A Simple Thought

If you’ve watched any of the weekend or night time sporting events that have been on TV lately, you have no doubt seen the smoking inhibitor commercial.  You know the one.  They say, “Giving up smoking sucks; but we make it suck less”.  I think the commercial is crass, and I go back and forth trying to decide if it is within the bounds of good taste or not.

The businessman in me, however, says it’s a great commercial. I have never picked up a cigarette or cigar in my life.  I’ve frequented smokey bars and restaurants, and have dealt with the smell of smoke on busses and in the work place.  (Yes, you Gen-Y-ers, it was once acceptable to smoke at your desk at the office.)   I remember the commercial, very clearly.  It works.  Simplicity wins.  Even us non-smokers recall the commercial and the brand.

If simplicity works, and the “smoking sucks” mantra has caught on, why hasn’t anyone applied it to politics yet?  Probably because all the pols are looking for just the right message for just the right demographic.  Hence, their nuanced approach to creating mob mentality is falling short.  (See, that’s the problem with political pundits proclaiming to understand business…they don’t!)

I have a better way:

Grow a Pair

If you were harrassed, threatened, slandered, shouted at…whatever…at some time, it would probably get to you.  The question is, how long does it take to get to you?

If you are a Republican, you put up with it for years, and never complain about it.  Why?  Because if you did, the media would be all over you for being a wimp.

If you are a Democrat, you put up with it for maybe 24 hours, call a press conference, talk about how mean-spirited the voters are, and look for sympathy.

Over the last 24 hours, callers have let their thoughts be known to the Democrats who voted for the health care bill.  I am not supporting the callers’ vitriol.  I understand and share their anger.  But I would never use those words.

What gets me, however, is not their reaction to the health care bill.  The intrigue for me is how this show of fear by the Democrats today compares to the need for strength in foreign relations.   Over the fall and winter, we heard about how conservatives were acting like terrorists.  Interesting.  We now see that the Democrats are afraid of these “terrorists”.

Not really.  Think again.

This is another Alinsky ploy to demonize the enemy.  But, it shows to what extent the Democratic party is willing to go against its true enemy.  Are those the third-world dictators?  No.  The terrorist organizations?  No.

Conservatives?  YES!!!

In other words, these tactics prove exactly who Dems think their enemies are.  It proves why they are weak on national defense, why they are willing to come to the table with terrorists.  They fear the real enemy.  With conservatives, they have have no fear; they realize they can manipulate the game whenever they want.

When they can win, they manipulate the game to win.  They cannot do that against terrorists, because they either don’t believe they can win, or don’t want to win.  In other words, when it comes to national defense, they need to grow a pair.  They need to defend all citizens, not just those wimpy, anti-military citizens that voted them into office.

Could It Be…

It’s a story so odd and so contrived, not even the Church Lady could make it up.

Or…could she?

Let’s start here:  Let’s say you are Christian, Jewish or Muslim.  You are devout in your religion.  You follow the precepts, and study the book, whichever one it might be.  You do your best to follow the tenets of your religion.  Nothing could take you away from your faith.

If that is true, then you know who your ultimate enemy is:  Satan.  Forget about the earthly battles you choose to fight for now, and focus on the spiritual realm.  Satan is your ultimate enemy.   Never, no, not once, would you ever consider saying anything good about Satan.   The reasons would be obvious, right?  Could you imagine walking into your Bible Study class and sincerely saying something like, “well, because of him, we are enlightened.”  No, I don’t think so.   You would be giving credibility to him, making him possibly seem like an okay guy.  He’s not, but that does not matter.

You would do nothing to give the impression that the father of lies is acceptable.  He’s not cool, dreamy, hot (ha!), or anything else like that.  He is the enemy.  He must be, well, demonized.

Before you blurt, “Obviously!”, let me take this to the next level:

If you are conservative, then you are Satan.

No, seriously.

Right now, you are either cussing at your screen, or at me, or at the parents who gave birth to me.  Hear me out.

Just like the Jews, Muslims and Christians all recognize Satan as their ultimate enemy, and thus would never have anything good to say about him, liberals and their followers have politics as their religion, and must have an ultimate enemy.  If you are conservative, then congratulations, you are it.  Therefore, you are Satan.

