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.