she comes up with me and then she lets go. The weird thing is, it's never planned or articulated, it's just that somehow I know she wants me to pick her up. One of the other hierarchy friends wraps her arms aroud me, nestles her head into my chest and relaxes her body as if she's going to sleep. This is what I call an affectionate hugs. The ones who charge at me forcing me to set my feet I call passionate hugs. The JFK girl is still a passionate hug but rather than charge toward me, she grabs me and pulls me toward her. I haven't decided which hugs I like best.
My standard hug with a girl is to lean in wrap both hands around her and rest them in the middle of her back. I pay attention to what she does so i'll know for next time. I'm still thrown off guard by the JFK friend because I don't know when I'm going to get a passionate hug or a standard hug. Although, since our trip to Europe in 2011, she has never hugged me like a guy like she used to.
Hugs are the # 1 thing that cheer me up. As I say in my book, there is no greater manly feeling than when a woman is wrapped in your arm and you feel her body relax. As I think about this, there really are no two people that hug alike. I still know two girls that hug me like guys but they do so in different ways, one uses one arm, the other two. Asians don't like hugging, I can't possibly imagine why. There's something mysterious, instinctive and unspoken about them. Never have I consciously prepared myself to hug someone, I just naturally know what I'm supposed to do and the more times I hug someone, the better I get without even realizing it.
autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page
Almost always when a guy hugs another guy, there is a last second pull back as they don't fully commit and use their arm lengths to cover the slight distance they pulled back just before impact. Now, when I'm hugging another guy, I expect and don't mind this. I realized though that when I hug my homosexual guy friends, they don't have this last second pull back. This is regardless of if they have a boyfriend at the time. It also crosses gender lines the other way, one of my female friends does hug me like a guy. Now, how big of a deal is this? Well, I used to have another female friend that hugged me like a guy and I will briefly talk about her.
Throughout the time i've known her, we were very close friends. I believe a lot of people have a hierarchy of friends but I'm one of the few that puts a lot of thought into it. There are 9 people I have let in my highest hierarchy of friends. Three of them were mutual friends of hers. Although I loved hanging out with her and I was a guest at her house on many many occasions, I always put her just a hair under the highest hierarchy. When she hugged me, she hugged like a guy, and more often then not only used one arm. It was just enough so that I didn't complain. During the first couple years of our friendship, I would call her out if she didn't hug me good bye, which is why I thought these hugs were just to stop me from calling her out. I came up with other reasons why she wasn't welcomed into my hierarchy but I realized that was wrong when in 2011, after we had been close friends for 8 years, we decided to go on a trip to Europe together. I saw her at JFK and she walked up to me, wrapped both arms around my waist, interlocked her hands where my spine meets my buttocks and pulled hard toward her. Immediately my posture straightened and I hugged her back passionately. At that exact second, she was elevated as the 9th member of the hierarchy. it turns out that the only thing that kept her out was the way she hugged me.
The other interesting thing about a hug is that it shows how well you know someone. Unlike hand shakes, I don't hug everyone the same way; since i know what they're going to do I react accordingly. One of my best female friends hugs by lunging forward and literally jumping into your arms. Usually when I hug, I lean in, but with her, I plant my feet because I know that I'm not only hugging her but I'm going to have to catch her. My friend's cousin also comes at you with a running start but rather than jump, she wraps her arms around you and twists to her left (your right) so, when I hug her, I relax the right side of my body and twist to ease the impact. when she shifts, I ease her back. My friend's other cousin will not let go until I pick her up. She affectionately wraps her arms around my neck and nestles her head in my chest and waits. Since I'm a foot taller than her, I'm leaning down to hug her, I merely straighten and she comes up with me and then she lets go. The weird thing is, it's never planned or articulated, it's just that somehow I know she wants me to pick her up. One of the other hierarchy friends wraps her arms aroud me, nestles her head into my chest and relaxes her body as if she's going to sleep. This is what I call an affectionate hugs. The ones who charge at me forcing me to set my feet I call passionate hugs. The JFK girl is still a passionate hug but rather than charge toward me, she grabs me and pulls me toward her. I haven't decided which hugs I like best.