This has nothing to do with being a follower of the evil one.  This has everything to do with how you are treated by the liberal establishment.  Because of the left’s effective use of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, you, as a conservative, will never, ever have anything nice said about you.  There will never be an opportunity to be told that you are wise, that your ideas are good, that you are thoughtful, or that you even look good.  If they did, it would make their followers believe that you have some redeeming qualities, that you are not the doofus they’d been led to believe.  And that you might – just might – have some beliefs worth hearing.  The left cannot have that, because their ideas won’t stand when put to the test.

Hence, the left has only one option, and that’s to make sure you, as a conservative, are the most vile, repulsive person known to man.  The person who no one wants to associate with.  The one who destroys all that is good in this world.  You are Satan.

Naah, not even the Church Lady would go that far…would she?

Enough About the Little Christian Boy

Everyone in the media is making much ado about nothing. Some athlete is rebelling against everything that the modern “superstar” is supposed to embody. And people are upset about it. He drinks. He uses drugs. He parties all the time with his “homies” and takes the Hos back to his crib. He stays out all hours of the night, and the internet is full of pictures of him flaunting his manliness.

And if that’s not bad enough, he takes it one step further…he agrees to promote this lifestyle on a commercial to be debuted during the Super Bowl. Talk about the audacity of this guy. And you say he’s only a kid? He’s not even a pro yet? That takes chutzpaph! I don’t blame the media and women’s groups for going off on him. The people ought to know about this, so they do their best not to cross his path. Talk about someone from the dregs of socie…

…I’m sorry…what are you saying?

You’re saying that I got it all backwards? Really?

So this guy is not an idiot? He stands up for his beliefs? He is conservative, life respecting, God fearing, and people loving? He doesn’t disrespect those around him, even when they believe differently than he does? He doesn’t try to make every last dollar that he can? He’s not looking for the next big party?

I guess he is a rebel after all. Guess it can’t be long before the Obama administration tries to ban him from the NFL.

Is The Fox Watching the Henhouse?

Who are we electing to represent us? Not just at the federal level, but at the state and local levels as well. Wouldn’t it make sense for us to take those things that we want changed in our homes, our community and our nation, and look for those candidates that can resolve matters yet still retain or improve the freedoms we have today? One would think so.

Look at who we elect, though. I used to think the cream rose to the top in terms of our elected officials. Then I hoped that the elected officials would merely be adequate. Now, I’ve come to realize through life experience, that the people we elect are just like us. Well, except for the fact that they are primarily narcissistic control freaks. Primarily.

But, wouldn’t you think that we would do a better job of vetting our candidates? You know, find people that manage their personal finances well. Or manage a business successfully – in business terms, not in lovey-dovey, touchy-feely terms. Those are the people I want in politics. And I don’t want them there forever; I want folks who are willing to do the job for a handful of years, then return to a real life with their families and friends.

But we seem to find those narcissistic candidates that make all the same mistakes we do. They cannot manage their own finances, let alone those of their state or country. They can’t keep their hands to themselves. They cannot remain loyal to their spouse. They don’t practice their “official” religion. They don’t live by the golden rule.

So we want people to fix our problems – but that’s another topic for another day. So who do we elect? People who can fix those problems? Nope. We elect people just like us. Financially incapable, morally wishy-washy, self-absorbed people who like to think they talk a good game. And talk they do.

Let’s hope the country has awoken from it’s Obama slumber, and that the recent NY congressional election and Tuesday’s MA senatorial election are just the beginning of real, productive change, and not the end.

Groupthink? No!

As we approach Silly Season, otherwise known as the 2010 Congressional Campaign, I can hear my conservative Republican friends saying what they said to me two years ago:

If you don’t vote Republican, you are destroying the country!

The statements had no effect on me then, and will have no effect on me now. Why? Because it was the Republicans who caused this mess. When Republicans controlled the Executive and Legislative branches, they could have taken the country in a more conservative direction. They did not; they merely tried not to look like the bad guys. Which, in the modern age, with communication being instantaneous, is like trying to walk up the “down” escalator”; if you stay put, you go backwards.

How well did that work for you, Republicans?

Then, the Tea Party movement started. Truly conservative Republican politicians got on the bandwagon; not because there were votes to be had, but because the pioneers agreed with the cause. Others, however, confirmed their elitist, RINO status by fighting the cause. “Party over country,” they said, metaphorically. They said Tea Party folks were an intrusion, a disruption to the party. They got that part right, if only by accident. When something stops working, you break it up and start over again. Just ask the Cleveland Browns. They know.

