MLK day was a couple weeks back (or was it last week? I don't remember frankly), and I suppose the "holiday" is all fine and good - but do we all have to shut down our real business (financial services) because of it?
I had some errands to attend on that good day and of course I knew that the banks were closed but rightly figured that would be about it as far as real enterprise goes. One thing that struck me that fine morn was the lack of traffic I encountered. Rest assured, other than (for whatever reason) the banking industry, it was not real business that closed up shop for the day.
OK the schools were closed and that certainly cuts down on early gridlock, but this lack of traffic persisted throughout the day. Other than the aforementioned banks, I did not notice any real business closed for the day. I could get my coffee as any other day. I began to wonder if in my district that most of the workers were of the gubment variety. The little town near me (just south of the Houston metropolis) is the county seat so there are of course a lot of county types and there are also a number of state and federal offices nearby. I could not help wondering if there were just a whole lot of the "jobs" that were just not necessary. Well we know the answer to that but figured I would pontificate anyway.
Think about it.
It goes without saying that public school districts are major employers in most any community. In some areas they are the major employer. Tax payer funded jobs all. Granted teachers are a necessity along with support staff (custodial, maintenance, "lunch ladies," bus drivers, etc.). For the most part there is little that can be cut there (although some districts I have noticed seem to have an overabundance of "coaches" and I would bet that quite a few of them are a drain on the taxpayer dime). That being said, almost every district (of any size at least) employs more than a few folk who are as useless as a tit on the proverbial boar, and it is usually the highly paid "administrative" types who fit this description. I would bet my bottom dollar that the Houston Independent School District could cut up to 30 percent of their "administrative" staff with little of no detrimental effect on book larnin.
Most cities have folks employed who are rather useless. Now some small burg of fifteen hundred or so people probably does not have an overabundance of employees. Some of them make due with a city clerk (secretary), two or three guys in public works, a police chief (and maybe a couple of other cops perhaps even part time) and perhaps a nominally paid fire chief. It is a good possibility that an additional requirement of being employed is membership in the local VFD. It is pretty hard to point the finger at most small towns for going whole hog with unnecessary employment. Take a city the size of Houston though. Like a major school district, I can safely say that a full 30 percent of those city "jobs" can be eliminated without an significant cut in services.
This same 30 percent can be used as a rule of thumb for most (but certainly not all) counties in this country and of course it goes without saying that most states and for certain federal employment can be cut at least that much.
I don't just speak off the cuff here. I have worked for both major city and mid major county along with a school district in my working "career." I have seen more useless jobs filled than I can count. I don't hold anyone in low regard for taking these type jobs if available of course but, as much as I hate to see anyone to lose a job, I certainly do get tired of being taxed to the hilt to pay for marginal "make work"(and often quite lucrative) jobs. It should be past time to look at this major drain on real wealth and perhaps begin immediate reduction.
Of course it would be nice if there were some tax cuts to go along with a government (all level) reduction in force. Neither will ever happen though.
I guess we will always just be burdened with excessive government digging into our wallets and getting in our way.
Oh? MLK Day? At least I knew that down my way I would not get held up by some asinine parade. If I had businees that morning in Houston however............
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Most Leftists are Silly (but Dangerous) and Much Of Their Dogma is Foolish
Yes indeed. Most of the time when you hear a leftist speak on the television they are spouting nonsense and usually it is laughable tripe. That doesn't mean there is not a danger to liberty here though......From the "news makers" to the "news" readers employed to spew propaganda at the various networks come these gems......
A couple of years ago the term "battlefield suspect(s) was in vogue. As far as I can tell (and I could be wrong) this originated from one of the media outlets and spread to other "progressive" mouthpieces. When they used "battlefield suspect" they were of course referring to non uniformed insurgents captured in the course of battle. Think POW. The term used seems harmless enough at face value, but legally there is a world of difference between a criminal "suspect" and a non nation state affiliated combatant. Where they were going with this is obvious. They were attempting to sway the "conversation" (another leftist "code" word). concerning the status of these prisoners from military control to the control of the civilian courts. Leftward leaning ones of course.
Whenever you hear a leftist talk about having a "conversation," that is the last thing that they have in mind really. They are not interested in conversation. They are interested in subjugation however. Right now there is a big push to have a "conversation" on gun control. A rather one sided conversation to be sure. Make no mistake, the leftist/statist ultimate position is to disarm the American public. That is the "conversation" they are wanting to have. Thankfully, in this country, many are well armed and will have no part of their conversation. Beware any leftist that wants to have a "conversation." They are gunning (no pun) for your freedom.
Another well worn term is "undocumented workers." What is an undocumented worker? Well it is verbage concocted by the extreme left of this country to describe the status of what is commonly called an "illegal alien." By their words, the left is attempting to soften the attitude of many in our country toward those who criminally invade our country in search of work. Personally I don't begrudge a person with the cajones (and it does take cajones. Would you measure up?) to try to make it here. I understand full well why, but that in no way changes the fact that they are criminals and should suffer the consequences of detection. Those that aid and abett (ie hire) them should suffer stiff penalty also. That goes without saying perhaps.
The leftist using "undocumented worker" in verbal or written communication is attempting to subtly change their status. To hold another conversation as it were.
When you hear a leftist speak of "code words" you can be sure that they are trying to paint their adversary in a poor light. One of the favorites seems to be telling us that certain things are "code" for racist thought and/or behavior. I don't know. Some folk don't speak in code. For instance the NAACP this week has been accused by the Four Seasons Hotel of not paying a bill well in excess of 100,000 dollars. I find that interesting. I would bet the NAACP will (soon) somehow brand the Four Seasons folk as the sort to promote racist "exclusion" for insisting that the past due bill for service be paid. Perhaps a boycott will ensue? Of course requesting payment for service rendered will be "code" for "we don't want your business because you folk are black." Or some such. Perhaps that was not a good example. It's early (or late) in the day. At any rate we can expect Quanell Ten to make an appearance shortly.
Not to call the kettle black or anything (no pun), but when one speaks of code words, the leftists are on the top of the game. Every hear the phrase "living Constitution" bandied about? You know what that means right? No? It means that the Constitution of this land is "alive" and therefore it can be "killed" if need be. That is exactly what the leftists are interested in when the speak of this "living" Constitution. For them, nothing in the document is sacred if it does not suit their purpose. Talk about code words....
One thing that the left has given us recently have been personalities of all stripes. Many of them are just silly and not worth much for anything but comedic value (see Dumbass Sheila Jackson Lee), but some are intelligent, driven, and dangerous.
Hillary Clinton was certainly not bested by the House or Senate during her "testimony" on Capital Hill a couple days back. On the contrary. It is doubtful that we will ever get to the bottom of the Benghazi affair. The truth won't be coming from her or her good offices nor are there any investigative journalists who have the sand to dig for that truth. Meanwhile Americans have been brutally killed, nothing has been done really (Or did I miss the destruction of Benghazi), and it is business as usual. Oh, and an American citizen is in jail on rather flimsy charges as apparently his work was the catalyst that set the Mohammedans on murderous rampage (or so we were initially told and as if that should matter anyway in this America),
Whether one likes Hillary or not (and really, who does? I doubt even Bill can stand the sight of her), is not really the point. She may be tough as nails and is perhaps a danger domestically. Or perhaps you disagree? She may be a force to reckon with in 2016. If she does run and is elected (and she likely will be if she desires the office) it will be icing on the cake for this "fundamental change" that America is going through. European style socialism some call it. Whether that is accurate or not remains to be seen perhaps, but one thing that some folk might overlook about Mrs. Clinton is that under that "can't we all just get along" veneer is a woman that might really pull the trigger on the destruction of an out of control foreign adversary. Or not. There have been some very strong women national leaders on the world stage who were not particularly averse of using war as a tool of the state.
"Uncle Joe" Biden is an affable though temperamental buffoon with the unfortunate habit of sticking his foot in his mouth on occasion. Here and there as it might be. It would be easy to write him off as some sort of dolt (and he has been written off as such). That would be wrong. If you think that Uncle Joe is a just some sort of fool and village idiot then you better think again. It is possible that his rather goofy public persona is just an act and it is equally possible that he is just a rather goofy dude. It is immaterial either way. Biden is cold and calculating as Mrs. Clinton, (though perhaps not near the narcissist), and he certainly knows his way around the ball field. Still doubt that he is an intelligent man who knows how to play hard ball? He made the rather forgettable Republican VP candidate look like an out of his league schoolboy during the VP debates. Biden's been around the block and ain't going away. Take that to the bank.
You know, for most except the hard core right wing, not every thing that comes from "left of the aisle" is thought to be completely wrong for America. It goes without saying that the "Civil Rights" movement was a necessary step that this nation had to take, although some might argue that it hastened (and hastens) the downfall of our nation. Personally I believe it to have been a double edge sword so to speak. It was certainly right and necessary to correct the inequality that was pervasive but at the same time the apologetic "Political Correctness" mindset (which does weaken the nation) is a direct descendant.