My standard hug with a girl is to lean in wrap both hands around her and rest them in the middle of her back. I pay attention to what she does so i'll know for next time. I'm still thrown off guard by the JFK friend because I don't know when I'm going to get a passionate hug or a standard hug. Although, since our trip to Europe in 2011, she has never hugged me like a guy like she used to.
Hugs are the # 1 thing that cheer me up. As I say in my book, there is no greater manly feeling than when a woman is wrapped in your arm and you feel her body relax. As I think about this, there really are no two people that hug alike. I still know two girls that hug me like guys but they do so in different ways, one uses one arm, the other two. Asians don't like hugging, I can't possibly imagine why. There's something mysterious, instinctive and unspoken about them. Never have I consciously prepared myself to hug someone, I just naturally know what I'm supposed to do and the more times I hug someone, the better I get without even realizing it.
autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page
Sunday, November 11, 2012
attacking Dick Morris
For the last two elections, Dick Morris, campaign manager for Bill Clinton, has predicted landslide victories for the Republicans. Obviously, he was wrong. He was all over his website Dick Morris.com with videos backing up his position of a Romney landslide. I'm only going to bring up one video because it helped me see that Romney wouldn't win. His defense to how wrong he's been the last 4 years is, "When you get a man elected as President, then you can talk to me" my response is, "What have you done for me lately."
He compared Carter to Obama by saying this (I'm paraphrasing)
You have to remember under Carter, Iran held a bunch of Americans hostage at our
embassy showing how weak America was and inflation was so out of control that interest
rates went up to 20% so nobody was saving. Which is similar because now we have the
Libya debacle, which is like Iran under Carter and the economy is bad. This leads to a
conservative to win like Raegan did.
As I heard this speech, I said to the computer "Wow, we're nowhere near that now." Libya, the ambassador and three other Americans are dead. We just now need to find who did it. There's no hostage, no rescue needed, they're dead, it's over now we just need to retaliate. In Iran, we had to figure a way for them to release the hostages to prevent killing of Americans. Interest rates are nowhere near 20% and inflation is not a problem. Yes, the national debt is, but that's not the same thing and nobody has increased interest rates to astronimical levels or printed a lot more money in response to the debt. So, all that his video showed me was that America isn't bad enough for every day people to realize why we need conservatives like Raegan in charge.
Maybe after another four years of Obama, they will. Or maybe everyone will still blame Bush the way they do now. Time will tell.
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page
He compared Carter to Obama by saying this (I'm paraphrasing)
You have to remember under Carter, Iran held a bunch of Americans hostage at our
embassy showing how weak America was and inflation was so out of control that interest
rates went up to 20% so nobody was saving. Which is similar because now we have the
Libya debacle, which is like Iran under Carter and the economy is bad. This leads to a
conservative to win like Raegan did.
As I heard this speech, I said to the computer "Wow, we're nowhere near that now." Libya, the ambassador and three other Americans are dead. We just now need to find who did it. There's no hostage, no rescue needed, they're dead, it's over now we just need to retaliate. In Iran, we had to figure a way for them to release the hostages to prevent killing of Americans. Interest rates are nowhere near 20% and inflation is not a problem. Yes, the national debt is, but that's not the same thing and nobody has increased interest rates to astronimical levels or printed a lot more money in response to the debt. So, all that his video showed me was that America isn't bad enough for every day people to realize why we need conservatives like Raegan in charge.
Maybe after another four years of Obama, they will. Or maybe everyone will still blame Bush the way they do now. Time will tell.
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Just the facts
I have a little cognitive dissonance. On one hand, I have a book called, The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years and on the other hand, I say that the election proves that America is no longer a center right country. Did America really change over the years? Is now the silent majority that was center right turn left? At first, it seems yes, but I'm beginning to reconsider.
