Best Christmas songs ever

 Merry Christmas.

Most of the Christmas songs playing now have been written very recently, say in the last 25 years.  The really good ones, though, are old.  And the best one is REALLY old.  These are my favorites at this time of year:

5.  Jingle Bell Rock.  This little ditty was pumped out around the infancy of rock and roll by a guy named Bobby Helm in 1957.  It's a catchy tune, and was very popular in its day, and you can't go very long at this time of year without hearing it played. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itcMLwMEeMQ)

4.  Rockin Around The Christmas Tree.  Brenda Lee was only 14 when she recorded this favorite in 1958.  Again, this tune has legs and has been one of the more popular Christmas songs for over 50 years and running. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6xNuUEnh2g)

3.    Breath of Heaven (Mary's Song). Amy Grant has a number of outstanding Christmas songs under her belt, but this one is a jem of jems in the jewelry box of outstanding tunes.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPbV_HTpyx0)

2.  It's The Most Wonderful Time of The Year. Andy Williams really hit it out of the park with this one in 1963, although Amy Grant's rendition years later is also a real toe tapper.( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2urlriwjcg)

1.  Messiah by George Frideric Handel, composed over 250 years ago, in 1741.  This one is my favorites owing to a performance I witnessed many years ago on a Christmas Eve, in a little Lutheran church in Manassas, Virginia.  The congregation at the time was perhaps 150, and the choir consisted of a gifted music director with perhaps 15 singers.  When they were done with their performance of Messiah, those perhaps 80 worshippers burst into applause, and there simply wasn't a dry eye in the church, it was done so beautifully.  I've never heard it done as well before or since, not even by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in the link below.  It was the closest thing to a miracle I've ever witnessed in my life. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_VARtvgGBY&feature=related)

Obama's Ministry of Truth puts out 'The Big Lie'

We've seen it before.  Historically, the manipulation of information by the government for political purposes was wildly successful for several years just last century in keeping a corrupt and evil regime in power for a decade plus.  All of this misinformation and distortion of statistics and economic reports issued by the Obama administration for the purposes of his re-election, this has been done before to fool the public.  This administration didn't invent this tactic.

The National Socialists, or more popularly referred to back in the day as the 'Nazis,' under the leadership of Adolph Hitler, were able to fool much of the German public through brazen lies and fabrications provided by Reich Minister of Propaganda Josef Goebbels.  It was ol' Josef Goebbels who orchestrated the huge parades and spectacular settings for the soaring speeches of Hitler, and of convincing the German population that white was black, that up was down, that wrong was right.  And most infamously, Goebbels was able to convince the German public that Jews were responsible for everything bad in their lives.  Goebbels was the mastermind behind the 'Krystal Nacht' in 1938. Goebbels was the master of 'The Big Lie:' tell the people something so outrageously incredible, tell them the same thing over and over and over, and in time the lie becomes true, because how could it not be?  Who would have the brazen audacity to concoct something so universally broadcast to be true out of a falsehood?  Nobody would ever do this, so the 'Big Lie' (whatever it is) simply must be true.  At least, it becomes true in the minds of the masses, but the reality never changes. Obama must have read Hitler's tome 'Mein Kampf' and underscored the 'Big Lie' and its constructs. 

They say that once you mention Hitler's name in any issue, you lose the argument.  Well, maybe so.  The similarities between these two governments are just too eerily close not to bring this up.  The unemployment statistics issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are one such "Big Lie."  According to most economists (those who participate in the 'dismal science'), the concept of 'full employment' in an economy is one that for everyone who is willing and able to work, employment is available to them.  The statistic for 'full employment' is roughly 4.5%, give or take, and those 4.5% 'unemployed' folks are simply in between jobs, and that they fully expect to find employment within a month or so.  This was the rate of unemployment or close to it during much of the Reagan, Clinton and Bush administrations.

Owing to the current 'Frank/Dodd/Obama Recession', this number has crept over 10% at one point, and has hovered in the 9's for most of President Obama's first (and hopefully only) term.  Now the administration puts out the newest unemployment rate: 8.6%.   Oh great!  Things are getting better, way to go, President Obama!  Woo hoo!

Not so fast, there, Joe Sixpack (Joe is the average run of the mill American, who doesn't pay much attention to what's going on the in country).  This rate doesn't include those Americans who have been unemployed for so long, that they just gave up looking for work.  And who are now no longer counted as unemployed.  They just disappeared from the books.  And this number of Americans last month who disappeared from the unemployment rolls was around 315,000 people.  The rate can be reported to shrink, but that is because the total labor force has declined (a very bad thing).  That's why we call these bad times a 'recession.' Things recede in a recession.  Am I being redundant here? Good.  And when things recede economically, that's really bad news.  We are living and breathing in a real, live recession that continues to eat at all of us.

The Ministry of Truth would have us all believe that things are getting better, 8.6%, we should all be dancing in the streets with that kind of prosperity going on out there.  Just like Josef Goebbels, the Obama administration is blowing the horns heralding our great recovery, and assuming we believe them when they tell is that up is down, that night is day, and that wrong is right.  All we have to do is look around.

That's right.  Get up and go to the mall of your choice.  Count the number of empty stores in that mall.  Subtract that number from the total stores in the mall, and then look at the ratio of the existing leased businesses vs the total available.  This is what they call the occupancy rate.  When we have full employment, most established malls have occupancy rates that are the inverse of the full employment rate: 100%-4.5%, or 95.5% occupancy.  That's in good times.

Occupancy rates these days are 70% in way too many malls across the country right now.  Or worse.  And you can see this with your own eyes.  Things are really, really bad out there right now.

Get up and take a walk around your block.  How many houses are for sale?  Quite a few, I would bet. Way more than you remember at any one point in time in the good ol' days.  And how long have they been on the market?  Quite a while, I would bet.  And how many of those houses for sale are for sale because of a foreclosure?  Quite a few, I would bet.  And that's really bad.

And how many of your neighbors have lost their jobs?  Well, those still able to pay mortgage or rent payments and are still your neighbors, probably more than anyone would care to admit.   And that's really bad.

Things are really, really bad out here.  Just open your eyes and take a look around. 

And then go back and look at what the Ministry of Truth is putting out: we're on the road to recovery!  Things are rocking and rolling, 8.6% unemployment!  Let's not change horses in the middle of the stream, re-elect President Barack Obama!

Don't fall for 'The Big Lie.'

No sympathy for 'street people'

I can hardly stand to read the Chicago Tribune anymore.  What they call 'news' is simply nothing more than article after article with some liberal spin on the passing scene.  This morning, I picked up the paper from my driveway, thinking that I should really cancel this damn liberal rag, but started to read it anyway.

And in the editorial section called 'Perspective,' the headline is When you recognize the homeless .  The author and his wife were out Christmas shopping and were approached on the street by a homeless girl whom they knew from their New Jersey neighborhood.  And the author gushed on as to his discomfort and sympathy towards her and gave her all the money in his wallet to alleviate his guilt about her situation, and promised her that he would say 'hi' to her mom.

Give me a break.  In the piece, the details are very clear as to how this woman ended up on the street: she was irresponsible, had children out of wedlock as a teenager, and had hysterical outbursts that required police intervention, and the courts took her children away from her, and slapped a restraining order on her seeing them.  I suspect left out of the author's piece were drugs, alcohol, and varied and sordid other details that land people in the gutter.