Some other programs attributed to the left that have been implemented have been Social Security and Medicare. It irritates me when some (usually Republicans) attack these as "entitlements." Perhaps they are correct and these programs are "entitlements" but when I have paid into these systems I do feel entitled to the benefits. Sorry. It is not our fault that the govt "borrows" (steals) from these programs. Again that is not our fault. Fix it. Close down useless federal programs and agencies if necessary. Cut back on AIDS education in Africa, foreign aid to those undeserving, whatever. Those that are interested in destroying these American "entitlement" programs do so at their peril.
Healthcare? That is a big one right now. Who knows what the best solution is? I rather doubt it is this "Obamacare" that everyone is bleating about, but what do I know? I do know (or firmly believe) however that it is the "right" of every American, (yes I said it), to have access to the quality of healthcare that this country is capable of producing. That's right! The suffering child of a pauper should not be penalized with substandard (or no) healthcare while the more fortunate among us get the best of the best. European or Canadian style socialism you tell me? OK. That's fine. Hopefully you don't lose your job and benefits and find that your child is a victim of a life threatening illness. I am sort of thinking that your tune would change. Forthwith!
You know, It saddens me when I donate money in a jar at the local convenience store to help some child's family (or anyone) pay for what might be a life saving procedure (or to stave off bankruptcy from having had such). All the money in the jar or barbecue plates purchased are (usually) nothing more than a drop in the bucket for these individual families. Or sure we feel good about ourselves for "helping" of course.........Oh well, I have said in the past that I might just out liberal the most liberal among us on this particular issue.
No the problem with the left is not necessarily all (I emphasize all) of the programs and legislation that come from the left of the aisle. Some are flawed but basically good programs that advance our standing and status as a modern society. The problem (and danger) is that right now (and in the past) those who sit on the left are attacking our rights. Grasping for that "fundamental change" that Obama brayed about in his first election campaign. From something as simple and silly as the assault of "trans fats" in fast food and large "Cokes" in NYC, to assaults on our 2nd Amendment (and perhaps First Amendment) rights to who knows what. This fundamental change is not wanted or needed here and much of it won't be likely be tolerated without a fight. Hopefully this battle is confined to the political arena but that certainly remains to be seen.
What one has to do is pick and chose I suppose. While it is established that most of us don't disagree with some of the programs that have come from the left, the vast majority of their agenda is not something that is going to fly in most of America.
Lastly and perhaps most importantly, is that one of the biggest dangers that comes from those on the left is this idea that we are all equal. We are not. No I'm not talking about the equality of American citizens here. I am not talking about individuality's either. I am speaking of the equality of civilizations. This is the one arena where those on the left are unwittingly (or likely wittingly and willingly in most cases) are destroying this society.
One needs to look no further than across the pond to our European allies to see where we are headed. The Western societies are allowing political correctness (for lack of a better description) to implode their countries from within. Mass migration from the "Middle East" and North Africa has transformed some societies and those societies may well be becoming unrecognizable. The root of this comes from some sort of "guilt" I suppose from those in Western European nations, in varying degrees for"colonizing" much of the world. Somehow this is seen as a humanitarian wrong and something to perhaps atone for. What is overlooked is that if say Sub Saharan Africa was technologically capable at the time of European expansion and the Europeans were not, well, the situation would have been reversed likely and history would be different. Another subject perhaps. Germans perhaps feel a bit different with an added type of guilt than say those in France, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, UK, and to a lessor extent Italy and Denmark, but the results are the same.
When a nation allows in those whose thought is not compatible to the national culture access in great numbers then the newcomers will eventually supplant the natives and impose inferior culture on the same native population. What we see now is large number of Mohammedans in most of the Western European nations who, naturally, are clamoring for more of a stake in affairs. To put it more plainly Western Europe may be being over run by those who are, let us be honest, have a non western, non compatible and (to be frank) inferior mindset. Interestingly enough some in these Western European nations are waking up to the fact that they are losing their national identity. Wonder where that will eventually lead? Probably no where good or humane.
We are seeing the same in our country. To the leftist it is "racist" to question the wisdom of mass migrations from the south just as the leftist in Europe will proclaim questioning the wisdom of allowing Mohammedans easy access to be racist sentiment. They are not willing to hold this particular "conversation" you see. What we have now are millions who have come from societies that are not equal (yes that's right) to the societies (American and Canadian) that have been built in North America. They are just not. While our society is capable of this change as most of our immigrants do share common western values, the fact remains that other societal traits that are brought north are not equal to those common in most of North America. If they were, these countries that our illegal immigrants flee from would not be the poverty stricken and marginal nations that they have become.
What a leftist wants, it appears to me, is not to elevate the standards of the United States, but to bring us down to the standards of sub standard nations. Unfettered immigration is one tool to bring about their agenda to fruition.
There may be no stopping them.
A couple of years ago the term "battlefield suspect(s) was in vogue. As far as I can tell (and I could be wrong) this originated from one of the media outlets and spread to other "progressive" mouthpieces. When they used "battlefield suspect" they were of course referring to non uniformed insurgents captured in the course of battle. Think POW. The term used seems harmless enough at face value, but legally there is a world of difference between a criminal "suspect" and a non nation state affiliated combatant. Where they were going with this is obvious. They were attempting to sway the "conversation" (another leftist "code" word). concerning the status of these prisoners from military control to the control of the civilian courts. Leftward leaning ones of course.
Whenever you hear a leftist talk about having a "conversation," that is the last thing that they have in mind really. They are not interested in conversation. They are interested in subjugation however. Right now there is a big push to have a "conversation" on gun control. A rather one sided conversation to be sure. Make no mistake, the leftist/statist ultimate position is to disarm the American public. That is the "conversation" they are wanting to have. Thankfully, in this country, many are well armed and will have no part of their conversation. Beware any leftist that wants to have a "conversation." They are gunning (no pun) for your freedom.
Another well worn term is "undocumented workers." What is an undocumented worker? Well it is verbage concocted by the extreme left of this country to describe the status of what is commonly called an "illegal alien." By their words, the left is attempting to soften the attitude of many in our country toward those who criminally invade our country in search of work. Personally I don't begrudge a person with the cajones (and it does take cajones. Would you measure up?) to try to make it here. I understand full well why, but that in no way changes the fact that they are criminals and should suffer the consequences of detection. Those that aid and abett (ie hire) them should suffer stiff penalty also. That goes without saying perhaps.
The leftist using "undocumented worker" in verbal or written communication is attempting to subtly change their status. To hold another conversation as it were.
When you hear a leftist speak of "code words" you can be sure that they are trying to paint their adversary in a poor light. One of the favorites seems to be telling us that certain things are "code" for racist thought and/or behavior. I don't know. Some folk don't speak in code. For instance the NAACP this week has been accused by the Four Seasons Hotel of not paying a bill well in excess of 100,000 dollars. I find that interesting. I would bet the NAACP will (soon) somehow brand the Four Seasons folk as the sort to promote racist "exclusion" for insisting that the past due bill for service be paid. Perhaps a boycott will ensue? Of course requesting payment for service rendered will be "code" for "we don't want your business because you folk are black." Or some such. Perhaps that was not a good example. It's early (or late) in the day. At any rate we can expect Quanell Ten to make an appearance shortly.
Not to call the kettle black or anything (no pun), but when one speaks of code words, the leftists are on the top of the game. Every hear the phrase "living Constitution" bandied about? You know what that means right? No? It means that the Constitution of this land is "alive" and therefore it can be "killed" if need be. That is exactly what the leftists are interested in when the speak of this "living" Constitution. For them, nothing in the document is sacred if it does not suit their purpose. Talk about code words....
One thing that the left has given us recently have been personalities of all stripes. Many of them are just silly and not worth much for anything but comedic value (see Dumbass Sheila Jackson Lee), but some are intelligent, driven, and dangerous.
Hillary Clinton was certainly not bested by the House or Senate during her "testimony" on Capital Hill a couple days back. On the contrary. It is doubtful that we will ever get to the bottom of the Benghazi affair. The truth won't be coming from her or her good offices nor are there any investigative journalists who have the sand to dig for that truth. Meanwhile Americans have been brutally killed, nothing has been done really (Or did I miss the destruction of Benghazi), and it is business as usual. Oh, and an American citizen is in jail on rather flimsy charges as apparently his work was the catalyst that set the Mohammedans on murderous rampage (or so we were initially told and as if that should matter anyway in this America),
Whether one likes Hillary or not (and really, who does? I doubt even Bill can stand the sight of her), is not really the point. She may be tough as nails and is perhaps a danger domestically. Or perhaps you disagree? She may be a force to reckon with in 2016. If she does run and is elected (and she likely will be if she desires the office) it will be icing on the cake for this "fundamental change" that America is going through. European style socialism some call it. Whether that is accurate or not remains to be seen perhaps, but one thing that some folk might overlook about Mrs. Clinton is that under that "can't we all just get along" veneer is a woman that might really pull the trigger on the destruction of an out of control foreign adversary. Or not. There have been some very strong women national leaders on the world stage who were not particularly averse of using war as a tool of the state.
"Uncle Joe" Biden is an affable though temperamental buffoon with the unfortunate habit of sticking his foot in his mouth on occasion. Here and there as it might be. It would be easy to write him off as some sort of dolt (and he has been written off as such). That would be wrong. If you think that Uncle Joe is a just some sort of fool and village idiot then you better think again. It is possible that his rather goofy public persona is just an act and it is equally possible that he is just a rather goofy dude. It is immaterial either way. Biden is cold and calculating as Mrs. Clinton, (though perhaps not near the narcissist), and he certainly knows his way around the ball field. Still doubt that he is an intelligent man who knows how to play hard ball? He made the rather forgettable Republican VP candidate look like an out of his league schoolboy during the VP debates. Biden's been around the block and ain't going away. Take that to the bank.
