Really?

According to Paul Krugman, the fact that Social Security is currently a Ponzi scheme is a Conservative "non-fact."

Wow.  It's demonstrably a fact.  A Truth.  The so-called Trust Fund that Social Security is put into isn't funded by a real market.  It's funded by nothing but T-Bonds.  Monopoly money, the way the Federal Reserve has been printing those puppies out, lately. 

I guess this is what we should expect from the party of "faked, but accurate." 

They don't know what reality is, even when it buries its teeth in their ass.

Unbelievable.

According to this story, New York City's schools "graduate" students without being prepared for college.  The shocker isn't that--pretty much every school is guilty of that.  No, the shocker is that NYC schools are graduating students 80% of whom need intensive remediation in reading/writing and/or math to be able to function at a community college level. 

Something is fundamentally broken when you have figures like that, and a mayor whose newest "for the Greater Good" campaign is against someone destroying their own hearing through playing their music too loud over earbuds. 

And, given that not all students go to college...what's that say about the rest of New York City's public school "graduates?"  I strongly doubt it's any better.

You'd think a school could understand simple definitions.

Apparently, our children are in far more danger of growing up ignorant if they go to government-funded public schools than they are if they don't.

After all, this school doesn't understand the definition of the word "volunteer." How are they supposed to teach the children under their care?

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

I do not like Hillary Clinton. I think this says it all.



However, when it comes to the way some people see political speech, I think her rebuttal is dead-on.

Agendas revealed.

The unconstitutional bill that was unconstitutionally passed in the House Sunday night is already making itself felt by way of coercive taxes on behaviors the government deems unacceptable. This goes a good way toward illustrating what Representative Dingle says about the purpose of the bill:



Did you hear that last? The federal government wants to control us.

Further, we're seeing previews of what awaits with the government's anti-life agenda at high schools across the country. Not only are our children being educated to hide their pregnancies and abortions from us, their parents, but their schools are aiding and abetting them in perpetrating this crime against life and childhood during school hours.

We are not taking this lying down. Many states are suing the federal government to overturn this unconstitutionally passed abridgement of our God-given, Constitutionally protected freedom. Others are suing merely on the grounds that there's no funding in place, no budget cuts elsewhere to cover the costs.

Nor are we the people silent:



We did not want this. And, Dear Leader, sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA, LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU," does not excuse you from listening to the people that you serve. And that is another thing that you would be wise to remember: you serve us; we do not serve you. We are citizens, not subjects. You are supposedly the duly elected president, not the king. You must, by law, listen to us.

We are speaking. You are not listening.

Oops, my misogyny is showing.

Gloria Steinem recently gave an speech during which she mentioned that a lot of female activity, and female-oriented media have labels, and as far as she knows, there's no male equivalent to such terms as "Cougar" or "chick flick."

Umm...yeah, there is. Male equivalents of "Cougar*" are "sugar daddy" or "cradle robber." And male equivalents of "chick flicks" are called "action movies" or "documentaries." Duh.

Silly bint just doesn't pay attention to anything but her own vagina. Just like any other woman.

*A "Cougar" is an older woman who pursues younger men. One famous example of such is Demi Moore.

Methinks the laddy doth protest too much.

I'm no Catholic. I was raised in one of the many Protestant denominations in the nation, left the church I was born in, and kind of have been searching since. I settled with the Anglican church, a few years ago; however, I'm no happier with some of their views. Like their views on gay clergy. Or on their leftist-leaning hierarchy.

I do respect the Catholic church. I understand some of the reasoning behind some of the doctrine--especially behind the anti-abortion, and kinda sorta behind the anti-contraception (used as such--however, when contraception is used to treat conditions like PCOS and endometriosis, and certain practitioners are still against it, that's where a line between principle and unthinking dogma is crossed). Abortion kills an unborn life, contraception takes much of the timing out of God's hands and puts it in mortal hands (which invariably muck it up).