While the author had enormous sympathy for this loser, I couldn't help but think that her newly found identity as a 'street person' was a choice she actively made.  People don't wind up on the mean streets of this country because they had a string of bad luck, or that everyone was out to get them (in other words, the fault of everybody else except themselves).

This is the reality of life in America: homelessness is a choice.  Nobody has to live on the streets if they don't want to. There are too many alternatives that can divert this eventuality, most involving family solutions, some run by the state, and many run by charities and churches.  Homelessness has many causes to include but not limited to: drug additions, alcohol abuse, criminal behavior, profound irresponsibility, inability to plan, inability to respect authority, and often a conscious choice to shun polite society and a deliberate choice to live life on the streets.

When approached by a homeless person, I avoid eye contact, never give them any money, but do not feel sorry for them; that is one of their tools of their trade - sympathy.  People live life on the streets because they choose this way of life, not because 'the man' is out to get them.  They are on the streets because they like it.  And don't let them tell you they don't because they lie like shamelss dogs: to you, to me and to themselves.  If they didn't like it, they could easily do something about it.

Like take responsibility for their lives, recognize and respect authority and ask for forgiveness from your estranged family.  In other words, choose not to be homeless.

What's fair, and what isn't fair

Last time around, Barack Obama ran his successful presidential campaign on the mantra of 'hope and change.'  It worked very well, as we all know.  Now, three years into Obama's abysmal administration, those two words are no longer uttered by anyone associated with the White House.  And for good reason: things in this country have gone downhill since he took office.  I could go into the metrics of exactly what parts of our country, to include social, political, and economic components are worse off today than in January, 2009, but I think most of us know all about it.

But this is all in the past, and our failed president is mustering his forces for a second term.  This time around, hope and change are not on the menu.  No, this time it's 'what's fair.'  Obama throws this word around like rice at a wedding.  Everyone should do 'their fair share,' 'millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share,' and on and on.  Things should be 'fair.'

To the dumbest among us, this sounds right.  Things shouldn't be unfair.  That's just not right.  And here's a guy saying he will stand up and make things fair, if re-elected. 

To those of us who are of at least average intelligence, we all know through living life that things just are not fair, in general, and that John F. Kennedy said it best: 'Loif.  Loif's not fayuh.'  And for those of us outside of Massachusetts, this better translates to 'Life.  Life's not fair.'  And we all know this to be true.

It isn't fair that a graduate of Columbia school of journalism, with honors, interviews for a news reporting position with Fox News, and is told that while their resume is outstanding, they went with another candidate who was a better fit to the position.  The Columbia summa cum laude candidate was average looking, and the successful candidate graduated in the middle of her class at Boise State, but was also 2009 Miss Idaho.  How fair does that sound? 

But this happens all the time.  All the time, and everybody knows this to be true.  While this example is a stark one, Obama will resort more toward a class warfare point of view, and point out that the working people in this country seem to have all the money, and are greedy because they won't give any of their hard earned money to those less fortunate, and work less. Or don't work at all.  Is that fair that these greedy working people keep all of the money to themselves, Obama asks? All people need money in this great country, Obama states.  And it isn't fair that only the most industrious among us have all the money.  Not fair at all.

Obama wants to end all of this unfairness using the hamfisted power of the government.  If re-elected, he will re-double his efforts to legally transfer the wealth of those who work in this country to those who don't work in the name of fairness. 

And those dumb non-working morons will certainly vote for that, as it really sounds fair.  Why should these working people have all the money?  We non-working parasites need money, too!

Vote Obama, 2012.  It's the fair thing to do.

What happened to American Airlines will happen to America

It took a while, but it finally happened.  American Airlines, with its crushing cost structure, finally declared bankruptcy.  Driving this decision was the inflexibility of its greedy unions and their crazy wages and benefits that have saddled American Airlines with unsustainable debt.

Pensions take the lion's share of the blame, and then comes out of control union wages and benefits.  Pensions are in the red to the tune of about $8 Billion dollars in unfunded checks to geezers who no longer load a single bag, check a single ticket or replace a single rivet on a single plane.  In the long run, the pensions that were coerced out of American Airlines have run the ship into the reef.  In reality now, American Airlines is paying three baggage handlers for every one that actually handles baggage.  The other two are retired and collecting pensions.  No business can run like this indefinitely, and American Airlines finally has hit bottom.

They can thank their greedy, selfish unions for wrecking their company.  When you pay a baggage handler, who flunked out of high school, a wage that is wildly beyond the actual value of his service (such is the nature of unions), in time the costs of doing business will disadvantage that company in the market place to such an extent that in the long run, the chickens will come home to roost.  The company simply cannot compete against leaner, meaner competitors.  And in the long run they go broke, just like American Airlines.  And United Airlines before them.  And TWA before them, and Pan AM before them, and on and on. 

The United States of America is heading down this exact same path: paying three teachers for every one teacher that stands in front of students: one teaches, and two more are retired, but the school district is on the hook for all of the teachers salary, and the pensioners pensions.  Ditto policemen: for every one cop on the beat, there are two more drawing pensions.  And ditto for firemen: for every firefighter fighting fires, there are two more watching the Bears game in their Lay-Z-Boy, sucking down Molsons and collecting pensions. 

All on the county, state and federal dime.  We are not so unlike American Airlines, the U.S. as a whole.  When only 47% of Americans pay federal taxes, where are we headed in the long run?  Into bankruptcy, just like American Airlines.

We better wake up and smell the coffee before it's too late. 

We'll miss Barney Frank.....or maybe not.

If you recall, prior to his scandalous sexually deviant behavior a few months ago that forced his ouster from congress, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) was the voice of the vicious far left, to whom all of the cameras and mainstream news reporters went for juicy soundbites that put Republicans in as bad a light as was possible.  And Rep. Weiner was also great to have as a guest on the Sunday shows and could always be counted on to shout down any opposition to the views and policies of his radical Left buddies on Capitol Hill.

Barney Frank (D-NY) was also one of the go-to guys on the left, and the venomous bile and invective Rep. Frank spewed to any microphone he saw was always greedily gobbled up by the mainstream media and put out as valid political expression.  Of course, Barney was a favorite on the Sunday political shows as well, shouting down and railing against any opposition to anything liberal he and his Marxist pals foisted on us.

Now Barney is hitting the road, no longer interested in re-election to his House seat, presumably to spend time with his children and grandchildren in his Golden Years.  Oh, that's right.  Barney's gay, and has not produced any progeny.  Thank God.

Much like his scandalous partner in New York congressional crime, Anthony Weiner, Rep. Barney Frank has also had his share of scandalous sexual deviancy associated with his lifestyle, if we all recall.  Remember way back when , Barney's 'partner' was running a homosexual house of prostitution out of Barney's residence.  New York voters didn't seem to mind all that much, and re-elected Barney about 12 times since then, so it can't be any big deal.

And of course who could forget Barney's blockage of any reform attempts by the Bush administration to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, categorically stating on the floor of the House of Representatives that both of these institutions were fundamentally sound, and that there was no need to make any changes to these solid mortgage lending programs.