You know, for most except the hard core right wing, not every thing that comes from "left of the aisle" is thought to be completely wrong for America. It goes without saying that the "Civil Rights" movement was a necessary step that this nation had to take, although some might argue that it hastened (and hastens) the downfall of our nation. Personally I believe it to have been a double edge sword so to speak. It was certainly right and necessary to correct the inequality that was pervasive but at the same time the apologetic "Political Correctness" mindset (which does weaken the nation) is a direct descendant.
Some other programs attributed to the left that have been implemented have been Social Security and Medicare. It irritates me when some (usually Republicans) attack these as "entitlements." Perhaps they are correct and these programs are "entitlements" but when I have paid into these systems I do feel entitled to the benefits. Sorry. It is not our fault that the govt "borrows" (steals) from these programs. Again that is not our fault. Fix it. Close down useless federal programs and agencies if necessary. Cut back on AIDS education in Africa, foreign aid to those undeserving, whatever. Those that are interested in destroying these American "entitlement" programs do so at their peril.
Healthcare? That is a big one right now. Who knows what the best solution is? I rather doubt it is this "Obamacare" that everyone is bleating about, but what do I know? I do know (or firmly believe) however that it is the "right" of every American, (yes I said it), to have access to the quality of healthcare that this country is capable of producing. That's right! The suffering child of a pauper should not be penalized with substandard (or no) healthcare while the more fortunate among us get the best of the best. European or Canadian style socialism you tell me? OK. That's fine. Hopefully you don't lose your job and benefits and find that your child is a victim of a life threatening illness. I am sort of thinking that your tune would change. Forthwith!
You know, It saddens me when I donate money in a jar at the local convenience store to help some child's family (or anyone) pay for what might be a life saving procedure (or to stave off bankruptcy from having had such). All the money in the jar or barbecue plates purchased are (usually) nothing more than a drop in the bucket for these individual families. Or sure we feel good about ourselves for "helping" of course.........Oh well, I have said in the past that I might just out liberal the most liberal among us on this particular issue.
No the problem with the left is not necessarily all (I emphasize all) of the programs and legislation that come from the left of the aisle. Some are flawed but basically good programs that advance our standing and status as a modern society. The problem (and danger) is that right now (and in the past) those who sit on the left are attacking our rights. Grasping for that "fundamental change" that Obama brayed about in his first election campaign. From something as simple and silly as the assault of "trans fats" in fast food and large "Cokes" in NYC, to assaults on our 2nd Amendment (and perhaps First Amendment) rights to who knows what. This fundamental change is not wanted or needed here and much of it won't be likely be tolerated without a fight. Hopefully this battle is confined to the political arena but that certainly remains to be seen.
What one has to do is pick and chose I suppose. While it is established that most of us don't disagree with some of the programs that have come from the left, the vast majority of their agenda is not something that is going to fly in most of America.
Lastly and perhaps most importantly, is that one of the biggest dangers that comes from those on the left is this idea that we are all equal. We are not. No I'm not talking about the equality of American citizens here. I am not talking about individuality's either. I am speaking of the equality of civilizations. This is the one arena where those on the left are unwittingly (or likely wittingly and willingly in most cases) are destroying this society.
One needs to look no further than across the pond to our European allies to see where we are headed. The Western societies are allowing political correctness (for lack of a better description) to implode their countries from within. Mass migration from the "Middle East" and North Africa has transformed some societies and those societies may well be becoming unrecognizable. The root of this comes from some sort of "guilt" I suppose from those in Western European nations, in varying degrees for"colonizing" much of the world. Somehow this is seen as a humanitarian wrong and something to perhaps atone for. What is overlooked is that if say Sub Saharan Africa was technologically capable at the time of European expansion and the Europeans were not, well, the situation would have been reversed likely and history would be different. Another subject perhaps. Germans perhaps feel a bit different with an added type of guilt than say those in France, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, UK, and to a lessor extent Italy and Denmark, but the results are the same.
When a nation allows in those whose thought is not compatible to the national culture access in great numbers then the newcomers will eventually supplant the natives and impose inferior culture on the same native population. What we see now is large number of Mohammedans in most of the Western European nations who, naturally, are clamoring for more of a stake in affairs. To put it more plainly Western Europe may be being over run by those who are, let us be honest, have a non western, non compatible and (to be frank) inferior mindset. Interestingly enough some in these Western European nations are waking up to the fact that they are losing their national identity. Wonder where that will eventually lead? Probably no where good or humane.
We are seeing the same in our country. To the leftist it is "racist" to question the wisdom of mass migrations from the south just as the leftist in Europe will proclaim questioning the wisdom of allowing Mohammedans easy access to be racist sentiment. They are not willing to hold this particular "conversation" you see. What we have now are millions who have come from societies that are not equal (yes that's right) to the societies (American and Canadian) that have been built in North America. They are just not. While our society is capable of this change as most of our immigrants do share common western values, the fact remains that other societal traits that are brought north are not equal to those common in most of North America. If they were, these countries that our illegal immigrants flee from would not be the poverty stricken and marginal nations that they have become.
What a leftist wants, it appears to me, is not to elevate the standards of the United States, but to bring us down to the standards of sub standard nations. Unfettered immigration is one tool to bring about their agenda to fruition.
There may be no stopping them.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Wednesday Ranting. Super Bowl, Media Dipshittery, Etc.
I have often wondered why the various major "news" outlets in this country selectively ignore and/or attempt to distort real news events while focusing on ridiculous human interest fare. There are some who say that it is to distract the public and keep them in the dark.........Sometimes I agree..
There are quite a few things going on that deserve coverage and some investigative journalism is in order. The Benghazi affair has not gone away but it seems that no one in the media really wants to open that can of worms. Most networks don't even pay lip service to getting to the bottom of that fiasco. Most don't want to I would wager.
The episode(s) in Algeria and Mali gets short shrift also. This general area of Africa may be be the next "hotspot" in the ongoing war with Islam. So far the U.S. is not involved (except clandestinely). Another low level, resource draining, insurgency we do not need but at the same time Islamists who may be a threat must be hunted and exterminated without mercy anywhere they are found. Of course we also don't see near as much about the civil war in Syria. This is one event that really has the potential to become a real danger. It is perhaps inconvenient for our media to point out that this "Arab Spring" has unravelled? I know they are disappointed.
And then we come to the "gun control" issue. This one deserves constant fair coverage. It is imperative that we hold our lawmakers feet to the fire on the 2nd Amendment issue, but the problem appears to be that most members of the "news" media are partisan and "anti gun" as a rule. It will be interesting to see their response when the 1st Amendment is under attack as it will surely soon be. Fools!
Instead of news of importance what do we see? Lately it seems to be sports scandal that has captured attention. The media tried to make hay out of Brent Musberger complimenting one Katherine Webb on her looks. It was not like Brent said he would like to get naked with this Webb or anything (he may have been thinking it, but hey who wasn't?). All the man did was basically say that Webb was a pretty woman. The media ran with this after a few complained of "insensitivity" or something. Even the media could not go too far with this one though. It was just too ridiculous. Of course, true to form, ESPN apologized. Asinine!
Then we come to the Manti Te'o affair. Bizarre story to be sure, but just beaten into the ground by the faux journalists at every network (sports and otherwise). There are a lot of theories as to the true nature of this story, but really it is, at most nothing more than a narrow interest story that has been pushed down our throats and treated as real news.
Lastly we come to the "big story." You know, the Lance Armstrong is really a doper thing. This does I suppose deserve some coverage but it is not really that important and the story is (again) being beaten into the ground. It falls pretty much into the "who cares" column for most of us.
Perhaps some are correct. The media is used to create nothing more than a distraction and keep the uniformed American public concerned with, and interested in, nothing more than trifling affairs.
Speaking of trifling affairs........I have been thinking bit about the upcoming Super Bowl. The Harbaugh vs Harbaugh thing is kind of interesting I guess but I am sure that angle of the story will be beaten like a dead horse. We all will be pretty sick of hearing about that in the time before kickoff. Then we have the Ray Lewis worship that appears to be attached to the Baltimore Colts errr Browns errr Ravens. I am sort of looking forward to counting the times that the this Lewis will be mentioned as a role model, team leader, great story, prince of peace, second coming, etc. etc. Maybe we will all get to see his little dance......
I am fairly certain that his alleged involvement in a murder years back won't be brought up. Just a guess.
I have wondered why a president who wins a second term has a big old inauguration bash like the one we saw a couple days back (on MLK day no less). It seems that there should just be a regular old swearing in ceremony then "back to work." Instead we are treated to a minstrel show with pomp and circumstance. When a president is initially inaugurated I can (sort of) see the "need" for a big shindig, but on the start of the second term? Just not needed. Waste of time and money in my book. At least perhaps a few "scalpers" made a bit of coin selling "tickets" to the event as any enterprising American would. I hope so. That would bother this Chuck Schumer I'm sure and anything that causes that silly ass a headache is probably good for me, you, and the country in general.