I will admit that I'm not big on the whole celibacy thing. I can kinda sorta understand why, according to what I've read about Catholicism in my search, the vow is there. I still don't agree with it, any more than I agree with gay clergy. I mean, first of all, how in the world is an unmarried priest who may have never even been in a relationship supposed to give credible marital advice? Married clergy do better, for the most part, because they understand on a gut level what kinds of issues couples face. All the theory in the world does not make up for a lack of practical application.

I do not, however, fault the vow of celibacy for the pedophilia in the church.

I can see where there might be a correlation: good young Catholic boy wakes up one morning, and realizes he might have an inappropriate sexual orientation (like toward someone of his own sex. Or toward those who are really pre-pubescent). Like any other good, God-fearing (and God-loving) young man, he's horrified. He doesn't want to be gay, or a pedophile, doesn't want to admit that he might be, so he tries to ignore the problem in the hopes that it goes away. Unfortunately for our young Christian, it doesn't. Our young Catholic believes God has given him this burden as a cross to bear, and thinks that, with the vow of celibacy, he won't have to think about it. That inappropriate, unacceptable desire will be gone.

Too bad for our young pervert that God doesn't like it when we run from the challenges he's placed before us rather than trying to deal with it or overcome it with his help.

I don't think that, if the Priest is supposed to symbolize Christ's role as bridegroom with the Church in the role of bride, allowing them to follow in the footsteps of the Anglican church with regards to sex is necessarily (or even at all) a good thing.

The difference between terrorists and nut-jobs.

Terrorists attack civilian targets, aiming for large civilian casualty rates, like they did in New York City, the attack on the Pentagon (using a loaded civilian jet as a missile), and the attempted attack on the White House on September 11, 2001. Three thousand civilians died in those attack, with several REMFs killed in the Pentagon. Terrorists are made angry that we are free, affluent, comfortable, and don't have our assess in the air five times a day praying to their god.

Nut-jobs attack the source of whatever they think causes their discontent. Like the guy that rammed his plane into the IRS building (not that I blame him--I think a lot of us quietly cheered him on). Or this guy, who was planning a mass shooting in the worst possible place, and got killed for his trouble.

Honestly, these attacks are more than a bit troubling for me. They're symptomatic of a breakdown of the trust that our government framework is still solid.

Saw this about a week and a half ago.

A sixty-seven year old Vietnam veteran, when confronted by a twenty-something year old black thug and his 'hos, kicked the living dog shit out of the punk.



I've got some friends who I think could do just as well, if not better. And I really resent the bus driver throwing the one who was hit first off the bus without throwing the thugs off the bus, too--which let said thugs steal his stuff.

I wasn't going to post about this. Then I read a blog buddy's post that used the "N-word" in describing the video--one that had me dying laughing when I read his disclaimer about using the "N-word" in his post about this happenstance:

"Please be advised that BLACK people are not born NIGGERS--they earn the title."

Indeed, my friend. Indeed.

Disclaimers.

“This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”

The above was printed in an edition of The Federalist Papers.

I don't know about you, but I highly doubt most parents have the education levels or reading comprehension to read the beautifully worded justifications for the way our government was set up that our Founding Fathers put together, much less that any children would be interested in reading those documents. And I don't think I'd have much of a problem with my son reading them when he comes to a point where he can read and comprehend them. The values, morals, and behavioral standards held by our Founding Fathers are, with few exceptions (like the treatment of other races, and the withholding of rights from women), far better than those of today.

To tell you God's honest truth, modern (nonexistent) values, (lack of) morals and (low) behavioral standards should be what comes with a disclaimer. Perhaps this one would work:

"Warning: indulging in moral relativism, transnational progressivism, socialism, promiscuity, homosexuality, or any other behavior advocated by the political left is unhealthy for the mental, physical, emotional, sexual, and/or spiritual well-being of any who practice said behavior. Talk to your children about the values and morals that they should have that were demonstrated by our Christian Founding Fathers when they created the framework of government for this great nation."

This is racist.