That was before the 2008 financial meltdown, caused by mandated federal requirements against 'red lining' and forcing banks to give home loans to bums and scalawags who never intended to pay the loans back.  Barney made sure that Fannie and Freddie would make the banks whole by insuring that those two crooked institutions bought up the paper on those loans, and he personally nearly brought down the global economy when the sheer weight of these criminal loans crashed and burned in front of Barney's eyes.  As he looked the other way, of course, and blamed Republicans.  And fat cat bankers.  And everybody except himself.

We'll miss Barney's sound bites, and blatant lies and distortions.  And with any luck, his seat will be filled by a Republican, just like the deviant Anthony Weiner's seat was.

American 'culture' today, such as it is....

When I was looking at a recent article about the 'Most Admired American Women' list, I couldn't help but gape in disbelief as Lady Gaga made the list.  The article did not say where she was on the list, but she did not appear in the Top Ten. 

However, the fact that Lady Gaga made the list AT ALL was stunning to me. 

Most of my flabbergasted disbelief stemmed from the fact that Lady Gaga's entire professional persona is that of a pornographic slut.  And she is admired for this by more than a few idiots among the 1019 Americans chosen by Gallup to partake in this foolish telephone poll in March of 2011.  Some might say that Lady Gaga's persona is just that, an onstage act that has no bearing or resemblance to her personal life, and that she is actually chaste and pure, much like her button-down, 'church lady' mother who appears from time to time with her trollop, hussy looking daughter.

Lady Gaga can certainly claim that this is true, but in the real world perception is reality.  And her onstage presence is one of a shameless, scantily dressed strumpet.  Who gets mention on the Most Admired U.S. Women List.  What has become of us, and Western culture in general, when we adore pornographic personas such as this brazen harlot?

Now Oprah and Laura Bush have legitimate standing on this list, as both are accomplished Americans, Oprah in the entertainment business, and Laura Bush as the wife of an ex-president and a supporter of many charities and foundations too numerous to mention.  Hillary Clinton and Angelina Jolie also made the Top Ten, although I might note that Angelina Jolie is closer in public persona to Lady Gaga than to Laura Bush, although not to Lady Gaga's extremes.

At times, I know why Osama bin Laden hated the West. And, sad but true, these are the times that I agree with Osama.

Our culture is at times one that lauds decadence and debauchery.

'Green Energy': this era's 'Alchemy'

These days, we all hear a cacophonous harping from liberals that we need to focus on exchanging our energy sources away from the evil polluting carbon based 'fossil fuels' and into earth and Gaia friendly renewable green sources of energy.  You know, the stuff of liberal dreams: wave power, switch grass, solar, wind, and the great achievement of the Left: vegetable oil powered VW microbuses. 

The left wants no part of that vile, evil carbon based fossil energy anymore.  They say it produces greenhouse gases that are killing us all. 

The Obama administration is acutely bent on chasing this ridiculous premise, and has squandered billions and billions of taxpayer dollars towards the promotion of these hopelessly futile green energy projects.  Solyndra is only the poster child of this stupid and foolish chase of these dumb progressives of an elusive Utopian dream: an energy source that is 100% pollution free.

Physics doesn't work that way.  God doesn't work that way.  We can't pave a path from here to utopia that is downhill both ways.  We can't eliminate the up hill side of physics, namely that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Liberals wish it weren't so, but the laws of God and physics simply can't be undone, or worse yet ignored, not even by the president of the U.S. 

Oil, coal, natural gas, uranium, plutonium, and good old fashioned wood:  all of them great sources of energy.  To harvest the energy from these materials, we have to light them on fire or otherwise raise their temperatures.  Accordingly, the bi products of these chemical reactions are various pollutants in the form of hydrocarbons or radiation.  We need the energy it produces, but we don't like the 'smoke.'  Duh. And we should be more concerned about limiting the pollutants generated by fossil and nuclear fuels with research, without limiting the necessary production of  needed power.  A burgeoning economy needs to accommodate an acceptable yet limited amount of pollution: this is basic economics.  To seek 'zero pollution' from energy production is a fools game, and is simply not physically possible.

There is no smokeless fire.  There is no radiation free nuclear energy.  There is no free lunch, as the late great Milton Friedman constantly reminded us.  There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.  There ain't no such thing as cold fusion, and never will be.  I will be the first to admit that I am no nuclear scientist.  But a basic understanding of chemistry necessitates that separating the two hydrogen atoms from the bonded oxygen atom in a single molecule of fresh water requires enormous amounts of energy: heat. And producing such heat will generate some kind of 'smoke,' or pollutant in one form or another.  Chasing this dream of hydrogen power without pollutants of some kind just will not happen under any circumstances.  In other words, the liberal Utopian dream of filling our fuel tanks on our 'green cars' with simple water and getting a few thousand miles per gallon from this 'pixie dust'  is never, ever going to happen. 

But liberals insist that we can produce energy without the equal and opposite effect of an undesirable and offsetting bi product.  These liberal idiots of today are chasing dreams.  Utopian ideals that will never come to pass.  Much like the alchemists of a thousand years ago, trying to turn lead into gold.  And ignorant governments of many nations of long ago pursued this stupid and elusive goal of chasing an unachievable alchemy dream for generation after generation: all with no success whatsoever even to this very day.

We will never see any viable 'green energy' that will lift a Boeing 777 even so much as an inch off the ground.  That feat requires oil.  Or perhaps uranium.  You know, a real live existing source of proven energy in the real world of today.  To think that we can generate our nation's power with only the wind, the sun, the ocean waves, or vegetable oil is the dream of naive children.

Science says it can't be done.

God says it can't be done. 

But this still wont' stop today's stupid liberals from commandeering our tax dollars in their fool's errand of this modern day alchemy: chasing viable green energy that will completely replace fossil fuels is no different than trying to turn lead into gold.

Joe Paterno deserves scorn, not sympathy

With the way the media are covering Joe Paterno's disgraceful exit from the Penn State coaching ranks, you would think the guy was next in line for sainthood.  They depict a tearful son Jay wishing his dad were here, and posters hanging everywhere in the football stadium of loving farewells to good ol' JoePa.

The evidence of what Joe Paterno's legacy will be is in front of everyone's nose: this is the guy who put football money and power above the protection of the innocent.  Estimates are around $50,000,000 per year in 2011 dollars of Penn State's football program revenue, and these are the dollars Joe Paterno chose to protect, not the children victims who may number in the hundreds by the time this investigation into the pedophile Jerry Sandusky and his crimes committed while associated with the Penn State football program are completed.  Joe chose the approximate $500 Million dollars over the children, when he made his decision to leave the police out of this situation.  And I suspect, but can't verify that Joe didn't make this decision by himself, either.  He had the ear of the athletic director and the university president at the time, and I suspect also that the revenue that might be adversely affected should this story come to light was discussed at length.  And then jointly, the whole scummy lot of Penn State athletic poobahs decided to keep all of this hush hush.

And Joe Paterno knew of this reprobate's activities for years, and chose to turn a blind eye to the irreparable damage that he was inflicting on untold numbers of children.  What kind of monster does this?  And this scumbag Jerry Sandusky was still held in high esteem by Joe Paterno until just the last few weeks when the story broke. 

Don't feel sorry for poor ol' Joe Paterno, getting fired after years of his basking in everyone's perceived love and adoration.  He is just as much a scum sucking dog of a man as is his defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky.  And now we hear Joe has lawyered up, pending the civil and possible criminal proceedings that may come his way. 

