US demographics prove Raeganomics

            I recently went on a trip to Cleveland, Ohio.  I live in New York City. When I went to the bar with some friends, I bought two tall beers (equivalent of two beers) and six shots.  When I closed my tab at the end of the night, it read twenty dollars.  Not because the bartender liked me, not because some of them were on the house but that was the cost at the bar.  It wasn't happy hour, this was Thanksgiving weekend.  I've drank in Cleveland before but it never ceases to amaze me just how cheap alcohol is there.  The odd thing is, alcohol at the grocery store may run you about the same as I would find in New York.  Restaurants are also dirt cheap in Cleveland.  Is it because food has to travel a shorter distance, thus less transportation costs, forcing the price of food down?  No, there's more farmland in New York State than in Ohio.  So why?  When I commented to my cousin in Houston he asked me about the price of alcohol in New York.  When I answered, he said, "Those are the same prices we have here."  Ah, so it's not a size of the city thing as New York is the biggest city in the United States and Houston is about the same size as Cleveland.  So why?

         Well, the answer comes from my favorite president, Ronald Reagan.  He said that if the rich people have more money, it will have a top down effect on everyone else.  I then thought to look for the United States demographics.  Even though New York is the largest city in the United States, it is not the most expensive city in the United States.  For that prestige belongs to San Francisco.  To which I queried, where are there more billionaires and uber-rich people?  Well the most amount of uber-rich people are, you may have guessed it, San Francisco.  Why can Houston afford to be more expensive, the oil tycoons and NASA are there.  They have their share of rich people too.  The point isn't that these cities can be rich because the uber-rich can afford them.  It's that the Uber-rich can afford to pay higher salaries to their employees thus creating a wealthier, by comparison, middle class than other cities.  Since these companies pay their employees enough to afford higher prices, restaurants, bars etc. can afford to charge more because the demand is more inelastic (the effect price has on demand).  Many bars in Cleveland closed down simply because Lebron James left.  If they started charging $5 per beer and $7-10 per mixed drink, people would stop coming and they may be forced to close.  The wholesale cost of alcohol is about the same everywhere in the United States, but a bar can make more profits when the citizens make more money.  You see this in cities with the highest concentration of rich people.  There is a direct correlation between the expensiveness of a city and the amount of rich people that live there.  Therefore, rich people seem not to be as greedy as society makes them out to be.  They pay more for their laborers, which in turn makes their employees able to pay more for recreation so that every part of the spectrum makes more money.  Exactly how Reaganomics is supposed to work.  So even though it's been 25 years since Reagan left office, his theory is still proven true in US demographics.  Perhaps someone should tell our President this so he stops forcing the uber-rich to give more of their money to the government when they seem to be distributing the wealth much more efficiently than the government could ever dream of.


Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be bought at the bottom of this page.  

Why America Will fail

I have often asked myself why those that easily excel at the ways most people judge intelligence, decide to withdraw from society.  Why did the character in Into the Wild abandon his car and hitchhike to Alaska to live off the land in an abandoned school bus?  Why did John Nash go crazy?  Why did the guy Patch Adams meet in the psyche ward self-commit himself?  I finally figured out the answer.  Truth, reason, and doing what needs to be done will always be attacked, labeled as evil, and rejected by society.  So why bother innovating?  Fighting stupidity is exhausting.  So just remove yourself from them.  They are so frustrated because they know how to improve the world but people won't let them.

America was founded on an idea.  It is the only country ever to be set up like this.  The revolutionaries fought to maintain their rights as Englishmen because the English didn't give them the same rights that they gave Englishmen in England.  Most people forget that the Revolutionaries and the colonists never referred to themselves as Americans but as Englishmen, even after they won their independence.  That's why they referred to ancient English texts like the Magna Charta when drafting the constitution.  They wrote the constitution because they saw that England having an oral tradition that allowed it to be living and breathing and change with the times was inefficient and didn't work. That's why they used a text written in 1215 to develop their constitution, get back to the way it was supposed to be.  Thomas Jefferson was so appalled by the notion of a central government that he didn't even want a central bank.  Imagine what he would think of today's society.

In Atlas Shrugged, Dr. Saddler explains, "Men are not open to truth or reason.  They cannot be reached by a rational argument.  the mind is powerless against them.  Yet we have to deal with them. If we want to accomplish anything, we have to deceive them into letting us accomplish it. Or force them.  They understand nothing else.  we cannot expect their support for any endeavor of the intellect, for any goal of the spirit."

In a conversation he has with the main character, he says "No principles have ever had any effect on society."
"What, then, direct's men's actions?"
"The expediency of the moment."

That is why when you have school shootings people want to ban guns immediately.  That is why when the CFO of NetFlix said, "I think the stock if overvalued now" without giving any reason why, the stock plummeted.  Nobody thinks, they just react.  Everyone feels, nobody thinks.  Politicians know that the stupid outnumber the intelligent, so they cater their campaigns to the idiots.  If you convince the stupid, you win the election.  Hugo Chavez has done it throughout his career and crippled the Venezuelan economy in the process.

Anti-Trust laws are widely viewed as good for the economy. Horror stories about predatory pricing have been told by economists across college campuses everywhere. The reality is if you corner 40% of the market (definition of a monopoly) in a free market society, you are awesome.  That means you know your industry better than anyone else.  Since people can't compete, they complain.  You are then forced to dissolve.  So what's your motivation to succeed? Rockefeller and Carnegie both saw their companies collapse after anti-trust laws got in the way. Not because they were evil like society said but because they lost the will to work. Society would've progressed better with them being able to grow limited only by the free market.  As for predatory pricing, it has never worked. A German company tried it with Dow (Considering the Dow Jones was named after him, I think you may see where this story is going) he turned it into a business opportunity and crippled the German companies business in Europe from America.  The Japanese were said to have tried it in the 80s, they collapsed and experienced deflation.  The invisible hand punishes those who try predatory pricing severely.  The horror stories are lies.  If $40 billion wasn't stolen from Bill Gates, I truly believe that Ipads and tablets would have been child's play compared to what could have been but now Microsoft knows not to use all of their ingenuity to make a supreme product.

Barry Goldwater ran a campaign that the truth has consequences.  The truth will always win out.  Rational thought wins.  Here's what happened during the Goldwater administration.....Wait there was no Goldwater administration.  What happened in the election?  He lost in a landslide.  You know why?  Because he catered to smart people and there aren't many people in any society that can appreciate intelligence and rational thought.

The masses will never let truth and rationality win out.  My definition of a stupid person is people who think, "the long term effects of (insert new idea/drug here) are unknown and could be proven to be catastrophic, fatal, crippling to the economy and destroy the framework of our society." is a legitimate point.

