Food for thought...

One of my students from last semester posted something interesting on Facebook:

"If a jet is shot down, then how can they consider it a plane crash?"

Good question.  The answer is both simple, and complex.

The simple answer: language shapes perception.  If they keep calling it a crash on the news channels and evening news, then people will eventually forget that a jet carrying passengers--including American civilians--on the way to an AIDS conference was purposely shot down by a ground-to-air missile.

The complex answer is to the unstated, but assumed, question of why are they doing this?

Why, indeed. 

Language does control perception.  "Plane crash" is much less threatening than "jet shot down."  Plane crashes happen all the time: it's an accident.  A tragedy.  Pilot error, or mechanical stress.  A missile hitting a passenger jet, on the other hand, is a deliberate act of war. 

And it's a war we're not capable of starting, much less fighting and winning. 

Part of that is because of the way spending has tipped.  Since Vietnam and Johnson's tenure as POTUS, national spending has gone from being majority what was listed in the U.S. Constitution as federal responsibilities (infrastructure and defense) to more than half being spent on welfare programs, both corporate and individual.  Without a major shift in mentality from "gimme, gimme, gimme" to "Oh shit, we all gonna die," we will not be able to free up the funding to pay for what's needed to stomp those fuckers flat. 

So, our illustrious leaders tell the media to shift perceptions.  "Plane crash," indeed.

The other issue is with the "stomp the fuckers flat." 

We haven't done that since August of 1945.  There has not been a single use of overwhelming force going in and making the other side concede that they have been decisively defeated since we fucked Japan with a sandpaper condom without lube.  There is no political will to win, and honestly hasn't been since then.

Not even after 9/11/01.  Otherwise, we would have gone in with overwhelming force and destroyed any semblance of culture and/or government everywhere in every Islamofascist-controlled country, and taken over for the next ten generations.  Since we didn't do that, we have lost.  And they're forcing us to bleed ourselves to death.

We are overextended.  Thanks to the policies put in place by Truman (full credit, here: I understand why he didn't want to push too hard, and have to use nukes again) that prevented full victory in Korea.  That set the precedent for the flat-out loss in Vietnam.  And for what's going on in the Middle East, now that the POTUS has decided that the job there is done (it isn't, and won't be, until every Muslim over the age of two is dead). 

With the lack of funding for the military (which is mandated by the U.S. Constitution) because of the welfare funding for everything else (which is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution), we cannot simply field more units.  Without the political will to win, we can't stomp the old fuckers flat before we move on to stomp these new fuckers flat. 

And so...we have the media working their asses off to slant our perceptions, and cover the asses of their political masters. 

Um...no.

The Brady bunch are at it again, trying to spout that a victim is morally superior to a survivor.

Uh-huh.  Right.  Tell that to the rape victim that will suffer from flashbacks for the rest of her life, like I still do.  Tell that to the rape victim strangled with her own panties.

Tell that to the almost-rape-victim that was carrying a handgun, and prevented her attack entirely. 

Via Wirecutter's blog

Oh, hell no.

Do you know what a mirror is, you rancid bitch?  Obviously, you don't--otherwise, you'd realize that's what you were looking in when you were making your claims and pointing your finger about the last election.  Yeah, there was lying, unprecedented spending on campaigning, and voter suppression.  But very little of it was done by Republicans, other than the promises that they'd undo what your idiot has done.

Like I repeatedly tell my Composition students...

Show, don't tell.  Explaining how good policies are doesn't make them actually good. 

In this case, as in all others, actions and results speak far, far louder than mere words.  Unfortunately for 0bama, he's not even good at the words part without his teleprompter.

What does Islam and the Occupy movement have in common?

Both lie through their teeth when they claim to be peaceful movements.

I would bet that the main difference is that the Occupidiots individually have less physical courage when it comes to personal martyrdom than do the sand lice that inhabit the Middle East.

"...prohibiting free exercise thereof..."

It isn't the birth control issue, stupid.  I don't know of anyone who wants to control anybody else's sex life (other than the Democrats that want to force us all to accept all sexual practices as legitimate and normal).

I, personally, am pro-life.  I have carried two babies, and started feeling them move at about twelve or thirteen weeks after they were conceived.  I know they were alive.  I believe that abortion should not be legal after about the eight week mark when the heart starts beating on its own, unless something about the pregnancy is killing the baby.

Abortion is not contraception.  Contraception is the prevention of sperm and egg meeting, and/or the prevention of the implantation of the results of such.  Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.  And, since most women don't know they're pregnant until they're about six or so weeks at the earliest, and most doctors won't see them until 9-12 weeks, abortion is murder.

I do not, however, foist my beliefs off on others.  If someone wants to get an abortion, let them pay for it themselves.  And may God have mercy on them. 

I deeply and powerfully resent the government telling me that I have to pay for abortions for stupid sluts that don't understand how to use contraception.

