Monday, March 25, 2013

Think before you speak

With the prevalence of online postings, including blogs like this one. It's easy for people to write things that they will later regret. Honestly, not all the posts I write are published online. I am unable to find words and phrases that I am comfortable with on some subjects, or the thoughts I have aren't something that I can write well enough.

Yet with Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, and other communication tools available, it is no wonder that some people just go wild and post the first thing that comes into their little minds. I thought of this yesterday when I read Jim Carrey's asinine musings on gun control. It was driven home this morning when I read this story.

To summarize. A Lieutenant of the New York Fire Department had been posting ethnic and racial slurs on his twitter account. When a reporter for the Daily Mail, he broke down and cried because he knew that an investigation from the Fire Department would result in his termination. Now, he knew instantly what the result would be if he was found out, and who doesn't get found out, but he did it anyway.

Now the difference between these two incidents is obvious. First, Jim Carrey is a Hollywood star, or was one once, and in the circles he runs in insulting Conservatives is a career booster. On the other hand, Lieutenant Timothy Dluhos insulted minorities, and the Mayor of New York, which is a career killer.

So Mom's advice to children, think before you speak, seems to be as good advice today as it ever was.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Incandescent Lightbulb Ban

Rush Limbaugh likes to say that Liberals are only ever judged by their intentions, never by the results of their actions. On the other side of that coin, Conservatives are always judged by the offense someone else takes at them, their success, their words taken out of context or whatever. Liberals, listen up, I love the ban on Incandescent Light bulbs. I honestly do love it.

Now, for the Liberals who might read this, they are wondering why I love it. Is it because like all Conservatives I want to poison the air and water? Is it because the Compact Florescent Bulbs they mandated do in fact contain Mercury, enough that should one break in my house it is by Federal Law technically an Hazardous Material Accident requiring a very expensive clean up? Is it because of this Mercury that is in my bulb, even if it doesn't break will be thrown away in a landfill, and eventually contaminate the water? Or perhaps it will be incinerated and then the Mercury Vapor will poison the air? Perhaps it is the joy that we tricked the Liberals into helping us poison the air and water with the notional goal of saving a few cents worth of electricity?

I got to thinking about this when I read the Hot Air piece on the Incandescent Bulb Ban. I wonder how long before Hollywood starts a movie, where Conservatives sneak undercover operatives into Environmental groups to trick them into supporting the Compact Florescent Bulb all so we could poison the air and water.

Perhaps that is the answer. Perhaps we have slipped undercover operatives into these groups to poison the air and water and to kill as many people as possible. I mean, we turn our food into gasoline via Ethanol. This leads to hundreds of thousands of deaths from starvation every year. We banned DDT which we know has led to millions of deaths from Malaria. We mandated a light bulb that poisons our ground water and air which will result in millions of deaths. Oh, I just realized, New York City dumps their garbage off shore on big barges. That means that the CFL's are dumping Toxic amounts of mercury into the fragile sea.

So why do I love the ban on normal incandescent light bulbs and the mandated use of a toxic bulb? Since I'm conservative, I'll let you all decide. The Liberals will decide it is whatever reason I mentioned, or didn't, that offends them. That's fine, they wouldn't read or consider anything I actually wrote anyway.

As for the rest of you in the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy. Remember, the plan is to force the Liberals into mandating the Chevrolet Suburban to protect the children. Remember to keep quoting the statistics of children surviving accidents in the Suburban. For the Women's rights gang, the statistics of a woman surviving with minimal injuries in a larger vehicle are much better. Make up whatever statistics you want, Liberals aren't smart enough to figure it out. I know, that's insulting. But hey, they mandated a product that poisons the air and water. Which is what we've been trying to do for centuries.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Darn that Constitution

The idea behind the legislative branch of our nation is pretty simple. Where population is the consideration, there is the House of Representatives. This is the "people's house" similar in principal to the House of Commons in Great Britain. The idea is simple. The more people  you have, the more representatives you have in the House.

But this is a nation not only of people, but of the Several States to use the Constitutional phrase. We have fifty states, and as such, we have a chamber of the legislative branch dedicated to the states, where all states are equal. Each state, no matter how large, or small, has two Senators. Originally, those Senators were chosen by the Governor's of the states to make sure that the State was represented in the Federal Government. It was sort of like having ambassadors to the Federal Government, but with the power to vote for the State's interests. Later, we changed that by constitutional amendment to make the position elected. Herein be the rub. Now, people are upset that high population states only get two senators, just like low population states.

The NY Times has put forth an article bemoaning those darned states with small populations for daring to have Senators who, get this, represent those states.

Vermont’s 625,000 residents have two United States senators, and so do New York’s 19 million. That means that a Vermonter has 30 times the voting power in the Senate of a New Yorker just over the state line — the biggest inequality between two adjacent states. The nation’s largest gap, between Wyoming and California, is more than double that.

Now, remember. The idea was to have one chamber of the legislative branch where the people were represented, called interestingly enough the House of Representatives. Then there was a chamber, an equal partner in the legislative branch, called the Senate. That was where the STATES that make up the United States were represented. In both cases, the allocation of representation is fair. You can't have less than one Representative. So several states have just one Representative in the House. Wyoming mentioned above, is one of those states. They have Two senators to see to the interests of the people, and one representative in the house to speak on behalf of the people.

The push now is obvious. It isn't fair that California with all those people get just two Senators, the same as Wyoming with fewer people than you'll find in Fresno. Guys, there is a reason that the system is set up the way it is. There is a reason this nation has lasted for so long. It's because we compromised and set up a system where both the interests of the State, and the interest of the people, could be debated, and considered. Now, apparently that is no longer fair to the NY Times and several deep thinkers. People who want to get their way, and can't with the current system. Compromise to a Liberal is you give up and agree with them.

Saturday, March 09, 2013


Symbols can be powerful images to inspire, create a sense of fear, or even intended to give one a sense of historical events. The United States Flag for example. There is one star for each state, representing the individual states we all come from, and how we are all symbolically united into one nation. The thirteen stripes symbolize the origins, the original thirteen colonies that broke away, and defeated the most powerful nation on earth, Great Britain.

The Eagle, as a symbol is well known. So many symbols, so many meanings that it is likely that you don't know a third of them, I know I am not aware of all the meanings of all the symbols.

Some symbols are ones from history that come with fear, or anger. The Nazi symbols. The KKK and the burning cross are ones that have very negative emotions attached.

Symbolism came to my mind after reading this article. It is further expounded upon here.

So here is the story. John Brennan was sworn in as the new head of the CIA. That's right, John Brennan is the new Director of the CIA. So no big deal, people are sworn into jobs all the time right? In this case, instead of a family bible, or some other item, he picked the original draft of the Constitution with notes and annotations from George Washington on it. What a stirring symbolic picture, with Teddy Roosevelt in the background.

Only the Constitution that John Brennan has his hand on is the one that was in effect prior to the Bill of Rights. So in our current political climate, where people are questioning the administrations judgement on the Civil Liberties guaranteed by that sacred document. John Brennan the Director of the CIA was sworn in on the version of the Constitution without any amendments.

Well, it is symbolic. Anytime the Federal Government decides, and not the President, or a director of anything. I'm talking some Federal Agent deciding. Anytime they decide, you could possibly be a threat, then they invoke National Security, and the PATRIOT ACT, and you don't have any rights. So the head of the National Intelligence effort, which is under fire for violating the Civil Liberties of the people, is sworn in on a document that says those people don't have any Civil Liberties.

Hit Counter