He is the scum of the earth, and not the hero we all thought him to be.

A pox on Joe Paterno's legacy.

Top Ten Most Worthless College Degrees

We all know one of these guys.  You know, the professional college student who is constantly changing his course of studies, and spends about 9 years and untold thousands of dollars in finally obtaining a bachelors degree in fine arts.  Or film studies.  Or sociology. 

And we all  know where to find this guy: playing video games in the basement of his parent's house, where he has lived for the last nine years since enrolling in college.  This guy can wipe out hundreds of bad guys in Call to Duty XXI, but couldn't talk his way into a real life job interview to save his soul.  Accordingly, he will be a burden on his aging parents until they finally work up the backbone to kick him out.  And then and only then will he actually start to look for a job.  And very, VERY likely, it will be one flipping burgers, if he's extremely lucky.

There are millions of guys like this out there.  Millions and millions of 'em.  Some of them are camped out on the sidewalk in Manhattan these days, but most are still in their parent's basement.  And nearly all were ill served by their choice of studies in school.  Some of them have degrees that are pertinent to some employers, but most simply chose worthless degrees, and the Top Ten Most Worthless are:

1.  Fine Arts.  This degree has virtually no bearing on life, and particularly is irrelevant when it comes to an employer. Just how does one transfer the skill of making paper mache figures into being part of a productive business enterprise?  That would be a tough one to explain.   Sure, a few fashion houses here and there will specify this degree, but those jobs are as plentiful as chicken lips.  Meaning: not very plentiful at all.

2.  Art History.  Another degree that is high on the scale of worthlessness.  Just how many employers are interested in your knowledge of the impressionist era, or of art deco?  I know the answer to that one: approximately ZERO, give or take zero. 

3.  Women's Studies.  Sure, there are employers everywhere falling all over themselves to throw money at women's studies graduates, since they are in such high demand.  Actually, I am dripping with sarcasm as I wrote that first sentence.  In the real world, there are NO employers who would touch a women's studies diploma holder with a ten foot pole.  They are perceived as walking, talking sexual harassment lawsuits, waiting to descend with a God awful vengeance on whatever hapless employer stupidly hires them.

4.  Marine Biology.  Of course, every kid who ever had a pet turtle or goldfish, or ever watched an episode of Jacques Cousteau tells their parents that when they grow up, they want to become a marine biologist. Just like we all wanted to be ballet dancers as girls, or train engineers as boys.  Eventually, though, we grow up and know that those professions, while they exist, are few and far between and we get real jobs.  But not real, live marine biology graduates.  The only jobs for those guys are teaching other guys to be marine biology graduates, and even those are tough gigs to land.  Question: what is the most common question asked by a marine biology graduate these days?  Answer: 'would you like fries with that?'

5.  Archaeology.  Just like all kids who want to be marine biologists, when we started learning about dinosaurs, the first thing we did when we came home from school is tell mom and dad, 'when I grow up, I want to become an archaeologist.'  Sigh.  Ask all of those fifty three genuinely employed archaeologists, out on a dig in the middle of Montana, what they get paid for digging through a few tons of dirt with a toothbrush.  When they tell you $7/hour, don't visibly gasp, as it might hurt their feelings.  On the bright side, at least those 53 archaeologists are working.  The other 5 million archaeologist degree holders are still living in their parent's basement, playing Mortal Combat. 

6.  Law.  These are some of the saddest cases, these new law school grads, and especially the ones who passed their state's bar exam, and find that for every scummy little paralegal job opening that pays $20,000 a year, there are about a million unemployed new lawyers standing in line to get an application.  That, after they just coughed up about $150 Grand worth of expenses getting this jewel of a degree.  They should have taken note of all of those lawyer jokes they heard growing up.  Turns out, those jokes are not jokes.  They are all true. 

7.  Sociology.  Social work.  That is a magnet for all of the do-gooders in high school, who 'just want to help people.'  Oh, boy.  Where to start, where to start....first of all, these dreamers have to know that all jobs in social work pay almost nothing.  And some pay exactly that: nothing.  If you really want to help, your employer says, you will voluntarily do this for nothing and that will really, REALLY help (unsaid, it will mostly help keep the boss' payroll down).  Eventually, these dopes wise up and go get real jobs flipping burgers.

8.  Journalism.  It could be said that dumb ol' Fredd here is a journalist (although I was not dumb enough to get a degree in this stuff).  Sitting here, writing an article that is published on the World Wide Web.  And what kind of dough does Fredd pull down in payment for the crap, er I mean, material he publishes?  That's right: ZERO dollars.  And in the communications age, transfer of information is virtually free.  Accordingly, we all see print media struggling, newspapers going belly up, and what do these numbnuts do when considering a degree?  Journalism.  Doh!!

9.  Fashion Design.  For all of the girls in high school who were called 'clothes horses,' this is the degree for them as they know when they graduate, they will quickly develop a line of clothing named after them, such as Vera Wang, Johnnie Versaci, Calvin Klein and that gang.  With 500,000 fashion design degrees pumped out each year, and about 7 fashion design slots available, the simple math here suggests that the only fashion designing decisions these dumb degree holders will be doing is deciding which color of McDonald's name tag they will wear that day: Red, Yellow or Black.   Question: typically what material is the hat made of that a fashion design degree holder wears? Answer: paper.

10.  Performing Arts.  Or acting, as it used to be called.  Question: what is the main activity engaged in by those holders of a performing arts degree?  Answer: busing tables.  I lived in North Hollywood for a year or two way back when, and everybody I met had a script in their pocket: they either wrote it, or were studying lines in it, but everybody had a script.  In their back pocket, of course,  because they needed their hands free to wipe down counters, bus tables, flip burgers and wash shot glasses as they tended bar.  But they were all actors.  And they all had performing arts degrees.  As do most mimes, by the way...

Borrowing a fortune to buy a useless college degree

What do you call someone who borrows a virtual fortune to finance a college degree that isn't worth the paper that the diploma is printed on?  A college graduate?  An up and coming titan of industry?  A future pillar of the community?

Nope, none of the above.  At least, that's not what I would call these folks.  I would appropriately label these guys and gals as stupid morons.  You know, those college brainiacs who majored in any liberal arts degree such as journalism, film, photography, sociology, psychology, English, art history or a litany of other completely irrelevant and useless program that no reasonable profitable business owner has any use for whatsoever.

And to top off the bad choices that these morons (or, college graduates as some would call them) make is that they went into hock to the tune of upwards of $30,000 or even more to call themselves a college graduate.  It's one thing when Daddy and Mommy fork out the dough for little Sally to spend four years studying fashion design, and then end up working at Chick-fil-A for $7/hour.  But when little Sally obtains four or five student loans that hang around her neck for most of the rest of her life like golden chains around Mr. T's neck, that truly is a magnificent example of an absolutely horrific and terrible life choice.

This may be news to many college students: a college degree does not guarantee you a huge salary and cushy job for life.  It never was any kind of guaranty at any point in history.  Granted, in the past employers found that college graduates in business, engineering, science and other solid pursuits made excellent employees in the long run, and those who actually studied the Three R's (readin' ritin, and 'rithmatic) had a leg up over those dimmer grads who chose to take pictures, study pictures and critique pictures while they piled up student debt up to their eyeballs.