Before the election I hoped for rain in Cuyahoga county (the county most of Cleveland is in) since without Cuyahoga county Romney would be up 6 points. I hoped for rain because voter turn out drops 60% when it rains, usually the people that come out to vote through rain, sleet or snow are Republicans. The Democrats stay home, and given that Obama only won buy 100,000 votes, I think if it rained, Ohio would have gone to Romney That being said, even if Romney won Ohio, Obama still would have won the election so who really cares? Someone once asked me, "If New York is so liberal, how come the congressmen are Republicans" At the time, Pataki was our governor and he is a Republican. Mayor Bloomberg was running as a Republican and hadn't switched his position to "Independent' as of yet. I thought about this and I couldn't answer the question at the time. My only explanation was this "Silent majority" thing. Now, I realized that my prayer for rain and the fact that Republicans have won seats in very blue states like Massachusettes, New York and New Jersey are related. A lot of congressional and mayoral elections happen on an off-Presidential election year. Senate is up every six years, so doesn't correspond always with the 4 years of the Presidential and Mayoral is always an off year. Fewer people vote in the mid-term elections, and it's really only the people who believe it's an honor to vote...which are the same people that will go even if it's raining. Thus, Republicans can win in blue states because liberals only come out to vote every four years.
The reason why so many experts picked Romney to win was because they didn't think that African-Americans, young people and Hispanics would come out to vote as much as they did in 2008. When polling, most of them asked more Democrats than Republicans, thus these "experts" used a curve to judge it since there was no way the demographics would come up the way they did in 2008. Instead, they averaged the weight by the votes in 2008, 2004, 2000 and 1996. They were dead wrong, in fact, more of these demographics came out in 2012 than they did in 2008. What we're seeing now isn't a shift in America to the left, we're seeing more people motivated to vote. In some places you can vote online. Since it's easier and more convenient to vote, more people are voting. The more people that vote, the less likely a Republican will win because there are more people who are influenced by Hollywood, TV and celebrities, which are predominantly liberals than people who step back and see the big picture. Yes, in 2008, President Obama won, lowered taxes on middle to lower income people like me so my paycheck went up. But, Obamacare made it more expensive for my boss to give me health insurance, he took the hit for a couple years but then gave in and took more out of my paycheck. This and people got laid off which is very rare in my company for office employees. The problem is, the negative side effects come later, while the positive was instantaneous. I can see how someone in my position would say, "well, I got more money so go Obama" without realizing that the people as a whole are hurting because now employers have more trouble hiring and paying people.
I am not a Republican, I'm an objectivist. Democracy is about the power to the people to vote. If more people are voting, that's good, on an objective level, for what Democracy stands for. I do believe the Democrats are worse for the country than Republicans but that doesn't mean people should be dissuaded from voting. Now people believe voting is important, maybe that's because of how close Bush vs. Gore was. This is a good thing. I don't even know if I want to write here, "Now they just need to stop being selfish and look at the big picture." because as an objectivist, I think selfishness is good. When Russians had to wait in line for bread, gas and other essentials under the communist regime, they fought tooth and nail to get out. When Americans had to wait in four hour lines for gas and couldn't go to the grocery store for a week, they never turned their anger to the government. Ayn Rand would say that an Obama victory is good because the country would be messed up enough for everyone to finally get why socialism, legislation based on emotion and the left policy can't work. This way a real conservative can win, just like Raegan won because Carter fucked up America. I still believe the world hasn't progressed in 5,000 years. Raegan was only 30 years ago. So, Obama may be the new Carter. I guess another blog is needed to attack Dick Morris for saying that the current state of America is just as bad as Carter. It's not even close. So, America was never a center right country, but a majority didn't vote. A majority of voters were center right. Now, more people are voting, so your message needs to hit more people.
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page
Before the election I hoped for rain in Cuyahoga county (the county most of Cleveland is in) since without Cuyahoga county Romney would be up 6 points. I hoped for rain because voter turn out drops 60% when it rains, usually the people that come out to vote through rain, sleet or snow are Republicans. The Democrats stay home, and given that Obama only won buy 100,000 votes, I think if it rained, Ohio would have gone to Romney That being said, even if Romney won Ohio, Obama still would have won the election so who really cares? Someone once asked me, "If New York is so liberal, how come the congressmen are Republicans" At the time, Pataki was our governor and he is a Republican. Mayor Bloomberg was running as a Republican and hadn't switched his position to "Independent' as of yet. I thought about this and I couldn't answer the question at the time. My only explanation was this "Silent majority" thing. Now, I realized that my prayer for rain and the fact that Republicans have won seats in very blue states like Massachusettes, New York and New Jersey are related. A lot of congressional and mayoral elections happen on an off-Presidential election year. Senate is up every six years, so doesn't correspond always with the 4 years of the Presidential and Mayoral is always an off year. Fewer people vote in the mid-term elections, and it's really only the people who believe it's an honor to vote...which are the same people that will go even if it's raining. Thus, Republicans can win in blue states because liberals only come out to vote every four years.