Recently Muddy Waters came out with an article about Net Global, a phone security company that does business in China.  Muddy Waters called it a fraud and a scam and the stock plummeted from $25 to $9.50.  People were telling me all about it and I asked them, "How is it a scam?" I even read the Muddy Waters article.  It said, "the addresses were in residential areas" okay I know people that have run businesses out of their homes.  The Silicon Valley Billionaires started out of their garages.  This isn't alarming.  And, "The accounts receivable doesn't match their billings.  Some payments are up to 144 days late."  So I searched Google and found out that when doing business in China they advise getting money up front because the Chinese are notorious for late payments and payments happen, on average, 187 days late.  So, they're doing better than average then?  That's what that article said. The people I spoke to had this point, "Muddy Waters has been right about companies being scams in the past."  This is not a legitimate point. Trying to explain to them how it's not a legitimate point proved to be a futile effort. It's because people refuse to think for themselves, some magazine told them it's true so it must be.

America will fail because it's inhabitants insist on looking to inferior people on how to thrive.  How many times have you heard, "Well in Europe..." or "Canada has free healthcare so we can too."?  America has the best economy in the world.  That means what we've been doing is working, borrowing from the inferior will make us worse.  Instead, we have to innovate and better ourselves.  But society believes being the best is evil.  They will crucify/poison/undermine/devalue and destroy people for being the best.  They make the most noise because the doers are too busy trying to innovate.  They don't care that they're the best, they're not done improving. Napster didn't look to Virgin records on how to run business, no, they took them out because they revolutionized the industry.

You cannot fight this by having tests in order to vote because educated people are just as dumb as those in the ghetto.  It's a laziness to not think for themselves.  If everyone in the United States got a copy of this blog, a small fraction would read more than a line.  You know why?  Because it's long.  It has nothing to do with the content, they see the length, exclaim,'Blogs shouldn't be long" and refuse to read a line.  Smart people don't complain and are not politically active because they are simply too busy innovating and trying to improve their ideas.

Exponentially more than enough money to buy everyone in Africa a mosquito net has been raised to give mosquito nets to Africans.  Why hasn't it worked?  Why is malaria still a problem? Because Africans use their free mosquito nets as fishing nets or accessories for a wedding dress or other things other than to protect them from mosquitoes.  People in America and everywhere else are the same way.  When handed something that will better themselves, they reject it and use it for something else.  That is what they do with the truth.

If you cured cancer tomorrow, you would not be praised, you would be deemed evil. A government authority would tell you to delay it until society is ready for it.  Sure you may cure all those with cancer, but what about all the oncologists, the radiation machine makers, the drug companies, the pharmacists, the morticians, and all those that make money on the treatment of cancer?  they would be out of a job.  That's not fair to them that you destroyed their livelihood.  I know most people don't feel bad for doctors and rich people so I would ask you to consider this.  You would decimate the Jimmy V Foundation, The Susan Breast Cancer awareness and the countless non-profit and government organizations selflessly fighting the good fight to cure cancer. They would be forced to go under and do something else.  All those people that organize a program to walk/run/bike for a cure would go under.  That's not fair, that's not nice. What about all those that participate and feel good about themselves for making a difference?  You have to hold back your cure for the betterment of society.  Society isn't ready for it.  After all the long term effects are not known, the cure could lead to something even more frightening than cancer.  It could lead to a super virus just how penicillin led to more resistant bacteria.  The cure could 20-30 years down the road cause some unimaginably evil horrible consequence. That is why i will not endorse your cure.  Is there any wonder why we have never cured a virus when this is how most people think?

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years can  be bought at the bottom of this page.

Goliath

Nobody routs for Goliath.  I mean he's just so  big and it's just so unfair.  Now, the biblical Goliath, presumably, was born that big. The real world Goliaths, however, usually got there with hard work.  When people on the bottom are looking up; they do so with contempt, they thumb their noses at them.  Talk about how they don't do shit because they always defer things down the totem pole. You hear things like, "I always tell him what to do, and he takes my advice" or "I can do his job, he just has a fancy degree" all this is complete and utter bullshit.  I will give some primary examples and then I'll end this.  I'm having deja vu, so I believe I've written about this before.

Nurses always believe they know more about medicine than doctors. I recently had an argument with a close friend of mine whose mother is a nurse. My dad is a doctor.  We argued on this issue and her only evidence is, "I know a lot of nurses and they all say this."  Well, consider the sources.  People don't want to admit that they are expendable.  I responded that I knew a lot of doctors.  This is true but I couldn't say the second part because Goliaths, like doctors, don't assert the truth that the nurses are much more expendable than they are because that's just mean.  That's like a fat person being able to make fun of skinny people all day long but if a skinny person makes fun of a fat person, it is seen as much meaner and harsher.  Nurses advise doctors and doctors judge the validity of the advice.  The best example of this is the TV show House. 

      People that don't appreciate Goliath (most of the population), could look at the hospital and say, "House doesn't do shit, he just makes fun of people, hits them with canes and has his staff figure out what is actually wrong."  Yet, as the seasons progressed, crew members left or got fired, once he got rid of everyone and used a janitor.  When that happened, the patients got treated well.  But, when the staff decided to work independently of House or when House was in the hospital, the patient care suffered.  It's very simple why.  Those at the bottom of the totem pole strike all the time, especially in Europe, but nothing really bad happens in the company except bad PR.  If there wasn't a threat of violence by the strikers, the employers could easily replace them with other workers.  But, if the employer would go on strike, the company would probably collapse in not too big of time.  Doctors and the Goliaths normally spent an obscene amount of time in school or building a company from the ground up.  They took the most risk, they deserve more money, and they know it inside and out because they have to pick up the slack the staff does for them when they're not there.

I for one, will always respect Goliath, even as a David.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years can be bought at the bottom of this page.

Blackfish

With the CNN documentary, Blackfish, people are now petitioning to free the killer whales from captivity.  This is classic liberal thinking; "Since we don't like it, nobody can like it."

If someone is offended by the documentary and appalled at how the killer whales are treated, then they shouldn't go to Sea World anymore.  That simple.  Why feel the need to ruin it for everyone else?  The object of knowledge distribution and informative documentaries is to educate people on an issue and then let them decide what to do with it.  Unfortunately, this is not what those who sympathize with the makers of the video do.  They want to ban all killer whales in captivity and ruin everyone's fun.  

If the documentary is as powerful as you claim it to be then it by itself will cause the demand for killer whales to plummet and Sea Worlds to close.  Then the owners may have to decide to release the killer whales back into the wild.  Or maybe they'd just kill them.

I'm sure that many "experts" claim that killer whales could easily transition from captivity to the wild but I'm not so sure it'll be that easy.  They may die anyway.  Maybe if Sea World goes under, they'll kill the whale.

The point of any art, which is what the video is, is to release a catharsis or an emotion.  Real art should stand on its own and need no interpretation.  That is what Ayn Rand said in Atlas Shrugged.