Not the billboard--that's just stating the facts. No, Planned Parenthood is racist. How else do you explain them pushing pregnant black women who come in for help with unplanned pregnancies to abort harder than they do non-black women?

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." It really looks like Planned Parenthood is still following her dreams.

Interesting.

Somehow, conservatives are racist for wanting to change the welfare system to make sure it's only a temporary solution to help all people, including Black people (who make up the majority of welfare recipients), get back up on their own feet.

And somehow, suggesting that someone whose father was from Africa isn't black enough because his skin is lighter, and because he don't talk black dialect (unless he wants to), isn't racist (even if his voters disagree). Nor is suggesting that he should be serving coffee to those running the country, rather than being the one in the hot seat (the comment may have gotten Kennedy pissed off, but it was never brought to the media's attention). Nor yet a white man saying that he's blacker than the black man in the oval office.

I am not pro-Obama. I don't like the son of a bitch. I don't trust him as far as I could throw a tank. I don't want him in the White House. I don't give a damn what color his skin is, only the color of his soul.

My point is that I'm tired of the double standards. Conservatives are branded racists for shouting "You lie!" at a politician (and everybody knows you can tell when a politician is lying by whether or not their lips are moving). Yet liberals? Nope. Never called a racist for pretty much anything, even when they call then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice a "house nigger."

To tell the truth, by comparison with the rest of the world, America isn't even slightly racist. And if you look, really look, for honest-to-God racism, you'll see less white-on-black (or white-on-any-other-other-color) racism in this country than you'll see blacks being racist against everybody, including themselves.

Everybody just needs to sit down, shut up, and stop the hypersensitive accusations of racism where it doesn't exist. Maybe then the rest of us could do something about stopping racism where it does exist.

This is wrong.

A couple of parents are in trouble for not registering their homeschooled children with the local public school district.

This is wrong on so many levels that I don't even begin to know where to start.

A government powerful enough to give you what you want is also powerful enough to take everything you have--your belongings, your freedoms to purchase what seems best to you (everything from recreational pharmaceuticals to flatscreen televisions to black cars [in California] to the health insurance of your choice [if this ass-rape of a "health care reform" bill passes] to 3-gallon-flush toilets), and the right to raise and educate your own children.

Doublespeak and Doublethink in Widespread Use!

That's made clear by this headline:

Obama: We Can't Treat Tax Dollars Like "Monopoly Money"

I believe he's got the wrong definition of "can't," here.

Talk about honest to God racism!

In the name of "cultural competence" which (supposedly) will enable white middle-class teachers (nearly all of whom know who their fathers are) to be able to reach non-white inner-city students (most of whom won't know even what color their fathers are), teacher ed students in Minnesota are being required to repudiate the idea that anyone can get ahead on hard work, regardless of color, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation.

I don't even know where to start on this one. I'd say I thought it was hard to believe, but it simply is another example of the anti-American biases so endemic on college and university campuses today.

About six years ago, I had a student from an inner city in the Midwest. She was, of course, of the skin tone you'd expect. I never heard her mention a father. She had no clue that there was such a concept as a complete sentence, much less how to write one. She signed up for tutoring, and (on my recommendation) worked incredibly hard, bringing a 59.5% up to an 85%. I couldn't have been prouder, and I told her so.

A year later, she showed up in my cubicle, asking for help with a colleague's freshman comp II course. She was terribly frustrated, all the way to tears, because she thought she'd learned what she needed to know to make better than a D.

Turns out that, because she was a young (model-gorgeous) black woman from the inner city, her (leftist, liberal, feminist, white, gay, upper-class, guilt-ridden male) tutor had done most of her work for her, without her realizing that he wasn't really teaching her.

He didn't believe that she could work hard enough to get ahead on her own merits. Because she was from an inner city and black, she was doomed to fail without intervention.

(On a different, but related instance, her twin sister was hired on at a clothing store at a mall--just long enough to fulfill affirmative action minority quotas. Then she was fired.)