I also deeply resent the government telling a religious organization--any religious organization--that they must act against their beliefs to be in compliance with a law.  The text of the first amendment to the Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The Catholic Church doesn't require non-Catholics to abide by their beliefs.  They don't require non-Catholics to work for them, nor do they require non-Catholics that do work for them to abstain from using the birth control method of their choice, or from seeking to murder a baby in the womb.  The Church simply doesn't pay for such, because of a belief (right or wrong) that doing such is acting to take the timing out of God's hands.

Again, to make it clear: it's not the birth control, stupid--it's that we don't want to pay for someone else's consequence-free fornication.

Thank God so many are raising their voice against this law.  I wouldn't put it past the... individual... currently in office to pull a Henry II if it were just one bishop/archbishop/cardinal opposing him.

As if we needed any more proof.

Glenn Beck is a nutter--I will be the first to admit that--but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that there haven't progressives out to tear our country apart for more than a hundred years. 

The Puppet-in-chief proved that in his State of the Union Address.  According to The Blaze, it had an "uncanny resemblance" to Teddy Roosevelt's address in 1906--more than a century ago. 

I can't wade through Obama's dribble (and believe me, I tried--it's bad enough to listen to, but as a teacher of composition, I wanted to scream and throw my netbook), but I did read the text of the 1906 speech--and the progressive/liberal talking points haven't changed substantially (except in a few areas, like integration, and treatment of crime and criminals) in over a hundred years.

So, the next time anyone wants to know what happened to the sense of self-reliance that this nation was founded on, just remember that we've been electing traitorous creeps that want to return us to serfhood, and have been working toward that goal, for longer than many of our grandparents have been alive. 

Unless the American people as a whole wake up and start demanding leaders that not only verbally repudiate the progressive agenda but actually act against it, we as a nation are sunk.

Like war is peace, and ignorance wisdom...

...somehow the increase in food stamps is the fault of the Republican party. 

Whose policies started the Great Depression?  Hoover was the man in the seat when it started, but his policies were sabotaged by a congress that wanted protectionist laws passed, which, when FDR (a raging progressivist Democrat) did so, did nothing but lengthen the duration of the financial crunch.  Before his policies were enacted, most recessions/depressions lasted somewhere between one and three years.  The effects of the Great Depression lasted much longer--we didn't totally recover until the federal government's attention was distracted from domestic policies by WWII.

Who was it that started the War on Poverty, creating food stamps and welfare checks for bums?  Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat.  Meant well, he did, but what a clusterf**k.  Went totally against Franklin's admonition to make the poor uncomfortable in their poverty to help them work to leave it, and created what is now a permanent underclass. 

Honestly, the only Democrat POTUS that did anything to reverse the march of increasing entitlements was Bill Clinton, and he was pushed into signing the Welfare to Work legislation (which Obamoron rolled back, increasing the number on the dole, and decreasing the number leaving it) by a conservative majority in congress.

Yes, there is a major increase in the number of people on food stamps.  That's due entirely to the policies enacted by a congress that veered left during Bush II's time in office--hello, remember Pelosi's idiotic assertion that economic recovery would be aided by extending unemployment benefits, keeping people on their butts at home instead of working at whatever jobs they could find?--not because of any "lack" of regulation on Wall Street. 

If they really want to point fingers, then they need to realize how many fingers are pointing back at them. 

What's sauce for the gander...

The definition of hypocrisy is telling people to do one thing, and then doing what you told them not to.

Google and its CEO are a really good example of that: Google is under investigation for moving profits offshore to evade taxes, while the CEO says "higher taxes would not prevent him from investing or spending. Opponents say higher taxes would hurt growth."

Riiight. I'd think that the CEO of a company like Google would be wise to the fact that Google enables the common person to do a search to find little gems like the bit of hypocrisy mentioned above.

Okay, what?

Supporting the best potential candidates is racist, now? Because they're black?!!??

Umm...that was how Obama got elected--people were concerned that they'd look racist if they didn't vote for him, despite how totally clueless and unfit he was. How the f**k is it racist to vote for Herman Cain (or Allen West)?

Dumb leftist bint can't have it both ways, and doesn't realize it.

These crimes could not have been racially motivated.

After all, it's only a racially-motivated crime if it's a gang of white kids beating up black people.  Black people are incapable of being racists! 

Sorry, Senator Conrad, but I just don't see it.

I've been thinking for days, and I just don't see how the interstate commerce clause permits you to argue that Obamacare/mandatory Medicaid is constitutional. Especially not since you also believe in a woman's right to privacy (pro-abortion), and this bill is one of the biggest federal invasions of privacy out there, despite what your side says to the contrary.

First of all, the interstate commerce clause doesn't apply, because I don't think there's a state out there that permits people to buy health insurance from out of state--which is one of the leading causes of high-cost health insurance. Therefore, the decision to purchase (or not purchase, as the case may be) a good or service in one place does not automatically mean that there was a possibility that an individual may have purchased said good or service elsewhere. In this case, there wasn't. Which renders your argument void.