Some people who saw the video were encouraged to go to Sea World because they believe they have a chance to see a trainer get killed by a whale.  I know that's not what the video makers intended but that's art, it changes based on who's looking/reading/watching it.  Like all things, I let the invisible hand decide.  Here's the video, nobody is forcing you to go to Sea World so don't force us to not go.  Let's just see if this documentary is powerful enough to convince people not to go.  Something tells me, it isn't.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years can be bought at the bottom of this page

Fair is unfair

If you ever hear the term, "It's only fair" know that the person has given up on competing in any objective or rational way and is now just a whiny little bitch.  For being fair is the most unfair thing ever created.  Let's take some popular examples always keeping in mind one of my favorite quotes, "If you're ever in agreement with the majority, it's time to pause and reflect"~ Mark Twain

Title IX is the biggest most egregious "fairness" doctrine ever created.  It says that a school has to spend the same amount of money on girls programs as they do on their corresponding boys programs.  That means the University of Alabama would have to devote the same amount of resources and funds for their boys football team than their girls.  Have you ever heard of the women's Alabama football team?  I haven't, but the men are # 1 in the country right now and have one of the most impressive records in the last five years.  So, they shouldn't be slightly more compensated?  Not to mention how many more people want to be a part of the Alabama football team than the girls team, which I'm not even sure exists. Yet, legally, if a group of girls decided they wanted to put on pads and play football, the school would have to let them.  People say, "It's only fair" women and men are equal.  Well, look at television ratings, sure women's football isn't on any of the major networks but there's a reason for that; nobody would watch.  Millions of people tune in each week to watch Alabama. Many more buy tickets and products with the Alabama logo.  Men's college football is a multi-million dollar industry to the point that everyone is complaining the players should get paid.  But if you paid the players, you'd have to pay women's players the same amount.  Even though, the women's players don't bring in any money...if they even exist.
        For those of you that ridiculously claim that if women's football got TV time, they would be just as popular, let's take another college sport; basketball.  I know there's a Duke women's team.  In fact, they're pretty good, I'd say they're around the top 10 teams in the country every year.  But, they don't bring in a fraction of the revenue, fans, jersey and other product sales as the Duke men's team.  You think it's fair to devote the same amount of money to Duke women as it does Duke men?  In what world is that fair? You would need the money you bring in from the men to pay for the women's for an inferior product.
     ESPN celebrated Title IX recently by having a "nine for IX" special.  I personally found it insulting to women that Mary Decker was on it.  Here is a woman who choked in three straight Olympics and has won the same amount of Olympic medals as I have; 0.  You couldn't find nine better athletes than her?  Tells you something about female athletics.
         The most celebrated aspect of Title IX is tennis. Women need to be paid the same winnings as men.  They talk about Billy Jean King beating a pro-male and Serena Williams took a set off Andy Roddick once.  So, a woman only beat a man once and Serena, probably, the best women's tennis player of all time, is celebrated for picking up a set, not a match, a set on a male counterpart.  A female commentator (I think it was Pam Shriver) said during one of Serena's dominant performances, "Get Murray and Djokovic out here, I think she can beat them" her male counterpart said, "Now wait a minute" but she was adamant and he gave up quickly so as not to be accused of being a chauvinist.  Rather than tell you how I think that match would go, I'll let you know what Serena said when asked.  She laughed and said something along the lines of she would only have a chance if Andy Murray was not allowed to serve and Serena got the doubles alley and Murray could only have the single's.  So...why do they get paid the same again?  Maria Sharapova did have a good point when a French player said something along these lines, Sharapova said, "I think more people watch my matches than his."
       Okay, so then I have a solution to make it really fair. If your match generates x million amount of viewers, you get paid x amount whether your male or female.  That would be real objective fairness.

    The other area you see this is in radio.  Interesting you don't see it on TV.  Liberals are arguing that an equal amount of time needs to be assigned to left radio hosts as right.  They are appalled Rush Limbaugh has so many hours on the air.  The reason he does, however, is millions of people are listening for the entire time.  When left radio hosts spout their vile, slanderous, and malicious diarrhea of the mouth, nobody is really tuning in.  That's why they get cancelled, because they don't bring in good ratings and the radio needs to do whatever it can to make sure people are listening.  That's why leftists complain because they can't compete with objective numbers or ratings with right radio hosts so they have to ask the government to force companies to do it since the leftists are incompetent on their own. Bottom line is most people who work for a living hate the government stealing money from their paycheck every day and they don't want to listen to their defenders when they're driving to work.  There would be no gripe if all the radio hosts were left.  How do I know?  Well we do have TV.

     I have never heard anyone talk about the fairness doctrine with TV.  TV is all dominated by the left. The only right leaning show is "Last Man Standing" and they do provide both sides of the issue.  "Modern Family" "Big Bang Theory" every other TV show pretty much is left.  I have no problem with Modern Family being on seemingly every TV channel all day simply because it's hilarious and people watch.  Big Bang Theory is the # 1 comedy.  That may in part be because it's not on a cable channel but it is a very funny show.  How come this idea of "fairness" is never brought up with all the TV shows that are left wing but it is for radio?

The last one I will name is business.  People think that this small company is more efficient and better than the huge corporation but the corporation squashes them.  There has never been a real world example of predatory pricing (selling below cost to drive out the competition) in the history of the world.  There hasn't been because it doesn't work!  Companies stay small or go out of business because they can't innovate and they can't compete in efficiency and quality as their competitors.  One example of this, one man created a website called "Napster" and he completely decimated and obliterated the "Goliath" or "huge corporation that squashes little people" in Virgin records.  Have you seen one lately?  One man, probably in his basement, took out the corporation. Why?  Because he innovated the industry and delivered music much more efficiently than his competitor.  Odd that a few years before that mom and pop music stores complained, "We just can't compete with the corporation"  Yes you could have if you worked hard enough.

Just remember that "fair" is never fair.  The only fairness is found in the invisible hand.  The people that a capitalist society leave behind is a negative externality.  Yes, extremely minimal amount of aid can be given to them to stop them from revolting but it shouldn't be anything that a sane person would be content with.  The only people that should be content are people who just can't offer anything to society. Remember, nobody ever roots for Goliath but Goliath is the one that puts foods on the tables of millions and millions of people by employing them.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be bought at the bottom of this page

President Obama and the economy

I hinted in analysis of the government shutdown how I judge policies at the most basic level.  That is by asking yourself if your life changed because of it?  That is why I don't get too upset when a Democrat wins the presidency because it normally doesn't affect that question.  With Obama, however, I have seen a change in every day life.

Earlier this year, my paycheck went down because taxes had increased.  A couple years ago my employer decided that it was too big a hit for them to take the increase in healthcare caused by ObamaCare so we( me and my co-workers) would have to contribute more toward healthcare.  We even changed healthcare coverage giving us less healthcare for a higher price per employee.  This means that when Obama said the middle class would not be affected, and only the richest 1% would be, he was wrong.  Some would blame my employer but he couldn't do anything about the increase in taxes. The middle class is getting severely affected  by Obama's policies.

Some talk to the stock market hitting record highs as proof Obama is doing good by the economy.  But, Obama is asking for a debt increase now.  When Bush did this toward the end of his second term, Obama said, "Whenever a president asks for a debt increase, it's an indication of bad leadership."  Well, apparently Senator Barak Obama  has just called out President Obama.  Just one more thing Barak Obama criticized about the Bush administration that he continued once he was given the power of being President just like keeping Gitmo open and that terrorists need to be killed.  Just for the record, in eight years, Bush increased the debt by 800 Billion dollars.  President Obama, in five years, has increased it 9 trillion dollars and counting.