There are quite a few things going on that deserve coverage and some investigative journalism is in order. The Benghazi affair has not gone away but it seems that no one in the media really wants to open that can of worms. Most networks don't even pay lip service to getting to the bottom of that fiasco. Most don't want to I would wager.
The episode(s) in Algeria and Mali gets short shrift also. This general area of Africa may be be the next "hotspot" in the ongoing war with Islam. So far the U.S. is not involved (except clandestinely). Another low level, resource draining, insurgency we do not need but at the same time Islamists who may be a threat must be hunted and exterminated without mercy anywhere they are found. Of course we also don't see near as much about the civil war in Syria. This is one event that really has the potential to become a real danger. It is perhaps inconvenient for our media to point out that this "Arab Spring" has unravelled? I know they are disappointed.
And then we come to the "gun control" issue. This one deserves constant fair coverage. It is imperative that we hold our lawmakers feet to the fire on the 2nd Amendment issue, but the problem appears to be that most members of the "news" media are partisan and "anti gun" as a rule. It will be interesting to see their response when the 1st Amendment is under attack as it will surely soon be. Fools!
Instead of news of importance what do we see? Lately it seems to be sports scandal that has captured attention. The media tried to make hay out of Brent Musberger complimenting one Katherine Webb on her looks. It was not like Brent said he would like to get naked with this Webb or anything (he may have been thinking it, but hey who wasn't?). All the man did was basically say that Webb was a pretty woman. The media ran with this after a few complained of "insensitivity" or something. Even the media could not go too far with this one though. It was just too ridiculous. Of course, true to form, ESPN apologized. Asinine!
Then we come to the Manti Te'o affair. Bizarre story to be sure, but just beaten into the ground by the faux journalists at every network (sports and otherwise). There are a lot of theories as to the true nature of this story, but really it is, at most nothing more than a narrow interest story that has been pushed down our throats and treated as real news.
Lastly we come to the "big story." You know, the Lance Armstrong is really a doper thing. This does I suppose deserve some coverage but it is not really that important and the story is (again) being beaten into the ground. It falls pretty much into the "who cares" column for most of us.
Perhaps some are correct. The media is used to create nothing more than a distraction and keep the uniformed American public concerned with, and interested in, nothing more than trifling affairs.
Speaking of trifling affairs........I have been thinking bit about the upcoming Super Bowl. The Harbaugh vs Harbaugh thing is kind of interesting I guess but I am sure that angle of the story will be beaten like a dead horse. We all will be pretty sick of hearing about that in the time before kickoff. Then we have the Ray Lewis worship that appears to be attached to the Baltimore Colts errr Browns errr Ravens. I am sort of looking forward to counting the times that the this Lewis will be mentioned as a role model, team leader, great story, prince of peace, second coming, etc. etc. Maybe we will all get to see his little dance......
I am fairly certain that his alleged involvement in a murder years back won't be brought up. Just a guess.
I have wondered why a president who wins a second term has a big old inauguration bash like the one we saw a couple days back (on MLK day no less). It seems that there should just be a regular old swearing in ceremony then "back to work." Instead we are treated to a minstrel show with pomp and circumstance. When a president is initially inaugurated I can (sort of) see the "need" for a big shindig, but on the start of the second term? Just not needed. Waste of time and money in my book. At least perhaps a few "scalpers" made a bit of coin selling "tickets" to the event as any enterprising American would. I hope so. That would bother this Chuck Schumer I'm sure and anything that causes that silly ass a headache is probably good for me, you, and the country in general.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
The Bartender Cabbie Asshat Of The Week 1/17/2013
As usual there are many candidates who would be good contenders for the Bartender Cabbie Asshat of the Week award, but alas I can only chose one.
It was pretty easy to consider both the POTUS and "Uncle Joe" Biden for their rather lukewarm and non productive (thankfully so far) outline on what is to "be done about" guns. They were considered for the Asshat award not so much for their already well known stance on the "conversation" but for using some cute, nicely attired, kids as window dressing. When Uncle Joe "chucked" the little girl under the chin, it somehow reminded me of a picture I saw of Saddam Hussein posing with kids during his reign. Sorry. That is what first came to mind.
Something just not right about using children to further some political agenda. What we saw was rather disturbing and certainly despicable. Somehow such tactics are almost frightening considering who has used the same in the past. Kissing babies on the campaign trail ain't exactly what you saw yesterday. Something different entirely.
You know, on second thought, I think that both our illustrious president and "Uncle Joe" Biden can be joint awardees of the Asshat(s) of the Week. They are thus so honored.
Piers Morgan? You'll wait your turn.
It was pretty easy to consider both the POTUS and "Uncle Joe" Biden for their rather lukewarm and non productive (thankfully so far) outline on what is to "be done about" guns. They were considered for the Asshat award not so much for their already well known stance on the "conversation" but for using some cute, nicely attired, kids as window dressing. When Uncle Joe "chucked" the little girl under the chin, it somehow reminded me of a picture I saw of Saddam Hussein posing with kids during his reign. Sorry. That is what first came to mind.
Something just not right about using children to further some political agenda. What we saw was rather disturbing and certainly despicable. Somehow such tactics are almost frightening considering who has used the same in the past. Kissing babies on the campaign trail ain't exactly what you saw yesterday. Something different entirely.
You know, on second thought, I think that both our illustrious president and "Uncle Joe" Biden can be joint awardees of the Asshat(s) of the Week. They are thus so honored.
Piers Morgan? You'll wait your turn.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Talkin 'Bout Gun Control
I passed along a few thoughts on the "gun control" issue in a blog post a few days back and felt the need to revisit the issue this fine morning. What I am about to say to start my little rant I had to think long and hard about writing. I have heard others say something similar in public forum but I just have had to wrestle with this to come to the conclusion that they are correct.
OK. I will just say it. I think that in the immediate aftermath of the horrific school shooting in CT. last month, that there were a certain number of people in govt, media, and in the general public who were overjoyed that the incident took place. Hard to fathom I know, but there you have it. Most normal and rational people were horrified and saddened, but there are those......The joy of some was obvious when, within an hour after the shootings, and before local law enforcement even had a handle on the situation, the issue of "gun control" began to be spouted by the usual suspects. The obvious false faces of grief did not fool many. Some of these leftist, agenda driven, folks were more than glad that this had occurred. More than glad.
Now this very divisive and dangerous issue has come to a head. The more paranoid among us may tell you that the situation will play out as follows:
1) The president will illegaly issue executive orders (perhaps today) to limit the rights American hold under the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
2) Once complete the 1st Amendment will be under assault with govt action on the video game, some "news" media, and the film industry (an issue that oddly enough many 2nd Amendment advocates will be in favor of).
3) After the 1st and 2nd Amendments are nullified in all but name, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution will be addressed.
That is the gist of the argument for the most paranoid among us. A little bit of a stretch probably, but one does have to remember that a totalitarian minded leftist administration (which arguable we do have at this time), will enjoy supporters. Just recently Harry Reid and others urged the president to circumvent congress on another issue entirely and it is not difficult to imagine that they would be in favor of illegal action on this issue also.
On the other side of the coin we have the hardcore leftists that want a govt. "gun confiscation" policy to be enacted. That is an obvious prescription for disaster and it is unlikely, (even if our elected officials were so inclined) that something along those lines would, at this time, be attempted. They know certain the outcome of such a foolhardy action.
Before the "findings, recommendations, and presidential proposals," are released by the administration (later today reportedly) it is interesting to note that various states have already gotten in on this action. New York legislators predictably have already passed further restrictions on the right of Americans to own firearms and those in other states are considering similar.
All the while some states may be moving in the opposite direction. Already in Texas and Montana (Wyoming perhaps?) there has been talk among elected officials to nullify any further federal restrictions on the right to bear arms, and in Texas at least, there has been further talk of criminal charges for those federal officials who attempt to enforce federal law on the issue. Now that would be interesting (and rather fun) and would be another example of the "nullification" issue that has recently again come to a head in the continual battle between state and fedgov. The marijuana issue comes to mind.......
Whatever the outcome of this assault of the 2nd Amendment, one can be rather certain that there will be further burdens placed on gun owners. One can bet that these same restrictions will not go near far enough for the vocal gun control crowd and will be seen as an odious infringement on the right to bear arms by those who rightfully distrust the motivations of our federal officials.
One thing we certainly won't see right away is the federal government taking action to totally disarm the gun owners of America. Not yet. That is the ultimate aim to be sure but most leftists know that these things take time.
OK. I will just say it. I think that in the immediate aftermath of the horrific school shooting in CT. last month, that there were a certain number of people in govt, media, and in the general public who were overjoyed that the incident took place. Hard to fathom I know, but there you have it. Most normal and rational people were horrified and saddened, but there are those......The joy of some was obvious when, within an hour after the shootings, and before local law enforcement even had a handle on the situation, the issue of "gun control" began to be spouted by the usual suspects. The obvious false faces of grief did not fool many. Some of these leftist, agenda driven, folks were more than glad that this had occurred. More than glad.