The reason why so many experts picked Romney to win was because they didn't think that African-Americans, young people and Hispanics would come out to vote as much as they did in 2008. When polling, most of them asked more Democrats than Republicans, thus these "experts" used a curve to judge it since there was no way the demographics would come up the way they did in 2008. Instead, they averaged the weight by the votes in 2008, 2004, 2000 and 1996. They were dead wrong, in fact, more of these demographics came out in 2012 than they did in 2008. What we're seeing now isn't a shift in America to the left, we're seeing more people motivated to vote. In some places you can vote online. Since it's easier and more convenient to vote, more people are voting. The more people that vote, the less likely a Republican will win because there are more people who are influenced by Hollywood, TV and celebrities, which are predominantly liberals than people who step back and see the big picture. Yes, in 2008, President Obama won, lowered taxes on middle to lower income people like me so my paycheck went up. But, Obamacare made it more expensive for my boss to give me health insurance, he took the hit for a couple years but then gave in and took more out of my paycheck. This and people got laid off which is very rare in my company for office employees. The problem is, the negative side effects come later, while the positive was instantaneous. I can see how someone in my position would say, "well, I got more money so go Obama" without realizing that the people as a whole are hurting because now employers have more trouble hiring and paying people.
I am not a Republican, I'm an objectivist. Democracy is about the power to the people to vote. If more people are voting, that's good, on an objective level, for what Democracy stands for. I do believe the Democrats are worse for the country than Republicans but that doesn't mean people should be dissuaded from voting. Now people believe voting is important, maybe that's because of how close Bush vs. Gore was. This is a good thing. I don't even know if I want to write here, "Now they just need to stop being selfish and look at the big picture." because as an objectivist, I think selfishness is good. When Russians had to wait in line for bread, gas and other essentials under the communist regime, they fought tooth and nail to get out. When Americans had to wait in four hour lines for gas and couldn't go to the grocery store for a week, they never turned their anger to the government. Ayn Rand would say that an Obama victory is good because the country would be messed up enough for everyone to finally get why socialism, legislation based on emotion and the left policy can't work. This way a real conservative can win, just like Raegan won because Carter fucked up America. I still believe the world hasn't progressed in 5,000 years. Raegan was only 30 years ago. So, Obama may be the new Carter. I guess another blog is needed to attack Dick Morris for saying that the current state of America is just as bad as Carter. It's not even close. So, America was never a center right country, but a majority didn't vote. A majority of voters were center right. Now, more people are voting, so your message needs to hit more people.
Autographed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of this page
Friday, November 9, 2012
Katrina vs. Sandy
Unlike how the title sounds, I'm not going to compare the two storms' devastation. I don't believe it's a contest, Sandy was only a category 1. I don't remember what Katrina was but Lousiana prepares a lot more for Hurricanes than the northeast simply because they get more with much more severity. With that said, and given that property in New York and New Jersey is more than New Orleans, Katrina caused 191 Billion in damage whereas, last estimate I heard, Sandy caused 30-50 Billion. I'm more interested in the people's reaction to it.
After Katrina hit, all I heard was how racist Bush was for not helping them. I didn't hear anyone fault President Obama for Sandy. I live in New York and nobody here said, "Why did he go to New Jersey and not New York?" The closest I heard is that Statan Islanders got mad that when the snow storm hit, FEMA evacuated and they set up their food donating services in areas that were not most affected. This got to the point that Statan Island resident have started collecting things such as suits and food to hand out to the beach front people who were most affected by the storm. This will not get national news....hell it didn't even get local news. I know this because I work with a woman who lives on Statan Island. So, why is it that Bush can be blamed for Katrina but Obama can't be blamed for Sandy?