Hopefully President Obama will learn one more thing on the job; socialism/government programs are bad for the economy and hurt the middle class.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be bought at the bottom of this page. 

Jim Irsay and the continued pussification of the American Male
Here we go again, another example of how easily offended and retarded Americans are.
Jim Irsay, CEO and owner of the Indianapolis Colts, releases a statement along the
lines that under the Peyton years, the Colts enjoyed incredibly fantastic regular
seasons but only one super bowl ring.  He goes on to say that he's disappointed that
he couldn't win more.

All over, sports news anchors everywhere were screaming about how he dissed Peyton
Manning.  John Fox, Manning's current coach, fires back at this "classless" act by
Irsay.  John Fox also says, "Peyton has too much class to fire back."  Well,
apparently John Fox doesn't have too much class to fire back.  What, praytell is
wrong with what Irsay said?  If you're not playing/owning a team/coaching etc. in
the NFL to win a Superbowl, you probably shouldn't be affiliated with the team.  I
think Peyton is disappointed he only has one Superbowl ring too.

When they asked Lebron James (before winning) about his MVP's and all these
individual accolades, he always said the same thing, "That's nice but I'm here for
one reason, to win a ring."

Kevin Durant, Tracy McGrady, Derrick Rose (take a guess what my favorite sport is)
have similar comments when they won their scoring titles.  Were people offended? 
No.  You know why?  Because it's not offensive!  You want to win championships, if
you don't, don't play professional sports.  This idea of celebrating mediocrity is
lost on professional athletes.  They want to win it all! Yes, Jim Irsay did the
mandatory apology session because people are offended by everything!  I think every
media outlet owes Jim Irsay an apology.  And if you have a problem with Jim Irsay's
comments, then you are a pussy that should stay indoors crying yourself to sleep
every night.  If I offended you, GREAT! I don't care, you get no apology from me you
overly sensitive piece of trash.


Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be
bought at the bottom of this page.

What I learned from the government shutdown

What I learned from the Government shutdown
The government is shut down! What are we going to do?  Who are we going to blame? 
These are the questions that all the pundits and "experts" are battling.  Well, I
was raised by a scientist and all we have now is a variable that has been
eliminated.  Based on what happens, we can see what that variable does.  So far, it
doesn't seem like it does much.

First off, the last two weeks, I have not noticed anything different in my life.  I
wake up, I go to work, I check e-mail, eat food at restaurants etc. etc.  Nothing
has changed except every now and then when I watch TV I see something about a
government shutdown and people coming up to me asking me what it all means.  Here's
the answer in a nutshell...it means the conservatives are right, we don't need the
federal government that much because private enterprises will pick up the slack if
people want it.  Let's see some examples from the last two weeks.

While watching a sport channel, I looked at the ticker on the bottom of the screen
and read, "Army vs. Navy game may be cancelled due to the government shutdown." 
Well that's a great way to get Americans upset, take away their football.  Me, I
couldn't care less.  I've never watched the Army vs. Navy game, I am an Ohio State
fan so I was looking forward to that game.  That and starting at noon on Saturday
there are other college football games to choose from.  Who cares if one game is
missing? and I do have a cousin that's an alumnus of West Point and I still didn't
care.  A couple days later, I was watching the same sports channel and I see
something like, "Army vs. Navy has received funds from private enterprises and the
game will take place." Well, apparently someone cared.  Problem solved.  The next
Saturday the armed forces were still able to play football because they found the
money.  Apparently people cared even about the non-rivalry game.  Alright so that
crisis averted.

Then we had the military controversy.  If you're killed in action in the military,
your family gets $ 100,000.00.  Now the families of those who died and are in all
those coffins coming home from Afghanistan won't get paid because of the government
shutdown.  Now, President Obama could just take his pen out, draft an executive
order and pay these families but no he didn't do that.  President Obama seemed to
use this to stick one to the Republicans and their shut down so he screwed our
troops.  I truly believe Bush would have been crucified definitely figuratively and
if the liberals got to him, maybe literally.  Obama, however, always gets a pass and
this time the liberals don't have to be hypocrites because they're rooting for our
enemies anyway in the war.  Now, the American people can be like, "see with the
government shut down, the military families won't get any money."  What happened
though?  The corporations ruined the liberal cause once again.  Fisher Price(tm) was
like we'll pay it.  Then private individuals started donating money to Fisher
Price(tm).  Some schools even decided to do a fund raiser to raise money to pay the bill to
the military families.  A corporation showed up the government by throwing all their
money around and the private citizens started reimbursing the corporation.  Yea,
this capitalist society is so full of greed you can't rely on generosity (sarcasm
greatly involved in the last sentence).

The only thing I can see is the national parks are closed.  I try to hike in a
national park every year and I love them.  This is a case where private citizens
cannot step in because they're not allowed.  I have a feeling though if you were to
say sell the Grand Canyon, there would be buyers.  You can even put in the contract
that it has to be used so people can see the view and not destroy the park for
commercial enterprises.  That can be done.  When I brought this up to someone they
said, "Don't you have to pay to get into a national park?"

Yes you do.  It's $20 per car for the day.  You can get week passes
and other denominations but that's the one I normally pay. 
Apparently national parks are run at a loss or else they would have
stayed open because it is a way for the government to make money. 
Or, this is the only thing those opposed to the shutdown could
shutdown to make people notice.  Either way, this is not too
catastrophic to me.  Like I said, if the government were gone, 
someone would buy the national park from them.  Liberals may
contend, "Yea but the entrance price would probably go up so our
poor couldn't appreciate them."  If you were so concerned about
that, you'd complain that it's twenty dollars a day!  That's a
price! Why not just have it be free?  Well the government wants some
money too.  There's that greed again.

If the government shut down is really the Republicans' fault, I say thank you
Republicans for proving my conservative views are right.  All these programs and
whatever the hell the federal government pretends to do are probably just as
ineffective and useless as I thought.  There really is too much government waste. 
So, now that we know this, let's use the federal government only for strong national
defense, to keep out national parks open (naturally keeping the entrance fees), and
the Supreme Court when we don't think our state courts upheld the constitution
enough.  There's probably a couple more things but It won't cost that much if those
are your only expenses so then you can lower taxes and give more money to the
people.  Any kind of gap this will cause will be picked up by private enterprises as
we noticed during the shut down.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be
bought at the bottom of this page