Too bad more Americans aren't aware of their history, laws, and limits that the Constitution was created to place on you.

Liars, damned liars, and communists.

"I remember thinking, Kanzler, back when I still had some faculties for it, that although the Communists may have gone under I could no longer tell the difference between a Red Russian and a Green German."--Watch on the Rhine, by John Ringo and Tom Kratman

I could easily say the same thing about a Green American. Unfortunately, that's what we've got in the highest office.

I am strongly beginning to suspect that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill debacle was a setup from start to finish, solely so that Dear Leader can further harm U.S. industry, with the EPA's willing and eager cooperation. Why do I think this? Several bits of disparate evidence that, when looked at with an open mind, offer a glimpse at a larger picture.

The stories aren't exactly easy to find, but they are out there: the Obama administration waived impact studies and safety regulations that are in place to prevent occurrences like the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, which led to nearly three full months of spillage. Not long after the debacle, Dear Leader tried to impose a moratorium on drilling in the gulf. The attempt was blocked by the judiciary.

It wasn't the first time Dear Leader had tried to block new drilling, either. The first time he attempted to block drilling happened before the waivers for the Deepwater Horizon rig passed his desk. Which is what has led me to believe that this was a setup on Dear Leader's part to attempt to further damage the economy.

You see, the moratorium--even for just six months--carries huge consequences. The six month moratorium has and will cost between 8,000 jobs at a lowball estimate, and several tens of thousands of jobs at the high end. And that assumes that the oil companies don't follow Diamond Offshore's example, and simply move the floating rigs they use for the deepwater drilling. Should that happen, it's estimated that the U.S. could lose another 400,000 jobs.

And if that isn't enough, the clown in the number two slot has admitted that we already "can't recover all the jobs lost." And they're playing on Americans' love of their country, its ecosystems, and nature to try to force us to accept throwing more away.

How are they playing on our fears? Simple: both the administration and the EPA are blocking efforts to clean up the mess, and refusing aid to do it. The EPA in particular are doing their best to be obstructionist, by posing unreal expectations on the cleanup effort: "Nearly oil-free isn't good enough for the U.S. regulators, who have a standard of 15 parts per million -- if water isn't at least 99.9985% pure, it may not be returned to the Gulf of Mexico."

They're also lying to us about how bad the spill still is, two weeks after it's been capped. Despite continuing hysterics from the environmentalists, cleanup ships have been having more and more trouble finding that which they were dispatched to clean up.

The good news in all of this is that neither the judiciary nor the people are about to take the threat Dear Leader poses to our economy lying down: more than 11,000 people in Louisiana are protesting the legal battle preventing them from working. Hopefully, the administration will shut up and get their fingers out of their ears, and listen to the ones that hired them in the first place.

I do not think it is too late to save our country. Not yet.

Working hard, or hardly working?

BP has Photoshopped enough photos of the cleanup efforts on their website that it gives the impression of the latter--at least at first.

However, as I read the rest of the story, I realized that they were trying to avoid the appearance that they weren't doing enough. Yeah, they doctored pictures of a pilot sitting in a helicopter sitting on a ship's deck to make it look like he was in the air. The undoctored picture shows that the pilot is doing pre-flight checks in preparation to taking off. In other words, in an attempt to look like things are being done, BP gave the opposite impression. Same with the photoshopped monitor images.

Obama would blame Bush.

Steny Hoyer's right, but not the way he thinks he is.

Hoyer claims that America has been rationing health care for a long time, through insurers that deny coverage based on cost.

I assume he means health insurance providers that deny coverage to preexisting conditions unless one pays out the ass to get the condition covered, or that (because of regulations requiring this, that, and the other to be covered) is too expensive for the average family to afford without giving up luxuries like XBox systems and games.

Actually, the "health insurance providers" that are the most at fault for rationing care (like Britain and Canada do) are the VA, and Medicaid. Government providers.

Here's a bit of anecdotal evidence: in Missouri, at least, if you need dentures, can't afford to pay for them yourself, and are on Medicaid, tough shit. Medicaid ain't paying for them. Ask my mother.

Need glasses? Medicaid pays for a new pair every two years. Even for kids that may need new prescriptions every year.

Need hip replacement surgery? Welcome to the waiting list. They may get to you sometime before you die--unless they determine that it isn't worth it.

If you're on thyroid medication, as soon as you get put on Medicare/Medicaid, your doctor will lower your dosage or take you off. What do you need a health weight or energy level for? You don't contribute.

It's not the private sector denying care. They do deny coverage at what most people deem reasonable prices, but they don't deny care like the government programs do.

But that's okay. Before too long, Obamacare/mandatory Medicaid will apply to everyone, and we'll all be getting exactly the same denial of care that the government programs have always been so famous for.

No wonder his son isn't using his last name!

Rory Reid doesn't want to be associated with stupidity like this.

I mean, seriously. Those of us that pay attention know that Ford didn't take any government money. They didn't need to.