Some know that President Obama had an extremely good reason not to come to New York.....Mayor Bloomberg asked him not to. What you may not know is that the mayor of New Orleans also asked Bush not to come. They did this for the same reason. Their cities were a mess and they couldn't handle blocking off more streets and diverting resources to host the President of the United States. This is completely understandable which is why Bush and Obama should not be faulted for national disasters. That's not what happened though. Kanye West says, "Bush hates black people" at a fund raiser for hurricane victims. Why doesn't Kanye West say "Obama hates White people" afterall, most of the people who have ocean front properties and live in Long Beach Island, NJ, and Breezy Point, New York (two of the most devastated areas for Sandy) are White. How about, "Obama hates rich people." Those houses are very expensive. Or "Obama hates Italians" because Seaside Height, the Jersey Shore that the show made famous, was absolutely destroyed by Sandy. But you don't hear this from anyone. I'm going to repeat again, none of these things should be said, but I'm sure people would be appalled and accused of racism if they were said. I wish this same animosity and bitterness would be shown toward those who criticized Bush for Katrina.
I still would have no problem with FEMA being cut 30% like Romney suggested. Individual giving is skyrocketing to help the northeast. The NFL and the University of Kentucky alone have given over 2 million dollars. I know 2 million is nothing compared to 30-50 billion, but these are just two of the multiple private sector people giving money for the relief effort. I also think that States have more incentive to give. Yes, New York's government claim to be broke but when you have one of the highest taxes and tolls in the country to enter, you shouldn't be unless you are horrible at budgeting and managing money. The fact that they probably are is why the government needs to be small. Sure those who took the train from central jersey to Manhattan for work every day are happy that they get a free bus since their train won't be fixed for about a year, but that doesn't mean FEMA is underfunded or necesary of the amount they receive. I just wish that natural disasters wouldn't be so politicized the way liberals do. Name one conservative that even hinted at Obama being at fault for Sandy or Irene. Now compare that to the droves of liberals that blamed Bush for Katrina.
Signed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of the page
After Katrina hit, all I heard was how racist Bush was for not helping them. I didn't hear anyone fault President Obama for Sandy. I live in New York and nobody here said, "Why did he go to New Jersey and not New York?" The closest I heard is that Statan Islanders got mad that when the snow storm hit, FEMA evacuated and they set up their food donating services in areas that were not most affected. This got to the point that Statan Island resident have started collecting things such as suits and food to hand out to the beach front people who were most affected by the storm. This will not get national news....hell it didn't even get local news. I know this because I work with a woman who lives on Statan Island. So, why is it that Bush can be blamed for Katrina but Obama can't be blamed for Sandy?
Some know that President Obama had an extremely good reason not to come to New York.....Mayor Bloomberg asked him not to. What you may not know is that the mayor of New Orleans also asked Bush not to come. They did this for the same reason. Their cities were a mess and they couldn't handle blocking off more streets and diverting resources to host the President of the United States. This is completely understandable which is why Bush and Obama should not be faulted for national disasters. That's not what happened though. Kanye West says, "Bush hates black people" at a fund raiser for hurricane victims. Why doesn't Kanye West say "Obama hates White people" afterall, most of the people who have ocean front properties and live in Long Beach Island, NJ, and Breezy Point, New York (two of the most devastated areas for Sandy) are White. How about, "Obama hates rich people." Those houses are very expensive. Or "Obama hates Italians" because Seaside Height, the Jersey Shore that the show made famous, was absolutely destroyed by Sandy. But you don't hear this from anyone. I'm going to repeat again, none of these things should be said, but I'm sure people would be appalled and accused of racism if they were said. I wish this same animosity and bitterness would be shown toward those who criticized Bush for Katrina.