Now this very divisive and dangerous issue has come to a head. The more paranoid among us may tell you that the situation will play out as follows:
1) The president will illegaly issue executive orders (perhaps today) to limit the rights American hold under the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
2) Once complete the 1st Amendment will be under assault with govt action on the video game, some "news" media, and the film industry (an issue that oddly enough many 2nd Amendment advocates will be in favor of).
3) After the 1st and 2nd Amendments are nullified in all but name, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution will be addressed.
That is the gist of the argument for the most paranoid among us. A little bit of a stretch probably, but one does have to remember that a totalitarian minded leftist administration (which arguable we do have at this time), will enjoy supporters. Just recently Harry Reid and others urged the president to circumvent congress on another issue entirely and it is not difficult to imagine that they would be in favor of illegal action on this issue also.
On the other side of the coin we have the hardcore leftists that want a govt. "gun confiscation" policy to be enacted. That is an obvious prescription for disaster and it is unlikely, (even if our elected officials were so inclined) that something along those lines would, at this time, be attempted. They know certain the outcome of such a foolhardy action.
Before the "findings, recommendations, and presidential proposals," are released by the administration (later today reportedly) it is interesting to note that various states have already gotten in on this action. New York legislators predictably have already passed further restrictions on the right of Americans to own firearms and those in other states are considering similar.
All the while some states may be moving in the opposite direction. Already in Texas and Montana (Wyoming perhaps?) there has been talk among elected officials to nullify any further federal restrictions on the right to bear arms, and in Texas at least, there has been further talk of criminal charges for those federal officials who attempt to enforce federal law on the issue. Now that would be interesting (and rather fun) and would be another example of the "nullification" issue that has recently again come to a head in the continual battle between state and fedgov. The marijuana issue comes to mind.......
Whatever the outcome of this assault of the 2nd Amendment, one can be rather certain that there will be further burdens placed on gun owners. One can bet that these same restrictions will not go near far enough for the vocal gun control crowd and will be seen as an odious infringement on the right to bear arms by those who rightfully distrust the motivations of our federal officials.
One thing we certainly won't see right away is the federal government taking action to totally disarm the gun owners of America. Not yet. That is the ultimate aim to be sure but most leftists know that these things take time.
Monday, January 14, 2013
2012 Division I College Football Coach of the Year
There are only about three or four candidates that I would consider to be "coach of the year" material in the BCS (Division I) college football ranks. Les Miles is not one of them.
1st Runner Up:
Bill Snyder, KSU: Snyder appears to be the only man who can win at Kansas State. The Ron Prince experiment was a minor disaster and Snyder had to come "out of retirement" to again lead the Wildcats to conference victory and national championship contention. His methods are a bit old school and the game may be changing and passing him by (he's not the only one in that boat to be sure), but right now he still has the magic to, at the very least, have his teams favorites to win the ten team Big Twelve, with an outside chance at going for all the marbles nationally.
2nd Runner Up:
Dabo Swinney, Clemson: Swinney has done a very good job bringing the Tigers from a "pretty good for the ACC" type team to a group that can possibly challenge for a national title. That says a lot for a school that has not really been relevant in the national hunt for many years. They fell short this season to be sure, but it will be interesting to see where his teams are in another year or two.
Coach of the Year:
Kevin Sumlin: Texas A&M: When the Aggies decided to make the move to the SEC conventional wisdom said that they would be a perpetual lower middle of the pack team in that league. This would have certainly been the case had the Aggies stuck with a Mike Sherman or Franchione type coach. Sumlin brings a new brand of football to the rather stodgy conference and has already shaken things up. The Aggies did get off to a rather slow start but toward the end of the season it is possible that they were the best team playing D1 ball and yes, that does include being a better team than the Crimson Tide.
If there was any indication that Sumlin would have some success at A&M one had to look no further than his teams while he was head man at Houston. True, he has been blessed with exceptional college QB's during his coaching tenure and that certainly is a big reason for his success, but he has also learned that he needs a defense that is SEC worthy to have a good chance of consistent winning in that conference. Lack of defense was something that kept his teams from being "BCS Busters" when he coached the Cougars. He doesn't have that problem now. Look for the Aggies to vie for the conference crown next season with a good possibility of going to the "title" game.
All in all it was a pretty good year in college football and I, for one, am always sorry to see it end. What's next? Well there is a pretty good college basketball tournament on the horizon and the remainder of the NFL playoffs might be somewhat interesting.
That's about it.
1st Runner Up:
Bill Snyder, KSU: Snyder appears to be the only man who can win at Kansas State. The Ron Prince experiment was a minor disaster and Snyder had to come "out of retirement" to again lead the Wildcats to conference victory and national championship contention. His methods are a bit old school and the game may be changing and passing him by (he's not the only one in that boat to be sure), but right now he still has the magic to, at the very least, have his teams favorites to win the ten team Big Twelve, with an outside chance at going for all the marbles nationally.
2nd Runner Up:
Dabo Swinney, Clemson: Swinney has done a very good job bringing the Tigers from a "pretty good for the ACC" type team to a group that can possibly challenge for a national title. That says a lot for a school that has not really been relevant in the national hunt for many years. They fell short this season to be sure, but it will be interesting to see where his teams are in another year or two.
Coach of the Year:
Kevin Sumlin: Texas A&M: When the Aggies decided to make the move to the SEC conventional wisdom said that they would be a perpetual lower middle of the pack team in that league. This would have certainly been the case had the Aggies stuck with a Mike Sherman or Franchione type coach. Sumlin brings a new brand of football to the rather stodgy conference and has already shaken things up. The Aggies did get off to a rather slow start but toward the end of the season it is possible that they were the best team playing D1 ball and yes, that does include being a better team than the Crimson Tide.
If there was any indication that Sumlin would have some success at A&M one had to look no further than his teams while he was head man at Houston. True, he has been blessed with exceptional college QB's during his coaching tenure and that certainly is a big reason for his success, but he has also learned that he needs a defense that is SEC worthy to have a good chance of consistent winning in that conference. Lack of defense was something that kept his teams from being "BCS Busters" when he coached the Cougars. He doesn't have that problem now. Look for the Aggies to vie for the conference crown next season with a good possibility of going to the "title" game.
All in all it was a pretty good year in college football and I, for one, am always sorry to see it end. What's next? Well there is a pretty good college basketball tournament on the horizon and the remainder of the NFL playoffs might be somewhat interesting.
That's about it.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
A Bit of Wednesday Wankage with Some Rule 5
I guess I'll comment on a few things this fine Wednesday morning. Why not?
The Texas Legislature is now in session. Let us hope that they pretty much just leave things alone. We can be rather certain they don't have the courage to tighten the border (do the feds job), close redundant and unnecessary govt agencies, or anything else of real use. Likely after they go home we will find our freedoms further restricted. I wish they would just close up shop right now.
I have observed that despite the fact that Houston talk show "great" Michael Berry is a very very strange little dude, he tends to often make a great deal of sense.
Harry Reid apparently made some sort of comment that "Super Storm" Sandy was worse than Hurricane Katrina. What an idiot. Both storms were bad and folks lost their lives. The city of New Orleans was devastated and parts of the NE suffered quite a bit of damage. Of course Reid's "people" have tried to clarify and sanitize his remarks but it falls on deaf ears in this neck of the woods. This Reid is a fool and needs to go.
Speaking of the storm; earlier today on Yahoo "News" I saw a bit about Allstate Insurance not paying a fair and equitable claim to some folks who were victimized by the recent "Super Storm." To add insult to injury, apparently to company has used these same people's property in recent advertisements for their insurance services. Of all the insurance companies out there, Allstate is probably the worst. They seem to have huge amount of money to advertise during college football and elsewhere, but just try to get them to be fair on a claim. Personally I have felt the "good hands" probing my hindquarters on two occasions. In my humble opinion they are a predatory, criminal organization.
In an earlier post I mentioned Redskins coach Mike Shanahan. I don't doubt that his selfish actions may have damaged a very promising young Quarterback's career. He is the winner of the BartenderCabbie Asshat of the Week award for good reason.
Apparently today Joe Biden is meeting with some folk concerning "gun control." I see that reps from the NRA are to be included, which to me is somewhat of a surprise. It has been also reported that the Wal Mart people were invited to attend but "did not have anyone available." It is certainly strange that folks from the Evil Empire were to be included. I am not aware of them selling "assault weapons" (whatever that is). It appears to me that they are just in the cheap hunting rifle/shotgun business in their sporting goods dept. I actually commend the Wal Mart folk for staying away here. It is not often I praise the Evil Empire for anything.
This whole gun control issue has the potential to get out of hand. Way out of hand. Not saying it will but there is little doubt that the ultimate aim of the leftists in this country is to not just have a "conversation" on gun control, but to outright disarm the American populace. Perhaps I am being a bit paranoid here, but history has shown that when a society is disarmed, there is nothing that can stand in the way of a totalitarian inclined govt from running roughshod over their people. Or do you disagree? Of course there has got to be a way to keep the deranged from owning weapons of any kind but the leftists are going to use this issue to further their aims. It won't just be that a mental patient or convicted felon will be barred from ownership. (Felons can't legally purchase anyway). Well, it might start there, but it might progress to bans on "assault weapons," then to all semi automatic weapons, to any type weapon that fires a certain caliber of ammunition, so on and so forth.