And now we see a swarm of unemployable fine arts and journalism graduates down on Wall Street demanding that their student loans be forgiven, while carrying signs that blame their woes on all of those fat cat bankers.  Yes, you know those evil guys and gals in the suits, the guys and gals who studied business and finance in college rather than film.  Those guys.  They are the ones responsible for liberal arts major Sally's troubles, and why life has passed her by, or at least according to little brainiac Sally. 

This is so wrong on so many levels. 

You know what I call a liberal arts degree holder who can't even get a job at McDonalds in order to start repayment of their $30,000 student loans?  A college graduate, you say?  No.  I call them a burden on society, a moron and a hopeless idiot.    

Obama is right, for once: 'Republicans want dirtier air and dirtier water.'

President Obama is correct: the GOP condones more economic activity, during which the process of this activity marginally increases pollutants that are an external cost and are unavoidable consequences of all productive human efforts.  As considered from an economic point of view, both Republicans AND Democrats should want dirtier air and dirtier water.  Well, perhaps minuscule increases in air and water pollution, but it is inarguable: more economic activity produces more pollutants.  And as a nation, we all accept certain levels of pollution as the cost of a prospering and growing population. 

Of course, as an economic ignoramus, Barack Obama has no clue that there are certain unavoidable externalities that must ensue given increased economic activity.  No clue at all.  Taken to an extreme, Obama's position would be that Democrats are against emitting one single additional molecule of pollution into the country's air or water.  The only way that this position is achievable is if we stop any and all additional efforts to increase production of any product whatsoever.  This position of Obama's also assumes that the existing production of energy and goods is OK, that the pollution from our current levels of production are perfectly fine, and that cutting back on production would be even more acceptable.  In other words, Democrats support stagnation or atrophy as it pertains to the GNP of the U.S. economy.

Of course this position is ludicrous on its face.  But the dimwits who listen to Obama and Democrats eat this up, and in particular the tree hugging environmental movement types, who ultimately would be perfectly happy if a diminished number of cave dwellers simply lived like we did in the good ol' days, in our cold, damp caves with no cars, no washing machines and no electricity.  And that would entail that of the 300 plus million Americans currently residing within the boundaries of the U.S., perhaps 90% of them need to go away, leaving presumably the 10% of the remaining population (the 'good' percentage) to inhabit the country and live off the land, free from pollution and filth.  Sounds like paradise on earth to me.

And of course, that eventuality is a non-starter as well, but it epitomizes the Left's world view to a large extent: seeking a non-existent utopia that dwells in unison with Mother Earth, or Gaia, with no wants, needs or fears, and one that provides only peace and love for everybody.  Everybody, that is, except the other 90% of us who 'went away,' and the tree huggers choose not to explain what would need to happen to that 90% 'extra population' that Gaia could not support.  To these arrogant extremist environmentalists, all that matters is that most of us (especially conservatives and Republicans) simply 'go away,' and leave the country to them and their vegan and pure ways. 

You bet the Republicans want dirtier air and dirtier water: a certain degree of pollution is unavoidable and indeed acceptable in a thriving, growing economy.   I would vote for dirtier air and dirtier water every time it comes up on the ballot.

And it will be coming up on the ballot in November, 2012.  Vote for dirtier air and dirtier water.

It's the 'Right' thing to do.

The "Occupy" mobs nothing more than a 'Cargo Cult.'

This unorganized rabble we all see yelling into bullhorns about the evils of capitalism, the banking industry, and western civilization in general can be categorized as a cult.  More specifically, a ‘cargo cult.’  They have seen the success of the hated Tea Party, whose efforts have changed the political landscape and swung the pendulum of popular sentiment significantly to the right of center.

 These mobs want to effect the same degree of change that they all saw the Tea Party achieve, although in the opposite direction, and ignorantly assume that if enough people show up and make noise, their cause will be served.  Their largest shortcoming is their complete and utter lack of understanding of how the Tea Party got the victories they did.  They are clueless, but perservere in their mimicking of Tea Party rallies, when in reality they are stupidly stumbling around aping Tea Party tactics with no real understanding of how to effectively forward their agenda, which is to bring chaos to the existing system that has left them behind.

 If you are not familiar with the term 'cargo cult,' it refers to the primitive native peoples in the Pacific Islands and remote areas whose territories were pressed into service during WWII to service the U.S. Pacific Fleet, in addition to the Japanese Imperial Navy. These native people would watch as these foreigners (both Japanese and American troops) moved in, and subsequently build landing strips and control towers. Then as if by magic, planes would appear from the heavens and land on these strips full of food, water, supplies, gasoline, clothing, etc. Much of it would be distributed to the indigenous populations in addition to serving the war effort.

 After the war ended, these foreigners left, and so did all of their goodies. Not wanting to interrupt this gravy train, the natives would ape the behaviors of those foreigners in hopes of making the magic planes arrive again. They would build bamboo 'control towers,' clear rudimentary, crude 'landing strips' out of the jungle, and talk into crude 'microphones', hoping that this behavior would entice the goodies to reappear, but in reality they had absolutely no understanding of the actual nature of where all these goodies came from. They had to assume it came from out of the sky, (presumably from the 'gods' ). These cults persisted in mimicking these behaviors for years and in some cases decades after the shipments ended.

And the ‘Occupy’ fools are stupidly doing the exact same thing as these ignorant Pacific island natives: they are completely devoid of any understanding of how the Tea Party resonated with voters.  Specifically, the Occupy mobs are unaware that the Tea Party had rock solid principles that it rallied around: less government spending, less confiscatory taxation, smaller government and adherence to the Constitution of the United States. 

The occupy mobs have only their ‘rock solid’ principles of: lay in bed until noon, smoke marijuana until their throats are sore, and demand that money be provided to them in perpetuity to further their slovenly lifestyles.  These are principles that are held by only a small handful of stupid hippies, of whom all pay homage to their spiritual leaders Cheech and Chong, and this worst type of sloth will never, ever gain any support from the voting public whatsoever.

And yet these idiots continue to ape the Tea Party, and expect the same manner of change, but it will never come.  Just like those cargo cult Pacific Islanders continue to wait by their crude landing strips and man their bamboo control towers, hoping that their efforts will entice the goodies from the skies to appear again, as it did in the good old days. 

Filthy, pathetic hippies infest Wall Street

This mob of hippies' petulant infestation of Wall Street may make for great photo ops, sound bites and generate some media interest, but it will mostly generate garbage like their fore bearers always did at these protests, and garner resentment and ill-will from most of the public.

The garbled message that we get from this leaderless rabble seems to be 'these fat cats Wall Street bastards have money, and we don't.  Give it to us.'

Or at least that seems to be the message I am getting from this mob.  They have been raised by their irresponsible Gen-X parents to value self esteem over accomplishment, and they are demanding that the responsible people working in the corporate environs hand them over cold hard cash, simply because they are alive and breathing in the U.S. of A.

Sorry, hippies. Ain't gonna happen.

Sooner or later you all will grow up, and find out that if you want some of that money that these Wall Streeter's have, you'll have to shave, shower and cover up your tattoos, remove your earrings and get hair cuts.  Additionally, you'll actually need some sort of resume that an employer might be interested in, with actual accomplishments: like holding a minimum wage job for more than a week. 