I still would have no problem with FEMA being cut 30% like Romney suggested. Individual giving is skyrocketing to help the northeast. The NFL and the University of Kentucky alone have given over 2 million dollars. I know 2 million is nothing compared to 30-50 billion, but these are just two of the multiple private sector people giving money for the relief effort. I also think that States have more incentive to give. Yes, New York's government claim to be broke but when you have one of the highest taxes and tolls in the country to enter, you shouldn't be unless you are horrible at budgeting and managing money. The fact that they probably are is why the government needs to be small. Sure those who took the train from central jersey to Manhattan for work every day are happy that they get a free bus since their train won't be fixed for about a year, but that doesn't mean FEMA is underfunded or necesary of the amount they receive. I just wish that natural disasters wouldn't be so politicized the way liberals do. Name one conservative that even hinted at Obama being at fault for Sandy or Irene. Now compare that to the droves of liberals that blamed Bush for Katrina.
Signed copies of my book can be bought at the bottom of the page
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
The people have spoken
President Barack Obama has won re-election. Many people have their theories why ranging from the black vote being too large to overcome to superstorm Sandy to the Republican Candidate being a woman hating, anti-student, out-of-touch rich man who can't relate to people. Given that Romney was up in all the important swing states (Ohio, Florida, and Virginia) before the storm and then even during the storm to invariably losing all of them on election day as people were still reeling, the storm I give credence too. I really can't believe the other ones, because the first insinuates that a White person will never beat a Black person for president. As for Romney's campaign, aside from his Monday Night Football comment "Nobody wants to watch woman's bobsledding" I didn't think his campaign was that bad. His comment wasn't bad, it's just that when everyone says you hate women and you make a comment about women sports...well...you may be playing into their hands. Then again, Monday Night Football is typically watched by men so I doubt it did much damage. Whatever the reason, and I'm sure millions of people will have their answers, let's just stick to the simplest point, in the clearest discrepancy between candidates since Carter vs. Raegan, the people chose Secular-progressive, far-left, entitlement Barack Obama.
This means that the silent majority is no longer right. It used to be that when you went outside you'd hear abortion on demand, gay marriage, get divorced, poor people are the most important members of our society, trees and small animals are more important than humans, Christians are hypocritical psychopathic murderers, only white people commit crimes, all black criminals were arrested because of racist cops etc. etc. etc. but then when it came down to a vote, these positions got crushed. That's because in the voting booth, with no liberals to yell at you, throw a pie at you or start a riot because they don't agree, people were free to vote how they felt, and they always chose the position on the right. Even as recently as 2008, the droves of black people that came out to vote voted against proposition 8 (legalize gay marriage) in astounding numbers since many blacks are religious and are against it. Not-so-long ago, the idea that you'd quit work and just live off the government was not very attractive and not many people wanted to do it....now people are preferring it to working, just as they have in Europe.
The majority now is the screaming, obnoxious, French Revolution mob that is the liberal positions. That is what America wants. They love the message that nothing they do is their fault. If you watch Forrest Gump, one guy that hits Jenny (Forrest's girlfriend) justifies beating Jenny as, "It's this damn war, you know I would never hurt you." In 1995, when Forrest Gump came out, the audience generally reacted to this to condemn the man and find his excuse for what it was; absolutely retarded. Just because you're against the war the federal government has gotten us into, doesn't give you the right to beat your girlfriend. Nowadays, I'm not so sure if we condemn that man. The message of the liberals is that nothing is your fault. You get divorced, nobody's fault, just two adults doing the mature adult thing. You rape and murder 14 women, the question everyone wants to know is, "What were your parents like?" "how were you brought up?" as if the answer could justify the behavior. Obama doubled the national debt from when he took over, not his fault, it's Bush's. In 4 years Obama sped up the decline by easy to see numbers and people said, "Damnit Bush, it couldn't be Obama." Yes, Obama is not seen as a messiah anymore, but that's not the point. Nothing is his fault. "My boss took more out of my paycheck because Obamacare rose the prices too high for him to take the full brunt of the hit" blame my boss not Obama. You can't find a job, it's not your fault, it's the schools or Bush, or racism, anything but you. Here's some money that you didn't earn. Oh you need more, fine, we'll just steal from rich people, they can afford it. Sounds eerily similar to "Lehman Brothers and big Wall Street corporations are so big, they can handle giving out housing loans to people that couldn't possibly pay them back." What happened? Oh wait, they did collapse, they weren't too big to take that hit....Democrats forced them into it, but we blame Bush or wall street anyway. Here Wall Street, here's a bailout, oh you're still fucking it up, here's another one. It's a nice message. It's not my fault I can't work, so I'm going to sit on my couch and get obese on the government money after all it's not that I'm lazy, it's because (fill in the newest excuse liberals provide).