Two years later, I had another student, at a different school, also a black student from the inner city, accuse me of racism. He thought I was grading him harder on his papers because he was black. I asked him whether it was more racist to hold him to the same standards as his classmates, or to grade him easier, because where he was from and his skin color doomed him to failure. (His reaction was to announce, in shocked horror, that all of his high school teachers had been racist, and so was affirmative action.)

Two years after that, I had another black student (not one of mine, just one I was tutoring for the football program) call me racist for not appreciating one of my former students (who happened to be white) being insulted. I replied that it was far more racist to inject race into a conversation where it had no bearing, and that I didn't give a rat's ass whether my students were white or minority, but that I would defend them from bullying.

I'm honestly glad to be teaching online. I'm not racist. I don't give a damn what color anyone's skin is. All I care about is the effort they put forth in my class, their attitude, and their character.

After all, I'm not too many steps above white trash. And some of my family actively is white trash. I have no room to talk.

It's sure not a treat.

Hmm...this is odd. The CDC reports that 114 kids have died from H1N1 since this spring. The same CDC that, according to CBS (usually an Obama shill), has ordered testing to cease, and that all cases of flu-like symptoms are to be reported as Swine Flu.

Something is rotten in Denmark.

What, do they have an invasion timetable or something?

Because, Obama is an idiot. He has decided to pull out of the missile defense shield without first warning Poland and the Ukraine* (though he denies that Russian belligerence has anything to do with that). He has decided that it's a good idea to further slash our nuclear arsenal, thereby lessening its utility as a deterrence.

And it's still not enough to make Mother Russia happy.

What, does Uncle Sam have to spread his own cheeks for Mother Russia's giant, unlubricated, black rubber strap on?

*I always thought it was rude to pull out without warning the one being screwed that things were about to splatter all over them.

Prejudice, my lily white ass!

Rangel says that it's "bias" and "prejudice" fueling opposition toward Obama's health-care plan, according to this story.

What Charlie doesn't seem to get is that he and the rest of Obama's supporters are the only ones mentioning race. If there is any prejudice, any bias, any racism, it's on their parts, because they're the ones injecting race into a discussion where it isn't applicable.

I will admit that there is "bias" and "prejudice" fueling my opposition toward mandatory Medicaid: I'm biased and prejudiced against any sort of government intervention into the realm of private enterprise. Government intrusion does not add competition--no private insurer can compete with a socialist government that sees nothing wrong with defrauding millions of taxpayers out of trillions of dollars every year.

If Obama can change definitions, I can, too.

I've decided since we can't call military actions to ensure our safety from radical, militant Islam a war on terrorism (much less the Crusade it actually is), I'm going to redefine a term, too. From now on, fun will be an acronym meaning fucked under nationalization. In other words, should one of my lefty acquaintances say something along the lines of "Come on, rationed healthcare will be fun," I'll smile and nod. I'll know what they really mean.

The interstate commerce clause is a great cover for a lot of tyrannical decisions.

In 1942, FDR's pet Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could regulate farm production that was never intended to be sold across state lines, with the slim justification that, if Farmer Filburn grew his own wheat to feed his dairy cows, then he wasn't buying wheat from wheat-growers from out of state. Who probably lobbied for protectionism with campaign funds.

Alaska, Tennessee, and (I think) Montana have argued that the federal government has no business regulating firearms that are produced in-state, and sold only to residents of that state, to be used only within that state. Washington, D.C.'s anti-gun lobby--ahem, the Democrat-run federal government--has said "nope, hasn't worked that way since 1942."

Texas, Arizona, North Dakota, New Mexico, Minnesota, and Wyoming claim that they will opt out of mandatory Medicaid. I suspect the same reasoning will be given for the federal government overriding these states' rights: that the private insurance they purchase will somehow be against the common good of those in other states who somehow should have had access to that money, just as Filburn cheated wheat-growers in other states out of his money by growing his own.

In any case, the federal government is stepping on individual rights, and using the interstate commerce clause--which is written in plain enough language that a normal person can understand what it means, but broadly enough that a lawyer can successfully use it to invent new powers--to do so.