I know, I know: your self esteem will suffer.  Having to flip burgers and be nice to customers.  Yes, I know this is too degrading to even consider.

Well, welcome to the NFL.  Life is tough, and nobody owes you a living.  Despite what your useless parents told you.

Get a job, you smelly stupid hippies.  Nothing you do on Wall Street in the next week, or month, or year will make any difference in your life.  You are not standing up for right versus wrong, for good versus evil.  You just want to steal the goodies from those so-called fat cats up in those office buildings.  Those people up there are the responsible ones.  The ones who shower, dress neatly, keep their noses to the grindstone and respect authority. In other words, they play by the rules.  And you don't.

Just get a job, take a shower and shut up.

You useless human debris.

Liberals pursue development of the best non-fossil fuel ever: Pixie Dust!!

The Obama administration just threw $535,000,000.00 of our taxpayer money at a non-proven energy company, Solyndra, and watched this investment in the future go up in smoke. 

He wants Americans to use something else besides fossil fuels and nuclear energy, even though nothing else we know of can replace them.  And why?  Because this is the agenda of the crazy, far left tree hugger hippies and they happen to be a Democrat constituency group whose votes he covets. 

We all know that Obama does not like nuclear energy, coal energy, natural gas energy, and in particular he absolutely LOATHES petroleum, that evil energy source that evil conservatives call the life blood of capitalism.  More accurately, I should say his constituency group of tree hugging hippies loathes all of those energy sources.  All of these evil, antiquated energy sources give Obama the heebie jeebies: if he promotes them, then 'POOF!'  There goes the support of the tree huggers.  Accordingly, he's convinced that all of these are dangerous and harmful to the planet.  None of this stuff is any good, Obama obediently states.

What does he like?  Well, with Solyndra for example, he thinks that solar energy is the way to go, and that we as a nation should subsidize this form of renewable energy to the hilt.  And he did.  And we can all see what happened.  It kinda fizzled.  Because in reality, rather than in the nebulous child-like world of Utopian dreamers where this foolish dream energy can power the airline industry, this technology is in Realville, USA nowhere near becoming a reality.

He also likes wind power.  Ditto his administration's subsidization of all things wind driven, and the results are similar to that of solar energy: jack squat.  The technology just isn't there yet.  But that doesn't stop this administration from funneling a gazillion or two of tax payer dollars into its further development.  We'll all be standing by to reap the rewards of this investment.  That is, if the wind continues to blow all the time.  Which it doesn't. 

I have noticed that we have as a nation been ignoring a major source of energy that is not particularly new, but nevertheless efficient and exciting: Pixie Dust!  It has many names, such as Fairy Dust, Magic Dust and others, but the technology is the same: sprinkle it on something, and it flies, or turns into something spectacular.  Simple technology, really, but it has been overlooked for decades in favor of fossil fuels, which tend to pollute.  No polution has been detected with the use of Fairy Dust in any application we've seen so far.

Witness Dionne Sanders hawk DirectTV services while sporting fairy wings and throwing gobs of the sparkly stuff at a TV screen using cable programming, and VOILA: Green Bay Packer games shown in Miami, Florida! Shazzam! Magic!!  Need I say more to convince even the most rigid sceptic that this is the energy source of the future?

I think not.    

We need to harness this exciting form of energy.  And we as a nation need to man up and acquire the national gumption to fund wide scale development of Pixie Dust.  Imagine the benefits all Americans could enjoy with a never ending supply of Pixie Dust.  We have seen Peter Pan, Wendy, Tinker Bell and all of their friends fly around and do magical things under power of Pixie Dust.  We have seen Mary Poppins, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Herbie the Volkswagen do amazing things under the power of Pixie Dust.

With some well funded national resolve, we can now channel our national resources to obtain a never ending supply of Pixie Dust, if only we could fully fund its discovery and exploration.  And that does not come cheaply, fellow Americans.  We must muster some resolve, verve and moxie to dig deep into our pockets to harness this newest form of non-fossil fuel that is so promising.

Wind power cannot lift a Boeing 747 (Air Force One) off the ground even 1 inch.  Neither can solar power, wave power, switch grass or any other tree hugger hippie juice.  But Pixie Dust can! 

What are we waiting for?  Let's go for it, and soon we will bear the fruits of this endeavor together, and we can drive Pixie Dust cars, power Pixie Dust aircraft carriers and bring to bear against our enemies Pixie Dust  fueled tanks and fighter jets.

All that is standing in the way of this Utopian dream is a few trillion dollars or so.  Let's get on with it!

Fair, Schmair: Obama spews class warfare disguised as 'fairness.'

The latest speech from our president, one which echoes the same theme we have heard from liberals since the dawn of time, hammers home to his political base the false concept of 'fairness' in managing our shared national resources and responsibilities.

'It's only fair,' Obama blithely mouths as he reads his ubiquitous Tele-Prompter.  I would love to hear what his definition of fairness actual is, and how it relates to our national affairs.

He is obviously speaking only to the 'do-not's' in the crowd (as opposed to 'have-nots, a topic for another time).  His base, whom he wants to rally into a frenzied hate-filled froth, consists of those who have at least $1.00 less than the other guy standing next to them.  The 'do-not's' envy the opposition consisting of 'do'ers' and want to punish those who got that extra buck in an unfair manner. 

Obama's version of what is fair and what is unfair is simple: if one guy has a lot of money, and the other guy has less than that, essential unfairness is at hand.  In Obama's mind, everyone should have an equal share of everything.  And this is the problem with all liberal thinking, which is based on Karl Marx's 19th century publication 'Das Kapital,' the I-Ching of liberalism.  'From those, according to their ability.  To those, according to their need.'  That's the bedrock of liberalism, and the basis of what is in the liberal mind fair, and what is unfair.

This half-baked and completely debunked theory of Marx leaves out a vital part of the equation, and liberals just love to rant and  rave about millionaires and billionaires not paying their 'fair share,' all the while ignoring just how those millionaires and billionaires got to be millionaires and billionaires in the first place.  Most of them worked their butts off, sacrificed enormous amounts of time, energy and money, and took risks with their assets that many of the rest of us would think insane.  And they were rewarded for all of this with millions and billions of dollars.

And what about the 'do-not's' who did not?  Who drank themselves into the gutter, who alienated their family and friends with their nasty, self destructive behavior?  Why don't they have millions and billions of dollars?  Liberals would argue that the system is simply unfair, and that these losers are losers simply because they got a crummy lot in life, unlike those lucky rich bastards who got their fortunes through sheer luck.

Obama and his 'fairness' argument is only for those of his base who can't think for themselves, and believe their liberal leaders who tell them that anyone who has more money came about it through nefarious means, and that with their vote they can take away much of those ill-gotten gains and pass it around to the 'do-not's', who did nothing to earn anything, and that is how 'fairness' works.

Fairness, schmairness.  Rather than hating rich people (also known as class warfare), how about just putting your nose to the grindstone and forget about what others have and worry only about you and what you can do to improve your lot in life?  Instead, if you are a mindless liberal I suspect you will ignore any suggestion of taking responsibility for yourself,  and rather try and steal what you want and need from your neighbor who actually earned what he has gotten in life.

Believe it or not, there are more voters in this country that believe what I have to say about fairness, than what Obama has to say about fairness.  And it's going to show itself in November of 2012.