Obama the Stone Cold Killer Like many of my rants, I'm going to give both the positive and negatives about President Obama. Barak Obama has spent a lot of time talking about change. Some liberal news outlets will point out that Guantanamo Bay is still open but not nearly as loudly as they did when Bush was President. President Obama gets a pass when it comes to killing terrorists. It is true that he has outlawed torture and other "enhanced interrogation" methods. No, our President prefers to just kill them. I for one, commend him on that. The liberal media refuses to highlight this the way they did to Bush, the warmonger president. Let's recap Bush's eight years and Obama's five. Fine, we'll say Bush had seven since 9/11 and since 9/11 happened toward the latter half, we'll just round to six. Either way; here is the scorecard. Drone Strikes Obama: 292 Bush: 52 Senior Al Queda members killed Obama: 22 Bush: 12 Now, this is a little unfair to Bush because we don't give him any credit for Saddam Hussein , his sons and those in Iraq. This is a bias on my part, although I was for the Iraq war, 9/11 was about Al Qaeda and the Taliban protected Osama Bin Laden. President Obama did get THE target; Osama Bin Laden. Yea, Republicans scream, "They never would have gotten him if it wasn't for torture." Maybe, but since I'm skeptical of everyone, I resort to logic and common sense. Bush left office in January 2009 (you're a lame duck from the November election to January). Osama Bin Laden was killed in 2011. That's over two years later. I find it hard to believe that information received two years ago was still relevant now. Maybe he stayed in that safe house that Zero Dark Thirty described for three years. I don't know though, it seems far-fetched. Republicans who haven't ignored Obama's success at killing terrorist complain "We can't interrogate and get information about the few Al Queda leaders we have left." That sounds legitimate but we got Osama Bin Laden by killing everyone, so why can't we get this ophthalmologist? The liberals don't bring this up because they have a school-girl crush on Obama. That's fine, he's immune to kill all the terrorists he wants, and some are even US citizens. Yes, right-wingers think this is a dangerous precedent and it is. According to the constitution, the president can engage in acts of war for 30 days without congressional approval. Clinton enacted this power more than every other president before him combined! Now we have Obama who's abusing his right to kill people. But then again, as far as I can tell, he hasn't killed anyone that didn't deserve to be killed. I made up a ridiculous conspiracy that as Vince Flynn and Tom Clancy died shortly after each other, it was Obama that did it because they had the courage to call Muslims terrorists. That would be odd though, these people wrote fictitiously about what Obama does for real. Maybe they exposed some of his tactics, maybe Mitch Rapp is real (Vince Flynn reference). Maybe there are multiple Mitch Rapp's all over the world. I certainly hope so! So, kill away Mr. President. I do believe that there are some things you do that we the American people shouldn't know about. But so long as you keep killing people that have tried to hurt us, then kill away Sir. Also, Cheney and those of Bush's administration are complaining that after criticizing them for being war mongers, he has taken their work further. I say "good." So the inexperienced Obama didn't realize the violence was necessary. Now that he has experience, he realizes that violence is necessary; so I'm okay with that. The thing that baffles me about this stone cold killer of a president we have is Benghazi. Our US representatives, including the ambassador, are murdered and President Obama does nothing? There was a little investigation but not much. There was no manhunt; nothing. This should have cost him the election, but Sandy saved it for him. Where was this man that has killed so many Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders? I really have only one explanation. President Obama likes working in the shadows. There was too much press on Benghazi, so he appeared weak. Behind the scenes though, he's looking for and going to kill those responsible. At least, I hope so. In all, when President Obama gives a speech he comes off as a terrorist sympathizer. He doesn't like using words like "terrorist" or "evil" and likes blaming youtube for Muslims killing. Right-wingers have a problem with that. I, however, would prefer someone talk weak and walk tough than one who talks strong and acts weak. His strategy has seemingly lured the enemy into a false sense of security before Obama can kill them. Obama can call terrorists the "backbone of our society" for all I care just so long as he keeps killing them. Every single law enforcement officer would probably tell you that you need to let the little guys go and monitor them so they lead you to the big guys. Obama kills them but his strategy doesn't appear to be failing. To give an article that summarizes what's been discussed here see http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/09/11/more-killing-in-obamas-war-on-terror-than-bushs-war/ http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Pakistan/Al-Qaeda-leaders-who-have-been-killed-and-arrested/Article1-551687.aspx

Homophobic gays

Homophobic Gays

 I love paradoxes. How can someone be a homophobic gay?  Well it's actually more common than what the media would like to contend.  I could search through lexis nexis and other sites to come up with these articles from "Blade" (a homosexual magazine) of people feeling guilty because they engaged in sexual activity with the opposite sex when they consider themselves gay but quite frankly, I'm just too lazy.  I know they exist because when I wasn't so lazy, I have read them.  But on to the issue.  

Gays are unlike most minorities in that it's extremely hard to stereotype them nor can you definitively identify them all on the street.  There isn't a set pattern that describes them except that they engage in activities sexual in nature with the same sex as they are.  This definition doesn't even work too well as some women make out or do things sexual in nature with women to attract other males because they are heterosexual.  This type of person is the point of this essay; there is nothing wrong with calling that person "straight."  

I have met a gay man that openly say anti-gay comments like "I hate flamers."  It was odd when I heard this but he explained to me that flamboyant gays give gays like him (bulky muscles, facial hair and other "manly" features)a bad name.  I likened this to the same as Chris Rock when he gave his speech 'blacks vs. n-words' in a stand up routine in the late 90's.  I met this man in 2002, a lot has changed for gays in that time. Nowadays, gays have a new target, and it's anyone that admits anything that may provide evidence against a gay gene.  

I am very open about my asexuality.  Every one of my friends/acquaintances/family has accused me of lying with the exception of one of my gay friends.  The one friend, however, took exception when I said, "I became asexual when I was 21"  I know that it is a taboo now because the notion that you "became" a sexual preference is absolutely "beyond offensive."  But why?

This same friend recently posted a video that was captioned "After watching this, nobody will ever doubt being born gay." I had to watch this video to see what this "overwhelming" evidence was. I talk in my book how the "gay Gene" theory isn't given much validity and even gays aren't willing to take it to the next level by merely taking a blood test to see if they're really gay; much like I took a blood test to find out if I am O-.  The "nature vs. Nurture" debate, which is exactly what a born-gay assertion is(siding with nature), has been going on since Descartes debated Locke.  And since then, there has not been one issue that is definitively proven either way.  Locke, who believed we were born a blank slate (Tabla Rassa), believed everything was nurture.  He has yet to be proven wrong definitively.  At my college, a group of people argued gender was a social construct and not genetic.  Their proof, hermaphrodites have a "Y" gene(XXY) and they aren't considered male.  The logical answer would be "XY = male; XX= female" and there is a 3rd gender, "XXY = Hemaphrodite" Done.  But they didn't accept that thus leading to another chapter.  So, you're telling me, that sexual preference is the only thing in the history of the world that is exclusively nature?  I find that extremely hard to believe.  Like all nature/nurture arguments it's probably a combination of both, but this isn't an article about the "born-gay" notion.  

The video is people approaching straight people and asking, "When did you realize you were straight" to point out how ridiculous it is to ask that question.  I found out that gays are supposed to be extremely offended by answering this question.  This confused me because one of my gay friends volunteered it when she came out to me. She said, "I became gay when I was 12."  This is a normal age when people find out their sexuality.  I wish people would ask me that question about my asexuality instead of the normal, "You're lying."  Oddly, this same friend that is absolutely appalled by the question "When did you know you were gay?" has no problem when people tell me I'm lying.  What if someone accused him of lying about being gay?  If "When did you become gay" is "beyond offensive," then that I think goes into a whole new stratosphere. 