Take for instance one of the lefts' talking points in the "conversation." The gun control advocates like to say that no one "needs" a "high capacity" magazine. They might be correct there (at least at this time). No one really "needs" such, but that is not the point. I certainly don't need to buy a knew phone, but I happen to want one. Many middle aged types don't need a corvette, but just might want one. Barney Frank might not need the company of a male "escort" but he may be inclined to purchase such services. Are you getting the picture?
What is an assault weapon anyway? What some folks believe to be "assault weapons" is really nothing more than aesthetics. In other words, some rifles are designed to look like military grade weaponry, but in reality they are not. They look cool, but unless they are illegally modified to automatic fire, they are nothing more than a hunting rifle that is dressed up for the prom. I am not a "gun guy" per se, but I am a gun owner and I certainly know that legal "assault weapons" are just pretty "deer" rifles.
Any rifle can be classified as an assault weapon. Any type of gun for that manner. If someone is assaulted by a single shot .22 cal, then that gun is an assault weapon. Hell a hammer can be an assault weapon if used in that manner. If I am not mistaken, Ted Kennedy's car could have been classified as an assault weapon. What? Have I gone to far there......?
I would like to say that this gun control "conversation" will lead nowhere and I may (or may not) be correct. There are more than a few Democrats in congress that will have nothing to do with it likely. A prescription for not getting reelected in many districts. This goes beyond liberal vs conservative; this is an American vs the unspeakable issue.
I could be wrong here. This "conversation" may take a turn toward ultimate confiscation. The leftists do have an inordinate amount of power in this country, control the media, and can easily pressure those in the manufacture and sale of arms and ammunition. Just the fact that Wal Mart folk were (reported to be) "invited" to Biden's little get together, shows that there is likely to be some strong arm tactics involved before all is said and done.
Who knows where this will all lead though. Gun control will either go nowhere or down a road that most Americans are not willing to go.
I did not intend to go off on a rant about this gun control "discussion" but we may be at a crossroads here. Enough of this for now. How about a little Rule 5? Can you spot the celebs?
The Texas Legislature is now in session. Let us hope that they pretty much just leave things alone. We can be rather certain they don't have the courage to tighten the border (do the feds job), close redundant and unnecessary govt agencies, or anything else of real use. Likely after they go home we will find our freedoms further restricted. I wish they would just close up shop right now.
I have observed that despite the fact that Houston talk show "great" Michael Berry is a very very strange little dude, he tends to often make a great deal of sense.
Harry Reid apparently made some sort of comment that "Super Storm" Sandy was worse than Hurricane Katrina. What an idiot. Both storms were bad and folks lost their lives. The city of New Orleans was devastated and parts of the NE suffered quite a bit of damage. Of course Reid's "people" have tried to clarify and sanitize his remarks but it falls on deaf ears in this neck of the woods. This Reid is a fool and needs to go.
Speaking of the storm; earlier today on Yahoo "News" I saw a bit about Allstate Insurance not paying a fair and equitable claim to some folks who were victimized by the recent "Super Storm." To add insult to injury, apparently to company has used these same people's property in recent advertisements for their insurance services. Of all the insurance companies out there, Allstate is probably the worst. They seem to have huge amount of money to advertise during college football and elsewhere, but just try to get them to be fair on a claim. Personally I have felt the "good hands" probing my hindquarters on two occasions. In my humble opinion they are a predatory, criminal organization.
In an earlier post I mentioned Redskins coach Mike Shanahan. I don't doubt that his selfish actions may have damaged a very promising young Quarterback's career. He is the winner of the BartenderCabbie Asshat of the Week award for good reason.
Apparently today Joe Biden is meeting with some folk concerning "gun control." I see that reps from the NRA are to be included, which to me is somewhat of a surprise. It has been also reported that the Wal Mart people were invited to attend but "did not have anyone available." It is certainly strange that folks from the Evil Empire were to be included. I am not aware of them selling "assault weapons" (whatever that is). It appears to me that they are just in the cheap hunting rifle/shotgun business in their sporting goods dept. I actually commend the Wal Mart folk for staying away here. It is not often I praise the Evil Empire for anything.
This whole gun control issue has the potential to get out of hand. Way out of hand. Not saying it will but there is little doubt that the ultimate aim of the leftists in this country is to not just have a "conversation" on gun control, but to outright disarm the American populace. Perhaps I am being a bit paranoid here, but history has shown that when a society is disarmed, there is nothing that can stand in the way of a totalitarian inclined govt from running roughshod over their people. Or do you disagree? Of course there has got to be a way to keep the deranged from owning weapons of any kind but the leftists are going to use this issue to further their aims. It won't just be that a mental patient or convicted felon will be barred from ownership. (Felons can't legally purchase anyway). Well, it might start there, but it might progress to bans on "assault weapons," then to all semi automatic weapons, to any type weapon that fires a certain caliber of ammunition, so on and so forth.
Take for instance one of the lefts' talking points in the "conversation." The gun control advocates like to say that no one "needs" a "high capacity" magazine. They might be correct there (at least at this time). No one really "needs" such, but that is not the point. I certainly don't need to buy a knew phone, but I happen to want one. Many middle aged types don't need a corvette, but just might want one. Barney Frank might not need the company of a male "escort" but he may be inclined to purchase such services. Are you getting the picture?
What is an assault weapon anyway? What some folks believe to be "assault weapons" is really nothing more than aesthetics. In other words, some rifles are designed to look like military grade weaponry, but in reality they are not. They look cool, but unless they are illegally modified to automatic fire, they are nothing more than a hunting rifle that is dressed up for the prom. I am not a "gun guy" per se, but I am a gun owner and I certainly know that legal "assault weapons" are just pretty "deer" rifles.
Any rifle can be classified as an assault weapon. Any type of gun for that manner. If someone is assaulted by a single shot .22 cal, then that gun is an assault weapon. Hell a hammer can be an assault weapon if used in that manner. If I am not mistaken, Ted Kennedy's car could have been classified as an assault weapon. What? Have I gone to far there......?
I would like to say that this gun control "conversation" will lead nowhere and I may (or may not) be correct. There are more than a few Democrats in congress that will have nothing to do with it likely. A prescription for not getting reelected in many districts. This goes beyond liberal vs conservative; this is an American vs the unspeakable issue.
I could be wrong here. This "conversation" may take a turn toward ultimate confiscation. The leftists do have an inordinate amount of power in this country, control the media, and can easily pressure those in the manufacture and sale of arms and ammunition. Just the fact that Wal Mart folk were (reported to be) "invited" to Biden's little get together, shows that there is likely to be some strong arm tactics involved before all is said and done.
Who knows where this will all lead though. Gun control will either go nowhere or down a road that most Americans are not willing to go.
Asshat of the Week.
There are quite a number of people who would easily qualify for the new BartenderCabbie "Asshat of the Week Award." Harry Ried, Piers Morgan and Al Gore comes to mind but I'm thinking that this weeks' Asshat award has to go to Redskins coach Mike Shanahan.
Shanahan perhaps put one of the NFL's stellar young QBs' career in jeopardy by keeping RGIII in the game in their ultimate loss to the Ravens. It was obvious the man was hurt and ineffective. Keeping him so long in the game did Robert, Redskins fans, and general NFL fans a disservice. Yes I know that Shanahan is considered a "winner" and that RGIII could have, at any time, taken himself out of the game, but...........
Mike Shanahan is not only the winner of the Asshat of the Week, but he is truly a piece of shit.
Nothing further!
Shanahan perhaps put one of the NFL's stellar young QBs' career in jeopardy by keeping RGIII in the game in their ultimate loss to the Ravens. It was obvious the man was hurt and ineffective. Keeping him so long in the game did Robert, Redskins fans, and general NFL fans a disservice. Yes I know that Shanahan is considered a "winner" and that RGIII could have, at any time, taken himself out of the game, but...........
Mike Shanahan is not only the winner of the Asshat of the Week, but he is truly a piece of shit.
Nothing further!
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
The BCS "National Champion' is Crowned. Holiday Season Draws to a Close
The outcome of the BCS "National Championship" game is in the history books and the outcome was fairly easy to predict. Even though the game was a blowout it was not even as close as the score.
If anyone watched Notre Dame this season, any at all, they should have come to the conclusion that, while the Irish may have been top ten, they certainly were not anywhere close to being the number one team in the land. That was certainly proven last evening down Miami way.
All in all there would have been quite a number of match ups that would have been much better. Alabama being in the game is perhaps a given, but I would have made a case for a rematch with the Aggies or a meeting with Oregon. Either would have been better than that tripe we were served on a platter.....
If we were just to go on w/l records alone; this season could have easily been a Notre Dame vs Ohio State match up (were the Buckeyes not under sanction). That would have been a joke but could certainly have been the case. Thankfully we at least got to see one team in the game that deserved to be there instead of two marginally top 10 teams masquerading as "national championship" material.
Looking to next season it is not inconceivable that the Tide will be there again. Not inconceivable at all. They will be challenged by Georgia, Texas A&M and Oregon likely. Some dark horses will be in the mix including Oklahoma, LSU, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Florida, and Florida State. Perhaps Kansas State, Louisville, Clemson, Texas, or South Carolina may be in play. We may even see a few real long shots making a move with a Baylor, Boise State, UCLA, TCU, Ole Miss (yes them), Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech (well probably not), or Stanford type team in the mix. We will see.