I've often said that I want to be dead by 50. This is in defense of everyone who tells me how to live my life. I got a job so my parents can stop telling me how to live my life. Bloomberg tells me I can't have a soda above 16oz, so after March (when the law goes into effect) I'll have to buy two 16 oz since 20oz is barely enough for my meals now...and sometimes I do have to go back up and buy another 20oz. Now I'll consume 32oz, but I work for my money so I can do this. People defend this law with "Well Obesity is a problem and the government has to take care of people who are obese and don't have healthcare" without seeing the contradiction of if these people without health care are so poor, than how the hell can they afford to eat so much to get so fat? it's not their fault, it's the synthetic food America uses to feed everyone. Laura Ingraham, conservative talk radio host, says that if the Republicans can't beat Obama, then they need to change their platform. The Republican platform is limited government, strong national defense, lower taxes, Traditional values. If that can't win in America anymore and needs to be redone, then I really do want to die in the next 22 years (I'll be 50 in 22 years). I know the invisible hand is blind to politics. I know there is no country like America that gives these ideals. Without a place where people are encouraged to do well forcing them to make products that help everyone so they can sell more of it. In a world where you don't have to take responsibility for your actions, what will people do? The occupy Wall Street protests saw many women get raped because they made a pact, "No matter what, don't tell the cops." The rapists don't blame themselves, society doesn't blame the rapists, they blame Wall Street. Who wants to grow old in a world like that? Now more than ever, I want to be dead by 50, so you can bitch and moan all you want about how much soda I drink, and my refusal to go to the doctor for every ache and pain, or my refusal to take medication or my refusal to drink water because what you're claiming will happen as a result, seems better and better the longer I live.
Now, someone told me yesterday, "If Obama wins, I'm moving out of the country." I told her "I'm not, because even with Obama, this is stll the greatest country in the world." This is the only country that is run on an idea of power to the people, and freedom to not let the government interfere in your life. That is what the founding fathers envisioned. They never said that nothing is your fault but blame other people. They saw the government as a necessary evil but still evil therefore they wanted it limited. Even the idea of a central bank was a hotly contested issue. That was the majority opinion for about 236 years,
But now, Americans were given a choice, traditional values, power to the people, limited government intervention or enormous government telling you what size soda to drink, whether or not you can get healthcare, massive unemployment, debt increasing by over a trillion dollars a year, wasteful spending, give more money to people who prove they can't handle money and take it from those who prove they can handle money. The results are in, the latter wins by a near landslide!!! Too bad there are no other countries run on an idea.
This means that the silent majority is no longer right. It used to be that when you went outside you'd hear abortion on demand, gay marriage, get divorced, poor people are the most important members of our society, trees and small animals are more important than humans, Christians are hypocritical psychopathic murderers, only white people commit crimes, all black criminals were arrested because of racist cops etc. etc. etc. but then when it came down to a vote, these positions got crushed. That's because in the voting booth, with no liberals to yell at you, throw a pie at you or start a riot because they don't agree, people were free to vote how they felt, and they always chose the position on the right. Even as recently as 2008, the droves of black people that came out to vote voted against proposition 8 (legalize gay marriage) in astounding numbers since many blacks are religious and are against it. Not-so-long ago, the idea that you'd quit work and just live off the government was not very attractive and not many people wanted to do it....now people are preferring it to working, just as they have in Europe.