As I've talked to more and more gays, I find that either I just happen to run into the outliers or there is a real problem with the gay community.  They only accept you if you (a) Never admit to having done anything sexual in nature with a member of the other sex and (B) are liberal.  This means that the "club" normally designated LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender) is false because bisexuals now are being ostracized by the gays and lesbians because they go back and forth from one sex to the other.  This goes directly against the "born gay" notion.  Any kind of group that ostracizes it's members if they don't think exactly like they do is dangerous.  Most liberal groups in general are dangerous; see occupy wall street and the multiple rapes, murders, and millions of dollars in property damage. 

Fact is, most gays have tried to do things sexual in nature with the opposite sex.  Maybe after experiencing this and not enjoying it, it made them discover they were gay.  Hence that would be the moment you realized you were gay and thus the answer to the "absolutely appalling" question of when you became gay.  

Now, is it offensive to ask a straight person that?  Of course not!  That would be hypocritical of me.  I also don't think it's a ridiculous question for straights and the people on the video shouldn't have been that shocked.  It probably happened right around the time you got over your "girls/guys have cootie" stage.  Me, I had my first crush at 3-years-old but the bitch moved to Spain thus ending our relationship. I never went through the cootie phase but I've been asexual for the last eight years.  Have I kissed or done things sexual in nature with people since then, sure, but I haven't enjoyed any of them, thus confirming my belief that I am asexual.  You don't lose your "gay card" just because you experimented with the opposite sex.  

If gays were tolerant of gays who do that, and let them be open about this experience instead of forcing them to repress it and not tell anyone as if they did something wrong, then I would have no problem with gays. Gays have become intolerant of people for not being as gay as them.  It used to be LGBT all stood together in solidarity to be accepted and not part of the DSM-IV (List of psychological disorders) like they were in the '70's.  Now the LG's hate the B's and have kicked them out of their club because they don't fit their mold.  Gays scream about how they want to be equal and society should tolerate them but they are intolerant of gays that after coming out, try activities with the opposite sex once in a while and shun bisexuals and asexuals.  

I met a flamboyantly gay man last weekend who asked me if I was gay.  I told him no and we talked about how I'm asexual and both gays and straights ridicule me for that.  He responded, "Gays hate me too because I hate Obama."  This is the other tisk-tisk.  If you're gay, apparently you're not allowed to be a Republican. There's a group called the "Log Cabin Republicans" which are gay Republicans and the gay community hates them.  Why? What does preferring to be in a relationship with the same sex have anything to do with your views on the economy, big vs. small government, abortion etc. etc.?   Yes Republicans tend to be against gay marriage but maybe the Gay Republicans link that view to "big government" which is a Democratic ideal.  Maybe they think, "the government has no right to tell me who to be with" and they extend that to, "The government has no right taking my hard earned money."  The latter being a right-wing view.  Are you really less gay because you don't believe you should kill a fetus? Are you less gay if you look at all the government waste and realize that they suck at investing money so maybe we shouldn't give them as much? Are you less gay if you don't want to rely on the government to defend your home and you'd rather have a gun?  I would say no to all these things. I don't get much static from other right-wingers because I'm pro-abortion.  Why does the gay community give Republican gays (not all of them are officially in the log cabin Republican camp) so much static?  Why are they viewed as traitors?  Where is the tolerance they so loudly cheer for?  I guess the Gay community is like any other liberal organization; French Revolution, mob mentality.  Remember, Robespierre, one of the founders and starters of the French Revolution, would eventually get guillotined by French Revolutionaries for not being radical enough.  Seems that's where this is headed to.

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be bought at the bottom of this page.  

Reflecting on Boston

"Any time a bomb is used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror"

~Barak Obama ~ Eerily similar to my quote on facebook the day following the attack 

"We will find them an bring them to justice" ~Both Barak Obama and Sheriff of Boston Police Department.  I was skeptical because Obama made similar comments after Benghazi and nothing has happened since. But it happened, kudos to BPD and the President 

"(Just like the 78-year-old marathon runner) We may be temporarily knocked off our

feet, but we will pick ourselves up and we will finish the race" ~President Barack

Obama.  Also eerily similar to my silver lining posted on facebook earlier this week.

Black hat, suspect # 1 shot and killed as he hijacks a car ~ 

Wednesday Boston Bruins game, entire crowd sings National Anthem loud enough so the singer stopped and deferred to the crowd to do it.  Bravo on the Patriotism Boston.  I don't remember anything like that after 9/11, just a lot of flags but I don't

remember spontaneous karaoke night at the sporting event.

I must say I'm emboldened and proud of the American spirit since the Boston tragedy.

And those who starkly oppose our president will point out that it wasn't the Feds

or his men that killed suspect # 1 and captured # 2 but the local police that did.  I have always held that despite my personal differences with someone, I will give credit where credit is due.  The last five days Mr. President, thumbs way up, good job.  We got great words and great action!

I’m not sure what happened as different websites tell me different things but if Boston was forced to evacuate their homes, I had mixed feelings, on one hand it’s not the government’s right to force you from your home, on the other, if you don’t leave…..well….that seems like probably cause to see if you’re aiding and abetting.  I guess you could just let cops search your home while you’re in it.  My mixed feelings got some vindication because it was a homeowner who actually saw blood in his backyard, opened the tarp of his boat to find the 19-year-old and then called the cops.  So, if he was evacuated…..that wouldn’t have happened as the cops had already searched the house/shed.  

honor is evil

Throughout my life, I have always believed that your word is your bond.  If you say you’re going to do something, you do it.  If you can’t do it, you be very apologetic!  I have broken my word a handful of times but I have always apologized profusely for it.  I thought this was an admirable trait, I didn’t even think it was a rare one.  As I live longer, I realize that not only is it rare, but it’s vilified.  I can’t say it’s how I was raised because I look at those who raised me and I don’t see honor at all.  My pappou (Grandfather) was the most honorable man I’ve known.  I can’t think of one time that man ever said he was going to do something and not delivered.  I’m not going to say he was perfect, he had many faults, but if I got it from anyone it would have had to have been him.

This is happening because with people very close to me they consistently give me their word about something, break it, then get mad at me for thinking that they would actually carry through with it.  Most of my closest friends have broken their words to me but they are always extremely apologetic and it is rare so therefore, I don’t hold it against them.  I have a lot of problems for the select few who aren’t apologetic, like it’s somehow my fault.  I get excuses like “Life happens” or “it’s unfair because I didn’t realize X” But for these excuse artists, fear not, for media and conventional wisdom seem to back you up.