You can take that to the bank.

We all know old people are parasites, but what about teachers?

I have been blasting our elderly population as of late for being the primary reason our society is going to hell in a hand basket.  You know, sucking up Social Security payments, Medicare, Medicade, prescription drugs and in Chicago until lately, free bus rides: all simply because of how long they have been around, and no other productive reason.  A recent statistic came to light to prove this point: several decades ago, the percentage of our older population living under the poverty line ( in 1949, I believe, or close to then) was 39%.  As of 2009, that percentage has dropped to 8%.  This statistic clearly indicates that we are simply transferring the wealth of our nation to oldsters for no other reason than their age.
This is unsustainable.  I have been saying that old poeple are killing us with this transfer, and that nearly 6 out of everey 10 dollars coming out of the U.S. Treasury in the form of entitlement payments are for old people (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the biggies). They are public enemy #1. 

But who's #2?  Public school teachers, of course.  Yes, those folks who have custody of our children for six to eight hours daily, Monday through Friday.  And they are not doing the job that their predecessors did, either: check out the questions that were on an 8th grade math test in 1895:

1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.

2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50 cts. per bu, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $.20 per inch?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.

Our 8th graders today can barely read, much less answer a single question above, thanks to our current crop of parasitic public school teachers.  These public teachers, all members of teachers unions, incidentally, work for 30 years, and retire in their early 50's at 75% or so of their salaries for the rest of their lives.  And they receive other benefits during this idle time as well.  And who pays for these parasites to retire in luxury in their Boca Raton condos? 

WE DO!

Us private sector schmucks, who work our entire lives until we drop dead (or retire on our hard earned portfolios), and we are paying these blood sucking teachers to lay around in their hammocks on the beach, sipping their Mai Tais for up to 30 years or more on OUR DIME!

When I went to my elementary public school in the early 1960's, the entire school of 200 kids, K through 6th grade, was taught, managed and maintained by a staff of around 16 people:

• The principal
• Two administrators
• School nurse
• 10 teachers
• 1 janitor 
• 1 general maintenance employee

Now a similar school in 2011 will have the following:

• 1 Principal
• 2 Vice Principals
• 10 or more administrators
• 30 teachers (to include gym teachers, art teachers, music teachers, choir teachers, etc)
• 2 school nurses
• a nurse's aide
• 10 cafeteria workers
• 4 janitors
• 4 lawn mowing people
• 5 general maintenance crew workers

I think you get the point: these public union teachers have feather bedded each and every single school in each and every single school district in the entire country with superfluous and unnecessary employees to the point that they are sucking the very life blood out of their communities, and then they ALL retire in their 50's, requiring another 20-something year old new teacher or administrator to replace them since they are no longer working (but getting paid by the district).  And in the event that the 52 year old retired slacker public teacher or administrator lives until 82, that 22-year old replacement will then be 52 and THEY WILL RETIRE AS WELL!  Subsequently, for that single teacher  or admin slot, the community will be paying THREE people to teach or 'administer': the 82 year old slug, the newly retired 52 year old mooch, and the new 22-year old to replace TWO people already sucking from the public payroll for one teaching and/or administrative slot.

It's an unsustainable racket, I say.  Simply unsustainable.  But old people are still #1 (in terms of public enemies, that is...).

Sorry, old folks and public union teachers.  I call 'em as I see em.  And don't forget this: these public teachers get the summer off, with pay.

John Edwards is right: there are two Americas...

...but just not the two Americas that John Edwards believes exist in his crooked, slimy liberal heart.  The disgraced former VP candidate made his claim to fame with his 'Two Americas' speech during the 2008 campaign depicting one America consisting of fat cat 'haves,' and the other of deprived 'have nots' (or as Karl Marx would call them, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, basically the same concept).

Nope.  Indeed, there are two Americas, but the distinction is not of haves and have nots, but of producers and non-producers.  Of go getters, and of slackers. Of people in the wagon, and of those pulling the wagon.  However you want to characterize this divide, these two Americas are coming to blows, and there will be some fallout in the coming years as to who defines what the ultimate one prevailing America shall be.

Witness the Wisconsin state battle of these two Americas: on the one side, you have the tax paying public getting gouged, hammered and skewered by enormous property, sales, and other taxes to support an unsustainable population of Americans on the dole from the state and the federal government that produce nothing, but suck the living breath out of the local economy, and demand ever more every year.  And the courageous Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker (R) fulfilling his promise to reign in the abuses of that parasitic other America that simply wants to lay sideways in the public trough and provide nothing for the common good. 

These are the two Americas that are at loggerheads: one of them will win, the other will lose.  In Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and Indiana to date, the moocher Americans have been dealt a series of blows, and their slovenly way of life is at risk.  In response, since these slovenly slobs know no other way of life other than to suck the food of of others' tables, their panicked reaction is expected: the end of the world is near, and life as they know it will come crashing down upon their slacker heads.

The Two Americas theme that John Edwards rode to national prominence is a reality.  And we are seeing the beginnings of the battle between these two Americas.  The America I live in is one where each individual has personal responsibility to maintain a lifestyle that not only benefits them and their family, but also benefits society as a whole.  The America that my enemy dwells in is one that lives off of the table of their fellow American, and not only are they ungracious at the largess extended them, but actually seem to angrily demand more from that table, arguing that taking the food off of their neighbors' table is a right.

Let this fight rage on in earnest.  I think I know how this will play out in the long run, and once the responsible America defeats the slovenly America, the two Americas will finally return to the one America: the one that promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to any who want to put forth an effort to achieve the American dream.

John Edwards was right.  Just not in characterizing the sides that are vying for prominence in the 21st century. 

Old people should die in their kid's spare bedroom

...and not in their luxury condos in Boca Raton, Florida.

In the good old days, before American taxpayers went broke supporting old people in luxury for the last 25 or 30 years of their lives, Americans used to live together as extended families, where grandma and grandpa lived upstairs, in the spare bedroom of their daughter in law or son in law's house.

Accordingly, grandma and grandpa would come down every evening to the supper table, grandpa would say Grace, and their sons, daughters, grandsons and granddaughters would enjoy a meal together with their family. 

And back in those good old days, grandma and grampa understood that they were eating the food put on the table by the daughter or daughter in law, as provided for by the son or son in law, and they would not gripe and whine about their progeny's life decisions, or how bad the food was: they held their tongues, lest discord fester within the household. 

Not anymore. 

Now that the government has mandated that we all cough up our hard earned tax dollars in order that we provide all senior citizens over the age of 62 a luxury retirement, free from want or need.  Their condos in Florida are paid for courtesy of their Social Security monthly stipends, their medicine and health care needs taken care of by Medicare and Medicaid, in addition to virtually free medicine via government provided pharmaceutical and prescription plans.  These outlays used to be borne by the oldster's progeny, but not anymore.  The government is now the supporter of our oldest citizens, not the sons and daughters.

As such, these oldsters live the remainder of their golden years in luxury, removed from the extended family where they are free to bad mouth their progeny at length for every grievance, real or imagined, and not have to endure the scorn heaped upon them should they have remained within the extended family under one roof and continued to bad mouth the daughter in law.

And now they are living out their golden years at all of our expense: and our economy is collapsing because of them.  Old people now die within the confines of their luxury suites in Miami, and the U.S. taxpayer pays all the bills.