There were some bright spots, with some teams having a surprisingly good season. No one, (including me), had any inkling that Texas Agriculture would have had such a good first season in the SEC. Sumlin (like Art Briles), just seems to be blessed with great college QB's behind center. It took a few games to work out the bugs, but at the end of the season it is quite possible that the Aggies were the best of the best.
No one would have figured that a MAC squad would make a BCS game. NIU may or may not have deserved to be there, but that had a very good season none the less. More than one MAC team should not be taken lightly by anyone.
Who would have thought that San Jose State would have such a stellar season? No one. Utah State also was very good, but that was perhaps predicatable. For the last couple of years they have been a team that might have been able to surprise some top 10 teams on a good day.
What about Vanderbilt? One of the best seasons in history in Nashville. The Commodores probably won't make a play for the SEC Championship, but if they keep up the good work, they can certainly end the season in a major bowl. I would not rule out the Cotton if they stay on track here. If they were in the ACC or Big East they would have at least challenged for the conference crown and a BCS appearance. They don't play in the ACC or Big East though....
A few others come to mind. Kent State had a commendable year as did Louisiana Tech, Arkansas State, ULL, and San Diego State. Even Duke and Rice had good seasons as far as such things go.
Conversely there were some major "disappointments." USC, this season, is perhaps one of the biggest flops in the history of the game. From a team that was ranked number one and two by most major polls and publications to one that ended up finishing with a Sun Bowl loss to a Georgia Tech squad that should not have even been "bowl eligible." Pretty sad. It is not that the team is without talent. They are loaded with it. Has to be the coaching staff. Kiffin is not a qualified HC at the major college (or any) level probably, but to be somewhat fair, Pete Carroll, who took his unscrupulous act to the NFL, is not without some blame for the shambles that the Trojan program has become.
West Virginia showed such promise at the beginning of the season and many folks (myself included) thought that they make make some noise and find themselves in another BCS game. Not to happen. This team imploded and ended up looking like they could do nothing right. They may be a good team next season but there is some major work ahead......
Some believed that the University of Arkansas would make some noise, but they turned out to be less than average. Frankly, I thought it easy to predict that they would have a below par season. The Petrino fiasco left them in shambles and John L Smith was probably not the man to turn things around. He had personal issues and likely could not give his full attention to the team. The Hogs made a pretty good hire with Bielema but I fear that his brand of football may become outmoded for all but a few schools. That would be another "we will see" perhaps..........
LSU is a bit of a disappointment also. Some folk thought that they were ready to challenge the Tide in the SEC but, having watched numerous games, I knew that was borderline ridicoulous. The same (and more) can be said for Florida. This year they were very very lucky to have the w/l record they finished the season with. Very lucky indeed. The Gators were just not a very good football team.
Perhaps you forgot about Southern Mississippi? In one season the Golden Eagles went from the best in CUSA to a winless season. Now that is ridiculous.
All in all it was a pretty fun season and I ended with year with a fairly decent 121-63 w/l record and more importantly, had a lot of fun with it.
I guess it is time to try to get interested in the NFL playoffs and then begin to pay some attention to college basketball. "March Madness" is one tournament that the NCAA actually does the right way.
If anyone watched Notre Dame this season, any at all, they should have come to the conclusion that, while the Irish may have been top ten, they certainly were not anywhere close to being the number one team in the land. That was certainly proven last evening down Miami way.
All in all there would have been quite a number of match ups that would have been much better. Alabama being in the game is perhaps a given, but I would have made a case for a rematch with the Aggies or a meeting with Oregon. Either would have been better than that tripe we were served on a platter.....
If we were just to go on w/l records alone; this season could have easily been a Notre Dame vs Ohio State match up (were the Buckeyes not under sanction). That would have been a joke but could certainly have been the case. Thankfully we at least got to see one team in the game that deserved to be there instead of two marginally top 10 teams masquerading as "national championship" material.
Looking to next season it is not inconceivable that the Tide will be there again. Not inconceivable at all. They will be challenged by Georgia, Texas A&M and Oregon likely. Some dark horses will be in the mix including Oklahoma, LSU, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Florida, and Florida State. Perhaps Kansas State, Louisville, Clemson, Texas, or South Carolina may be in play. We may even see a few real long shots making a move with a Baylor, Boise State, UCLA, TCU, Ole Miss (yes them), Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech (well probably not), or Stanford type team in the mix. We will see.
There were some bright spots, with some teams having a surprisingly good season. No one, (including me), had any inkling that Texas Agriculture would have had such a good first season in the SEC. Sumlin (like Art Briles), just seems to be blessed with great college QB's behind center. It took a few games to work out the bugs, but at the end of the season it is quite possible that the Aggies were the best of the best.
No one would have figured that a MAC squad would make a BCS game. NIU may or may not have deserved to be there, but that had a very good season none the less. More than one MAC team should not be taken lightly by anyone.
Who would have thought that San Jose State would have such a stellar season? No one. Utah State also was very good, but that was perhaps predicatable. For the last couple of years they have been a team that might have been able to surprise some top 10 teams on a good day.
What about Vanderbilt? One of the best seasons in history in Nashville. The Commodores probably won't make a play for the SEC Championship, but if they keep up the good work, they can certainly end the season in a major bowl. I would not rule out the Cotton if they stay on track here. If they were in the ACC or Big East they would have at least challenged for the conference crown and a BCS appearance. They don't play in the ACC or Big East though....
A few others come to mind. Kent State had a commendable year as did Louisiana Tech, Arkansas State, ULL, and San Diego State. Even Duke and Rice had good seasons as far as such things go.
Conversely there were some major "disappointments." USC, this season, is perhaps one of the biggest flops in the history of the game. From a team that was ranked number one and two by most major polls and publications to one that ended up finishing with a Sun Bowl loss to a Georgia Tech squad that should not have even been "bowl eligible." Pretty sad. It is not that the team is without talent. They are loaded with it. Has to be the coaching staff. Kiffin is not a qualified HC at the major college (or any) level probably, but to be somewhat fair, Pete Carroll, who took his unscrupulous act to the NFL, is not without some blame for the shambles that the Trojan program has become.
West Virginia showed such promise at the beginning of the season and many folks (myself included) thought that they make make some noise and find themselves in another BCS game. Not to happen. This team imploded and ended up looking like they could do nothing right. They may be a good team next season but there is some major work ahead......
Some believed that the University of Arkansas would make some noise, but they turned out to be less than average. Frankly, I thought it easy to predict that they would have a below par season. The Petrino fiasco left them in shambles and John L Smith was probably not the man to turn things around. He had personal issues and likely could not give his full attention to the team. The Hogs made a pretty good hire with Bielema but I fear that his brand of football may become outmoded for all but a few schools. That would be another "we will see" perhaps..........
LSU is a bit of a disappointment also. Some folk thought that they were ready to challenge the Tide in the SEC but, having watched numerous games, I knew that was borderline ridicoulous. The same (and more) can be said for Florida. This year they were very very lucky to have the w/l record they finished the season with. Very lucky indeed. The Gators were just not a very good football team.
Perhaps you forgot about Southern Mississippi? In one season the Golden Eagles went from the best in CUSA to a winless season. Now that is ridiculous.
All in all it was a pretty fun season and I ended with year with a fairly decent 121-63 w/l record and more importantly, had a lot of fun with it.
I guess it is time to try to get interested in the NFL playoffs and then begin to pay some attention to college basketball. "March Madness" is one tournament that the NCAA actually does the right way.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Another Line In The Sand?
A while back the Obama administration drew a "line in the sand" of sorts on Syrian govt forces possible use of chemical weapons. It just wasn't going to be tolerated you see.
Since this line was drawn, there are reports that there is the possibility that Syrian forces have indeed used these same weapons in limited strikes. Whether true or not is any one's guess. I would imagine that American mainstream media types would shy away from reporting an incident for "political" purposes. At any rate, I am hesitant to believe that this administration is really serious about their implicit threats of military engagement with Assad loyalists over the issue.
The Syrian civil war is a geopolitical danger to be sure. Not your average who cares Mohammedan vs Mohammedan conflict. This one has the potential (however unlikely) to involve major players in an adversarial military relationship. Carl in Jerusalem israelmatzav@blogspot.com has reported that a Soviet err Russian flotilla, including warships and assault elements, is gathering off the Syrian coast. If the report is correct (and I'm sure that it is), this throws an interesting twist into the line in the sand thing that the Obama administration has bleated of.
What if Syrian forces under Assad did use chemical weapons to gain the upper hand in what is becoming an apparently lost situation? In the unlikely event that the Obama regime is serious about getting involved over such an action, would the presence of Russian forces in the vicinity be a deterrent? Probably and rightly so. At this time the Syrian conflict is not worth getting involved with even without the presence of the Russian military in the region. The Russian forces would be swept aside rather quickly if it came to that, but I would imagine that just their presence alone would deter any real military action against Assad. Just not worth the risk.
That might be a good thing. Assad is evil obviously, but he is a well known evil.
It may be best to just let this thing play out the old fashioned way and be prepared to deal harshly with the aftermath if need be.