As I watch the Dark Knight, I revel at how great of a movie it is.  Heath Ledger does such a phenomenal job as the Joker and Christian Bale is by far my favorite batman.  But let’s look at batman, a man that has an altar ego.  A man that puts on a façade that he’s some trust fun billionaire who inherited his dad’s company but doesn’t care about anyone but himself, meanwhile he fights crime every night keeping Gotham safe.  It’s not that he expressly lies, but he misleads, which I’m okay with.  Then there’s the Joker.  The Joker never breaks character.  He tells the world this is what I’m going to do, and then does it.  He says throughout the movie, “I’m a man of my word.”  And never does he go back on his word throughout the entire movie.  This is the message that is sent, honor is evil, just like the Joker.  If you want another example of this being reinforced, take the show Dexter, one of my favorite shows.  Again, the protagonist is a dark character.  In the most recent season, one of the villains, a Ukrainian mob boss, also constantly gives his word to Dexter, a man he’s trying to kill.  Again the Ukrainian mob guy who is evil in all aspects, never breaks his word to Dexter and constantly tells him he’s a man of his word.  Dexter, on the other hand, lies all the time.  He lies to people he’s about to kill, he lies to his sister whom he’s closest to, he lied to his wife, he lies to everyone.  He even brags about it as he’s taunting a victim, he promises he won’t hurt them if they do something, they do it, he says he’s going to kill him anyway.  The man says, “You said you’d let me go” Dexter responds, “You think I’m a killer, but not a liar?!”  The Ukrainian mob boss was a killer but not a liar, the Joker was a killer but not a liar.  So yes, you can be a killer but not a liar, Dexter just happens to be both. Yet, the people love Dexter and hate the Joker and the Ukrainian mob boss and root for Dexter, the liar and the killer rather than just the killer.  Keep in mind Dexter killed the Ukrainian mob boss’ lover.  I can understand why he would want to kill Dexter. 

The media seems to give villains the characteristic of honor and make it devoid in the heroes.  It is hard to be an honorable man, when I see the stars of Hollywood and celebrities, it is clear they fail miserably at it.  So, if you can’t be honorable, attack it.  That’s what emboldens those close to me that blame me for believing they could be honorable.  After all, based on conventional thinking, I’m calling them a villain.  Therefore, I love being, and will continue to be, the villain.  You may hate me, but if I tell you I’m going to do something, I’m going to do everything in my power to stay true to my word and you can take it to the bank.  In near 29 years, I can only think of two times I didn’t keep my word.  Both I regret, and both I’m very apologetic for.  For self-attack decreases the likelihood that it’ll happen again.  In this new culture where honor is villainous, is there really any wonder why divorce rates are so high and backstabbing so common?  

How Victoria Azarenka is like WWE champion CM Punk

Two weeks ago, I was not a Victoria Azarenka fan.  Like many of the female tennis players, she’s a bad server but a great returner.  She was # 1 in the world but tennis rankings have always baffled me because there’s so many tournaments, I feel it’s unrealistic that a player can play that often and travel as much as they are required.  But, if you miss a tournament, your ranking gets affected in a larger amount than is fair.  True, every player has this same problem but this is how Caroline Wozniacki was # 1 but never won a major, she played more tournaments than anyone.  So, I could believe the “experts” when it was all about Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova and nobody cared about Azarenka.  That being said, I still picked Azarenka to make it to the finals and lose to Sharapova so I did trust her over Serena.  But, nobody really believed me. 

I am one of the few people that is not in the closet about being a WWE fan.  I’ve had to defend my fanship to almost everyone for over a decade.  After watching Azarenka win, I realized one more reason I’m a WWE fan.  The superstars in the WWE treat their audience like adults.  Yes, you can insult us.  You can insult the city where we live.  We’ll get over it, it’ll be okay.  Right now, CM Punk has been going on for months about how sheepish the masses are and how all someone has to do is mention the city they’re currently in and they go nuts.  Fans boo him immensely but then he mentioned the town they were in right after mentioning that if he did they’d cheer.  The crowd cheered loudly at the mention of their city.  He then rested his case.  He openly talks about how he doesn’t need the people and the people don’t matter.  Tomorrow is the Royal Rumble; the writers of the WWE have expertly set up the championship match of CM Punk vs. The Rock.  The dichotomy is obvious.  The man who despises the people vs. the man who calls himself “The People’s Champion.” 

Interestingly, the women’s tennis final was set up in the same way without any script (I think).  Usually the crowd unfairly attacks Azarenka for her grunting.  The William sisters, Sharapova along with many other women grunt.  It may not be as loud or as long as Azarenka but Azarenka is the only one that constantly gets mocked and ridiculed by the fans for it.  In the semi-finals, Azarenka got hurt so left the court for a training break. This is completely legal.  When she came back, she ended up beating Sloane Stevens, the 19-year-old sensation that the world, including me, fell in love with.  International news syndicates came out attacking Azarenka for manipulating the rules.  CM Punk has been champion for a modern-era record of 434 days, and a lot of matches he too gets counted out or disqualified since the title can’t change hands on these things.  Again, CM Punk is well within the rules to do it.  He is not the only champion to do it by a long shot.  But, he gets vilified more than anyone else.  Same thing happened to Azarenka.  So then the finals took place.  Sure, Stevens captured the fans attention with her charismatic, funny and charming interviews but now we have one of the oldest women on tour, Li Na.  Li Na has been cracking up fans for years with her surprisingly candid and honest interviews.  One of the reasons I like tennis is that interviews aren’t all the same, they are quite funny and Li Na is one of the best.  Li Na plays her best at Australia for reasons she can’t explain.  This was well documented in her run to the finals beating two of the top women, Radwanska and Sharapova.  As she kept highlighting how she loves Australia, just as how CM Punk predicted, the fans loved her for complimenting their country. 

So, at 3AM eastern time, I sat down on my couch to watch Victoria Azarenka, the woman that has been attacked and crucified in newspapers across the world for the last two days vs. Li Na, the woman that everyone loves for her charm and hilariously candid interviews who loves Australia, battle it out for the championship in Australia.  The fans didn’t boo Azarenka except for one time during the match.  But they were notably silent when Azarenka did well and cheered much louder for Li Na.  It was obvious who the fans wanted, and there’s nothing wrong with that.  Li Na would collapse on the court twice for a twisted left ankle and had to receive help from the trainer.  Nobody cared, unlike when Azarenka did it once just two days ago.  The 2^nd time Li Na fell, she banged her head pretty hard and they were worried about a concussion.  If the fans didn’t love Li Na before, they certainly did now.  The woman has come back from twisting the same ankle twice, possible concussion, but she’s going to fight to the bitter end.  She’s not tapping out, she’s not going to quit, she’s going to stand on the opposite baseline and battle the number 1 player in the world.  Victoria Azarenka would beat her in three sets. 

I loved the match but at the end during the ceremony I watched intently to see Azarenka’s speech.  Unfortunately, she did the classy thing.  She got up there and thanked the fans.  I know the logic, without the fans there couldn’t be the large prize money reward for playing tennis.  But, I’m an economist, if it wasn’t for what these players could do, the way they can entertain the masses, they wouldn’t show up.  There are much more people that like watching tennis than can play tennis at the ability of those on court.  Lower supply, higher cost, Azarenka deserves the money.  If CM Punk beats the Rock, he will come out on Monday Night Raw the next day and say, “Once again, I have beaten your hero.  Once again, I have proven that you don’t need the people to be successful.  Once again, I can’t be stopped and have beaten everyone in my path for 435 days to prove that I am the Best in the World”

Now, I didn’t expect Azarenka to say that.  If she did, I’d love her for it.  But, if I were her, I wouldn’t have thanked the fans.  She broke down crying after she won.  I understood it, through all the adversity, having a nation against her, she walked into enemy territory and still got the job done.  Athletes should be mentally tough, but what she went through is unfair and it had to be tough.  I normally dislike crying in sports by male or female but this time I was okay with it.  So, I know I don’t have a big following.  But I will say it for Azarenka since she’s too classy to say it herself.  “I have come out here, and I have beaten your heroes.  Back to back I took out the two non-Australian players you love the most.  Boo me if you want; mock me if you want; but this (as she holds up the trophy) says that I am the champion, this solidifies that I am unquestionably, undeniably, indisputably the Best in the World!  