The majority now is the screaming, obnoxious, French Revolution mob that is the liberal positions. That is what America wants. They love the message that nothing they do is their fault. If you watch Forrest Gump, one guy that hits Jenny (Forrest's girlfriend) justifies beating Jenny as, "It's this damn war, you know I would never hurt you." In 1995, when Forrest Gump came out, the audience generally reacted to this to condemn the man and find his excuse for what it was; absolutely retarded. Just because you're against the war the federal government has gotten us into, doesn't give you the right to beat your girlfriend. Nowadays, I'm not so sure if we condemn that man. The message of the liberals is that nothing is your fault. You get divorced, nobody's fault, just two adults doing the mature adult thing. You rape and murder 14 women, the question everyone wants to know is, "What were your parents like?" "how were you brought up?" as if the answer could justify the behavior. Obama doubled the national debt from when he took over, not his fault, it's Bush's. In 4 years Obama sped up the decline by easy to see numbers and people said, "Damnit Bush, it couldn't be Obama." Yes, Obama is not seen as a messiah anymore, but that's not the point. Nothing is his fault. "My boss took more out of my paycheck because Obamacare rose the prices too high for him to take the full brunt of the hit" blame my boss not Obama. You can't find a job, it's not your fault, it's the schools or Bush, or racism, anything but you. Here's some money that you didn't earn. Oh you need more, fine, we'll just steal from rich people, they can afford it. Sounds eerily similar to "Lehman Brothers and big Wall Street corporations are so big, they can handle giving out housing loans to people that couldn't possibly pay them back." What happened? Oh wait, they did collapse, they weren't too big to take that hit....Democrats forced them into it, but we blame Bush or wall street anyway. Here Wall Street, here's a bailout, oh you're still fucking it up, here's another one. It's a nice message. It's not my fault I can't work, so I'm going to sit on my couch and get obese on the government money after all it's not that I'm lazy, it's because (fill in the newest excuse liberals provide).
I've often said that I want to be dead by 50. This is in defense of everyone who tells me how to live my life. I got a job so my parents can stop telling me how to live my life. Bloomberg tells me I can't have a soda above 16oz, so after March (when the law goes into effect) I'll have to buy two 16 oz since 20oz is barely enough for my meals now...and sometimes I do have to go back up and buy another 20oz. Now I'll consume 32oz, but I work for my money so I can do this. People defend this law with "Well Obesity is a problem and the government has to take care of people who are obese and don't have healthcare" without seeing the contradiction of if these people without health care are so poor, than how the hell can they afford to eat so much to get so fat? it's not their fault, it's the synthetic food America uses to feed everyone. Laura Ingraham, conservative talk radio host, says that if the Republicans can't beat Obama, then they need to change their platform. The Republican platform is limited government, strong national defense, lower taxes, Traditional values. If that can't win in America anymore and needs to be redone, then I really do want to die in the next 22 years (I'll be 50 in 22 years). I know the invisible hand is blind to politics. I know there is no country like America that gives these ideals. Without a place where people are encouraged to do well forcing them to make products that help everyone so they can sell more of it. In a world where you don't have to take responsibility for your actions, what will people do? The occupy Wall Street protests saw many women get raped because they made a pact, "No matter what, don't tell the cops." The rapists don't blame themselves, society doesn't blame the rapists, they blame Wall Street. Who wants to grow old in a world like that? Now more than ever, I want to be dead by 50, so you can bitch and moan all you want about how much soda I drink, and my refusal to go to the doctor for every ache and pain, or my refusal to take medication or my refusal to drink water because what you're claiming will happen as a result, seems better and better the longer I live.
Now, someone told me yesterday, "If Obama wins, I'm moving out of the country." I told her "I'm not, because even with Obama, this is stll the greatest country in the world." This is the only country that is run on an idea of power to the people, and freedom to not let the government interfere in your life. That is what the founding fathers envisioned. They never said that nothing is your fault but blame other people. They saw the government as a necessary evil but still evil therefore they wanted it limited. Even the idea of a central bank was a hotly contested issue. That was the majority opinion for about 236 years,
But now, Americans were given a choice, traditional values, power to the people, limited government intervention or enormous government telling you what size soda to drink, whether or not you can get healthcare, massive unemployment, debt increasing by over a trillion dollars a year, wasteful spending, give more money to people who prove they can't handle money and take it from those who prove they can handle money. The results are in, the latter wins by a near landslide!!! Too bad there are no other countries run on an idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)