Regarding your diss of the Tea Party movement…how well did that work for you, Republicans?

Now Michael Steele publishes a book: his twelve-step plan to beat Obama. Funny, isn’t a twelve-step program right out of AA and the other “anonymous” programs. Sounds like Steele is writing about how to stop an addiction. Which Republican Party addiction is it: mediocrity, weakness, enabling, disingenuousness? (I could go on.)

The point here is this: Republicans had a chance to prove they were conservative back in 2006. They didn’t. They started losing funds and supporters. Had they actually stuck to their guns between 2006-2008, it might have made a difference to their base. They didn’t, yet they want to blame those who looked for conservative candidates outside the Republican Party for their 2008 losses. Funny, had they merely fielded capable, truly conservative candidates, they’d have a filibuster on the health care reform bill right now, and would likely be in a position to do the same to cap-and-trade.

Would I vote for a Republican in the future? Maybe, if there were no other qualified candidates and I could hold my nose for that long. But it will be a stretch. I don’t vote for the party; I vote for the person allegedly representing the values that are important to me. By continually voting Republican for almost twenty years, I helped cause the Republican Party’s demise; I enabled their losing. Never again. I will not go with the flow.

Better Off

Growing up, I remember my parents telling me that they wanted to help make life easier for me than it was for them. As a child – actually, as a pre-teen – this sounded cool. They would try to make life so I wouldn’t have to work as hard as they did. My father was a laborer and worked two jobs. My mom worked until getting married, then worked again once my younger brother was school-aged.

I’ll never forget those words: “we want life to be easier for you than it is for us.” I would have life on easy street, inherit my parents’ money, and not have to worry about working all my life.

Something happened along the way. What was it? It was life. I learned that things aren’t always easy. That some people are very good at taking advantage of others. And that some folks are downright evil.

I also learned that money does not grow on trees. And that government likes getting their hands into my pockets. Oh, they make everything sound really peachy and beneficial. However they are not really in my corner financially. They need more of my money to do what they want. They don’t care if what I make is enough to cover basic expenses for my family or not. They only know my salary, and what percentage of my salary they want for themselves.

Now, I have two children. One is a pre-teen, the same age group I was in when I remember hearing those hopeful words: “we want life to be easier for you than it is for us.” There is only one difference between then and now. I will not say those words. Hopefully, never, not even accidentally.

Why, you ask? Am I an evil parent? Do I not love my children? Do I not care about them? Do I want them to have the better things in life?

Of course I love them and care about them. I am not an evil parent. And I don’t really care if they have the better things in life or not. Those “better things in life” are pushed by television, radio, movie and rock stars, and anyone else who can get their mug (ugly or not) published. In the grand scheme of things, they are highly irrelevant. If the bomb were to drop 250 miles outside of my house, and my family were in a position to survive, those “better things in life” would likely be left behind. Those unglamorous things, like foodstuffs, guns and ammo, would go with us. Because, at that time, it would have nothing to do with how politically savvy we were, or who we knew, or if we drove a Bentley. It would only matter that we could survive.

It also wouldn’t matter whether we “gave back to the community”. All the community would be in the same boat – fighting for survival.

Sorry, I got a little off base. Let me get back to the topic at hand. The topic was: “we want life to be easier for you than it is for us.”

I don’t want that. If anything, I hope that I can raise my children to be independent, thoughtful, resourceful, problem solving human beings. If I can do that, then it won’t matter whether they have more material things than I have or not. They will be in a position to survive and thrive. Compare that to the other folks in their generation, who are now the third generation of children to hear, “we want life to be easier for you than it is for us.” Look around, and see what a majority of those kids act like. They have high self-esteem, but no sense of accomplishment. They play the victim and the hero. They are boisterous, but say nothing. They act smart, but do nothing unique. They want a new high, but don’t realize they can get that feeling without using drugs – it’s called “accomplishment”.

For at least two generations, we’ve heard parents tell their kids, “we want life to be easier for you than it is for us.” Maybe we should work to stop the bleeding with our own children, before it gets worse. Maybe we should tell them that they need to grow up, because the “kids” that are their parents never learned the lesson, and look where it got us.

So This Is How It All Begins

What does it take for a local, community-oriented individual to become the condescending, I-know-better-than-you state-level or national-level politician?  I think I learned a bit about that over the last week.