XFL too early?

As the football playoffs are down to the final four, I look at the NFL and wonder
about where today's sports have come.  Over 10 years ago, Vince McMahon came up with
an idea called the "XFL," which kept football pure.  He had a professional football
league in America that still allowed you to hit players.  Trash talking wasn't
penalized and players and teams were paid more for wins.  Even back then, there
seemed to be discontent with how babied the NFL has become.  Defenders are sometimes
penalized for "leading with their head when tackling."  Looking at the NFL players,
I noticed that all of them have their heads located above their shoulders.  To make
a tackle, they bend down and drive their shoulders into an offensive player.  Given
that, given the placement of the head on a human body, in order to drive your
shoulder into someone, you have to lead with your head.  Football is supposed to be
a hard hitting manly sport.  Now since pretty boys like Tom Brady play it, defensive
players are fined constantly for making hard hits on players.  Defensive players
complain about this all the time, especially now.  But, when Vince McMahon offered
them an alternative, the XFL, it was rejected.  Almost nobody watched.

I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio, a very big football town.  My high school has the
state record for most state championships in football.  Because of this, there were
many football jocks in my high school and they all seemed excited about the XFL
since it would allow them to watch real hard nosed football again.  But, alas, this
didn't happen.  No matter what McMahon did, he couldn't get people interested in the
one year that the XFL was in existence.  It ran during the off-season of the NFL and
it still didn't catch.  Now when I hear NFL linebackers complaining week after week
because Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the NFL, fined them for tackling someone
hard, I wonder if maybe the XFL's problem wasn't that people didn't want to watch
hard hitting football but that people hadn't hit a fever peek yet with the kid
gloves of the NFL.  Have we reached the fever pitch now?  Was the XFL tried too
early?  Will a Vince McMahon come out of the wood work and offer an alternative so
people can play real football again?  Are fans really upset to see the
overprotection of kickers and quarterbacks and the main defenders on their favorite
teams continually suspended for a game because of a hit that would have been
perfectly legal not too long ago?  Or have Americans really gotten too soft to
appreciate a violent sport?  In a country where anything that could possibly be
construed as taunting is harshly penalized and victimized, maybe people just aren't
built to handle someone looking them in the eye and saying "you suck."  Maybe they
can't handle a bruise on their skin without running to their mommies or wives crying
like a little girl.  Throughout the years, records will be broken, but I will never
give credence to any of them because if you were allowed to hit the way you could in
the old days, these players probably wouldn't be achieving these numbers.

Punish everyone for the faults of the few

It’s amazing to me how easily people can mess up something for everyone.  Just because one person decides to have a bomb in his shoe, everyone has to walk either bare foot or in their socks through a metal detector in an airport.  The thing that’s even more fascinating is how willing Americans are to bend over and just take it.  The example I’m going to give here is the recent soda ban in New York City that will take place in the next couple months.

For those of you who don’t know, New York City is banning soda to be sold in quantities above 16oz in any state-sanctioned business which is pretty much all places except grocery stores.  The US government has no right to tell me that I cannot have a soda above 16oz.  They are doing this because Americans are becoming so obese so they want to try to counteract that by being big brother and forcing them to consume less soda.  This is especially true for poor people because when poor people get obese, they get sick, end up in the hospital and, since they have no health insurance, the state ends up picking up the tab.  Given this, all Americans of all income brackets need to suffer.  If this was really the problem, then the simple solution is to no longer allow soda to be purchased with EBT or food stamps.  That way it only affects the poor.  Of course, they did try this and it had no significant difference.  Why not treat soda like alcohol? if I order a soda, I have to show that I have a health insurance card in order to get above 16oz.  It seems ridiculous but at least I don’t have to suffer since if something happens to me, I do have insurance to alleviate the price to the state.  But alas, that’s not what Bloomberg (mayor of New York) is doing. 

A woman I respect thought that Bloomberg’s logic was sound. To which case, I believe that anything and everything can be banned using the same logic.  Flowers should be banned because flowers have thorns, thorns can cut people and since poor people live in unclean environments, their risk if infection is higher, so their cut from the thorns gets infected, they have to go to a hospital, and the tax payers fit the bill.  Even if you ban thorns on flowers it wouldn’t help because flower pedals can fall, they are slippery, someone slips on the flower pedals they go to the hospital for their fall and the state has to pick up the tab.  Therefore a bouquet of flowers should be banned to limit the amount of pedals that can fall and risk poor people slipping on them. 

For those of you who think this is a New York problem, consider this: New York City banned smoking indoors in 2003.  Shortly thereafter, many states followed the New York model and did the same in their state.  Now, most states have an indoor smoking ban.  America looks to New York, their biggest and most profitable city, as a model for them.  The indoor smoking banned forced bars and industries across the country to close down from a lack of revenue. 

I predict that by 2015, more than 25 states will impose the soda ban.  The idea that soda is solely responsible for obesity is asinine.  If you go to any fast food place in New York, poor people are lined up to eat there.  Two brothers pizza, a New York pizza chain that sells 2 cheese slices and a can of a soda (phew, only 12oz) for $2.75 almost always has a line of people you would not want to see an alley one day.  They also sell fried chicken for cheap.  Given that two slices and a drink normally costs like $6.50 at other pizza places, they do have an excellent deal.  Given all the poor people huddled at two brothers across the city, you think that maybe that contributes.  Healthy food costs a lot of money, that’s why poor people don’t eat it.  Rather than deny the population, hit the problem on the head, if you have an unpaid medical bill, you are not allowed treatment at the hospital.  That simple.   

I often wonder what is the tipping point.  When will Americans stand up and say, “Enough.”? When will we stand up for our freedoms?  Why must I suffer because of the few?  But no, Americans are soft.  They bend it over and take it up the ass.  I will do my part and buy two 16oz sodas with my meals.  Given that I normally get a 20oz, I will be consuming 24oz instead of 20, so the soda ban will actually hurt me as far as the calorie intake.  But I suffer on.  America is really embracing socialism and big brother.  In the late 70s, high interest rates, kidnapped Americans in Iran and inflation under Carter made American says enough is enough I want the conservative Raegan, and the economy soared.  Maybe Obama can ruin the economy to Carter standards before Americans wake up.  But I’m losing hope.  It’s hard to turn the tides.  Americans want the nanny state as was evident by the Obama overwhelming victory.  The last great superpower is folding because they looked to collapsed nations on how to run theirs.  Retards run the asylum and this is what you get.  Fuck mayor Bloomberg.