Since this line was drawn, there are reports that there is the possibility that Syrian forces have indeed used these same weapons in limited strikes. Whether true or not is any one's guess. I would imagine that American mainstream media types would shy away from reporting an incident for "political" purposes. At any rate, I am hesitant to believe that this administration is really serious about their implicit threats of military engagement with Assad loyalists over the issue.
The Syrian civil war is a geopolitical danger to be sure. Not your average who cares Mohammedan vs Mohammedan conflict. This one has the potential (however unlikely) to involve major players in an adversarial military relationship. Carl in Jerusalem israelmatzav@blogspot.com has reported that a Soviet err Russian flotilla, including warships and assault elements, is gathering off the Syrian coast. If the report is correct (and I'm sure that it is), this throws an interesting twist into the line in the sand thing that the Obama administration has bleated of.
What if Syrian forces under Assad did use chemical weapons to gain the upper hand in what is becoming an apparently lost situation? In the unlikely event that the Obama regime is serious about getting involved over such an action, would the presence of Russian forces in the vicinity be a deterrent? Probably and rightly so. At this time the Syrian conflict is not worth getting involved with even without the presence of the Russian military in the region. The Russian forces would be swept aside rather quickly if it came to that, but I would imagine that just their presence alone would deter any real military action against Assad. Just not worth the risk.
That might be a good thing. Assad is evil obviously, but he is a well known evil.
It may be best to just let this thing play out the old fashioned way and be prepared to deal harshly with the aftermath if need be.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Zero Dark Thirty Debate
It seems that some "lawmakers" are concerned that the film Zero Dark Thirty gives the "wrong impression" about the hunt for Bin Laden. I suppose that the main bone of contention is the depictions of "torture" that are included in the film......
Number one the film is not a documentary and the film makers do not try to sale it as such, and number two, if anyone thinks that a little bit of good old fashion "arm twisting" was not used trying to capture or kill the mastermind of 911 then I have a bridge for sale. Cheap.
I am sure that in addition to offending some in the political class, that the film also will offend some followers of the Prophet. So be it. It is not like they will put anyone in jail for offending Mohammedans.......Oh wait.
Number one the film is not a documentary and the film makers do not try to sale it as such, and number two, if anyone thinks that a little bit of good old fashion "arm twisting" was not used trying to capture or kill the mastermind of 911 then I have a bridge for sale. Cheap.
I am sure that in addition to offending some in the political class, that the film also will offend some followers of the Prophet. So be it. It is not like they will put anyone in jail for offending Mohammedans.......Oh wait.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Do Professional Sports Teams Benefit The Locals?
Are Lockouts Beneficial To Local Economies?
I saw this on Yahoo Post Game and found it interesting. I have often wondered if a professional sports team really benefits the local economy and have come to the conclusion that any benefit may be minimal at best.
Of course there is some local benefit - the people who do real work at the venue do rely on the extra income that is generated game time. But what about the local economy as a whole?
Take the NFL for instance. Are there really that many fans who come to the game from out of town? A few to be sure, but for the most part it is the locals that show up. They spend their money, stimulate a small segment of the economy, and go home. As far as I can tell, the other major professional sports are little different. Local folks supporting the home town club, with a sprinkling of tourists and camp followers.
Contrast that with the college football. There are quite a number of teams whose fans "travel well." If you have ever been to a KSU away game you will see a sea of purple. These people travel, rent hotel rooms, spend money of food, etc. etc. I once went to a Rice/Hawaii game and there was bus load after bus load of Hawaii fans coming to cheer their team on (to defeat as I recall). All had to spend some money somewhere along the line in the Houston area.
I don't subscribe to the notion that a pro sports team may be a drag on the local economy, as the author of the article seems to, but I don't see much more than minimal benefit.
Anyway read the article and see what you think.
On a side note, there may be one exception to the rule and that is the sports teams (Saints in particular) in the city of New Orleans. NOLA is a destination city for tourism and at all Saints games there are curious tourists and die hard followers of the opposing team. For that city the Saints are a tourist attraction and it would be detrimental to the economy should they fold, move, etc.
An NFL lockout, strike, whatever would hurt the NOLA area economy. Most other cities? Probably not so much.
I saw this on Yahoo Post Game and found it interesting. I have often wondered if a professional sports team really benefits the local economy and have come to the conclusion that any benefit may be minimal at best.
Of course there is some local benefit - the people who do real work at the venue do rely on the extra income that is generated game time. But what about the local economy as a whole?
Take the NFL for instance. Are there really that many fans who come to the game from out of town? A few to be sure, but for the most part it is the locals that show up. They spend their money, stimulate a small segment of the economy, and go home. As far as I can tell, the other major professional sports are little different. Local folks supporting the home town club, with a sprinkling of tourists and camp followers.
Contrast that with the college football. There are quite a number of teams whose fans "travel well." If you have ever been to a KSU away game you will see a sea of purple. These people travel, rent hotel rooms, spend money of food, etc. etc. I once went to a Rice/Hawaii game and there was bus load after bus load of Hawaii fans coming to cheer their team on (to defeat as I recall). All had to spend some money somewhere along the line in the Houston area.
I don't subscribe to the notion that a pro sports team may be a drag on the local economy, as the author of the article seems to, but I don't see much more than minimal benefit.
Anyway read the article and see what you think.
On a side note, there may be one exception to the rule and that is the sports teams (Saints in particular) in the city of New Orleans. NOLA is a destination city for tourism and at all Saints games there are curious tourists and die hard followers of the opposing team. For that city the Saints are a tourist attraction and it would be detrimental to the economy should they fold, move, etc.
An NFL lockout, strike, whatever would hurt the NOLA area economy. Most other cities? Probably not so much.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Sugar Not So Sweet For the Gators
Although I am running about 60 percent (or so) on predictions for the college football post season, I certainly pegged the outcome of the Sugar Bowl. Even though Florida has had a very good season in the won vs loss department, anyone (except the faithful) who watched them had to come to the conclusion that they just were not as good as their record or ranking. Of course there is always (well usually) a bit of luck involved in having a great season (look at Notre Dame), but at some point luck will run out........Florida was not even on the same level as Bridgewater and Co. last night. Not even close.
I am beginning to wonder if the dominance of the SEC is becoming a thing of the past. It is proven that most of the power programs of that conference have a bit of trouble when faced with quickness. Right now Texas A&M is the best team in the SEC. It took a few games to work out the bugs to be sure but no one would want to face the Aggies offense right now. Kevin Sumlin has brought a different brand of football that is normally seen in conference. The SEC (along with the Big Ten) tend to favor power over speed offensively with hard nosed defense to stop the same. It could be that brand of football is becoming (for the most part) obsolete.
We will see.
I am beginning to wonder if the dominance of the SEC is becoming a thing of the past. It is proven that most of the power programs of that conference have a bit of trouble when faced with quickness. Right now Texas A&M is the best team in the SEC. It took a few games to work out the bugs to be sure but no one would want to face the Aggies offense right now. Kevin Sumlin has brought a different brand of football that is normally seen in conference. The SEC (along with the Big Ten) tend to favor power over speed offensively with hard nosed defense to stop the same. It could be that brand of football is becoming (for the most part) obsolete.
We will see.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
The 2012 Sun Bowl Should Have Not Even Been Played
The Sun Bowl has a rich and storied past. It is not a "major" bowl such as the Rose, Sugar, Cotton. or Orange but it certainly has its place in the college football post season. The game this year though was borderline ridiculous.......
The contest was a farce from the beginning. The USC people obviously did not want to be there and the Georgia Tech group, coming in with a losing record, shouldn't have been there. Period.
We certainly learned a couple of things though. USC needs to immediately fire their incompetent head coach, and the NCAA is even more corrupt than some of us realized. There are too many bowls anyway and allowing 6-6 teams to be part of the post season is absurd. It rewards mediocrity. Such are the rules though. Allowing Georgia Tech to play with a losing record ensured that one "deserving" team was left out of the mix. It probably would have been the University of Ohio had the administration at Louisiana Tech stupidly balked and stalled about playing in the Independence Bowl. As it was the Bulldogs, with a 9-3 record, were on the outside looking in.
Yes I know that Georgia Tech beat the Trojans but that says a bit more about the quality of the staff at USC than it does about the Yellow Jackets prowess on the grid iron.
The Sun Bowl has been the biggest joke (thus far) of the 2012 college football post season.
That says a lot.
The contest was a farce from the beginning. The USC people obviously did not want to be there and the Georgia Tech group, coming in with a losing record, shouldn't have been there. Period.
We certainly learned a couple of things though. USC needs to immediately fire their incompetent head coach, and the NCAA is even more corrupt than some of us realized. There are too many bowls anyway and allowing 6-6 teams to be part of the post season is absurd. It rewards mediocrity. Such are the rules though. Allowing Georgia Tech to play with a losing record ensured that one "deserving" team was left out of the mix. It probably would have been the University of Ohio had the administration at Louisiana Tech stupidly balked and stalled about playing in the Independence Bowl. As it was the Bulldogs, with a 9-3 record, were on the outside looking in.
Yes I know that Georgia Tech beat the Trojans but that says a bit more about the quality of the staff at USC than it does about the Yellow Jackets prowess on the grid iron.
The Sun Bowl has been the biggest joke (thus far) of the 2012 college football post season.
That says a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)