A Facebook associate – no, I don’t call everyone on FB my “friend”, because they are not – has pretty strong ties to the local political party affiliates.  I won’t say which party, because it is not relevant to the story.  In one FB update, he commented how he liked candidate A more than candidate B for the upcoming Senatorial primary.

I did not know candidate A was in the running.  Maybe I had heard his name once or twice, but that’s it.  I have no surface level knowledge about him, let alone in depth knowledge.  So, I asked my associate why he preferred candidate A.  The response was, essentially, “because I met him, and I don’t automatically vote for the anti-establishment guy.”

Hmm…I didn’t ask the guy why he wasn’t supporting candidate B, or wasn’t calling him out for his support of candidate A.  As a voter, I wanted to know what he knew about each.  Since I am a voter who is not inside the political loop at the local, state or national levels, I figured he could impart some knowledge that I could then use to help me further independently assess both candidates.

I responded saying (paraphrased), “can you expound?   I would like to know more of a basis on your opinion.”   That approach worked, right?

Nope.  Not completely.

He gave his reasons for supporting candidate A, but he had no info on candidate B whatsoever, outside of heresay, or “this is what might be”.  Then he snarked on me for not investigating the candidates on my own.

Hmm.  I was looking for prelim info on both candidates so I could have a foundation on which to conduct my own research.  Yet he could not tell me anything about candidate B, although my associate is a local insider, candidate B is from the area, and candidate A is from the opposite end of the state.  Turns out I know more about candidate B than my associate does, which isn’t saying much.

My conclusion, based on other posts from my associate, is this:  candidate A represents the party well, and his beliefs happen to coincide with several of my associate’s core beliefs.  But most important, candidate A has worked his way through the ranks of the party, just like my associate wants to.  Hence party loyalty is more important than the will of the people, mostly because of my associate’s own investment in the process.  That I would even consider asking him about a candidate that was an outsider to the process put him on the defensive.

To my FB associate:  I am doing my homework, sir.  I voted absentee in each of the last two major election cycles, so that I could investigate every candidate and issue on the ballot without needing to make a hasty decision.  I pay attention to every potential office candidate once I hear they are in the running.  I do my own investigation, talk things over with my wife, and ask others what they know about the candidates beyond the sound bites.  Your response to me was to be one piece of my research.  So much for that.

I appreciate the snark…not.  Had you really cared about your party – and more so, the country – you would have had reasoned responses regarding both candidates.  Instead, you couldn’t handle a basic question.

Good thing this guy is on my side, and not on the enemy’s side.  Maybe.

Regardless, after the healthcare cloture vote, I think the following still applies more than anything:

Take It Out and Shoot It

• Lawyer: “When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?”
• Other Lawyer: “Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.”

After trying to keep tabs on the ultimate three ring circus currently taking place in Copenhagen, I cannot think of anything that is a bigger waste of time, money, and idiots than the Global Warming scummit. Ponzi schemers everywhere are livid that they weren’t as thoughtful as Al Gore and his band of brothers at the IPCC and UN.

These guys can’t keep their own stuff straight, let alone try to reason with the honest skeptics. It’s kind of like talking to Reverend Jim.

Is there some honesty in the AGW argument? There might be. Can they express it while logically (not emotionally) refuting the skeptics? Obviously not. It’s like watching your children try to cover for a lie, realize they are caught, then build another lie on top of it.

The whole bunch of them should be taken out and shot. If not for lies, extortion, and slander, then for flat-out incompetence.

FWIW, this post is being categorized under “Religion” – because AGW is – and under “Science” – even though it’s not.

Stupid Is

If you’ve hit internet news or blogs at all over the last two to three weeks, you have heard about the Tea Parties being organized by grass roots Americans that don’t want Congress and the President taking over their country.   Not all of the attendees are conservative, but I would venture to guess that a supermajority of them are.

And for all you closet idiots out there, Conservative and Republican are not the same thing.  Not even close.  Not by a long shot.

I guess this Congressman Adler and his staff either are too stupid to understand the stunt, or are playing ignorant and don’t care what their constituents are thinking.  Either way, Rep. Adler needs to get a thicker skin and grow up.  He is the first IOTW candidate this week.

Here is the video of the message left by Rep. Adler’s staff.

And here is a little text on the follow-up conversation

Rep. Adler – someone actually voted for you?