And old people are perfectly OK with this arrangement.  They are a shame to our country.  When the country is better off when you die (as SSN payments stop, Medicare and Medicaid end, in addition to all of the other goodies oldsters get), you should perhaps reflect on your parasitic ways.

But these geezers won't give it a second thought, as they wreck our economy and take another sip off of their government provided Mai Tai as they lounge by their government provided poolside in their government provided condo in Boca Raton.

Shame on all of you geezers. 

Who gets the blame for this debt mess? Old people.

They have many names: geezers, codgers, old timers, gummers, old farts, elders, seniors, battle axes and baby boomers.  Regardless of what you call them, these folk over the age of 60 (born 1951 and earlier) are the primary cause of this country's debt problems. There is really no argument against this undeniable truth: old people are wrecking our country. 

Of the $2.3 TRILLION dollars that come into the treasury every year, 6 out of 10 of those dollars are doled back out to old people, mostly in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and medical prescription benefits.  If you round up, that's almost two out of every three dollars taken from tax payers are given to these oldsters.  And why?  Because they vote on legislation making this theft legal.  And they vote religiously and regularly in huge blocks. 

Sure, some of the bucks paid into the treasury are taken out in the form of FICA taxes over the years, and are then paid back in montly stipends to the geezer, but it is rare if never that a living SSN recipient ever pays more into the system than they take out.  Only in the case where the recipient dies prematurely will that be the case.  And we are not talking about dead people at the moment, only old people, and accordingly those dead guys are excluded from blame.

Even though most (but not all) geezers know that this system is unsustainable, they don't care.  They care not a whit that money paid to them to allow them their retirements in luxury is costing their grand kids and great grand kids a life of posterity.  They only want what they want, and they want it right now, regardless of the chaos it is causing.  Geezers who think this way (and there are millions and millions of them) are greedy, selfish pigs.  The lot of them

In fairness, not entirely ALL of the blame for our debt crisis can be laid at the gummer's feet.  The gutless politicians (mostly Democrats) who promised these geezers all of this cash in exchange for votes can also share the blame, but it is the geezers who demand the lion's share of the treasury's intake, despite the damage to the long term economy, these old timers are the ones to blame at the moment, and not the dead gutless politicians who made them those unkeepable promises lo these many years ago.

When you walk down the street and see an old, crippled geezer ambling down to the super market, Social Security check in hand, just know that they are the enemy of us all.  They are killing our country.  

And they know it, but don't care.

Democrat president gives up on pursuing greatness

This is just another typical example of Democratic presidents giving away the American store.  NASA ended its manned space program today, with nothing on the drawing board to get us back into space.

President Obama's view as to America's place in the world seems to mirror the same philosophy as that of past recent Democrats in the White House.  He believes that the U.S. should not lead the world in anything: he is presiding over the collapse of the greatest economy on the planet, and happily so.  In his heart of heart, he doesn't believe in American greatness and thinks we are just part of the global crowd.  Let someone else lead, he suggests.

We are now second or even third in the world in space technology, behind Russia and Japan.  Who would have thought this a mere decade ago? 

But this slacker president is nothing new in Democrat circles.  Recall Bill Clinton authorizing Loral to sell our missile guidance technology to the Chinese.  It's only fair, he suggests, to have a 'partner' in technological innovation.  Unbelievable, simply incredible the way Democrats think.

Recall Jimmy Carter giving away the Panama Canal, a U.S. possession that was the greatest engineering feat ever accomplished by man.  Now in the possession of a banana republic that is not exactly America's best ally, thanks to this incompetent dreamer, who cared not a whit about the greatness of America.

And what engineering achievement eclipsed that of the building of the Panama Canal?  Reaching the moon, of course.  And now that achievement has been diminished greatly by this current cowardly administration suggesting that the money we no longer spend on NASA can be better put to use by transferring it to crack addicts in ghettos, encouraging them to proliferate.

All at the expense of American greatness.  When will the voters of this country learn that when we elect Democrats to the presidency, we suffer as a nation?

The way things were 'back in MY day.'

I was recently shopping around for a suitable replacement for my aging Ford F150 4X4 pickup truck (13 years old, and starting to cost a fortune to keep in reliable shape).  While kicking the tires on a Chevy 2500, I asked the sales guy 'says here 6.0 liter engine, what's that in cubic inches?' 

The sales guy looked at me like I had three heads.  He then replied, 'you should probably know that one, that's the way they USED to measure displacement way back in YOUR day.' At 56 1/2 years old, I started thinking he was right.  I SHOULD have known that little tidbit.  Turns out that a 6.0L engine is 377 cubic inches, but that is not the only thing that is now different in today's world from 'back in MY day.' I just stopped paying attention and never noticed that engine displacement terminology switched to the metric system.

As a 5 year old in the summer of 1960, I vaguely remember waiting for the 'iceman' to show up in the projects down the street from me, where me and other kids would hang around hoping he would have a few shards of ice for us that had broken off the blocks of ice he delivered to folks too poor to afford those new fangled 'refrigerators,' and still depended on ice boxes to keep their cold cuts cold.

I was in junior high school when the milkman still delivered milk to our front door, and retrieved our empty quart bottles that we set out for him the night before.  When did that stop?  That service was kinda handy, as I recall.  Now, you have to drive to the Piggly Wiggly, schlep a gallon of the stuff from the Piggly Wiggly shelf to your car (or in my case, truck), and then from your car to your new fangled refrigerator. 

And as a grade school kid during the summer, my mom would kick me out of the house with instructions to go play and not come back until dinner time.  With my Murray-brand knock-off 'Sting Ray' bike with ape hanger handlebars and banana seat (my folks were too cheap to buy me the real deal, a Schwinn Sting Ray), we had parental authorization to ride as far away from home as our little legs could pedal, and nobody gave that a second thought.  Just as long as we made it back home in time for dinner.

Now a little 8 year old boy cannot walk 6 blocks home from summer camp without getting abducted, murdered and dismembered by a sick, evil weirdo in Brooklyn, New York.  Things ain't the way they used to be back in MY day, no siree Bob.

Yup, things were a whole lot different, way back in MY day.

Public sector workers continue to 'phone it in.'

For all of you who receive money from the public as your sole source of earned income, I have a question for you: exactly how much of your daily efforts actually benefit the public?
 

We, the public, want to know.  Since you are on our payroll, we expect results for our hard earned dollars that you are collecting.  And if you are a member of a public sector union, this question is manifestly important.  Your union organizers have a plan each and every year during contract negotiations with us, the public, to decrease your workload, increase your benefits and bullet proof your exposure to any pain during economic recessions.  This bullet-proofing includes no lay-off provisions in addition to any salary, wage or benefit reductions for any reason.

 Once your union has come away with guaranteed comfort for you in your working life, as well as your retirement (starting at age 52, perhaps), most of you public employees are feeling pretty good about life: guaranteed jobs for life, and no accountability for your job performance, since lay-offs are no longer on the table.  Accordingly, why work very hard?  There’s really no point to it, since it is irrelevant as to whether you perform well or not.  If you excel at your job, there is no additional compensation to reward your efforts, since your union bosses have already carved in stone your wages, regardless of your performance, based on how long you’ve been sitting in your chair, merit be damned. There’s really no accounting for your performance, so why not just ‘phone it in,’ once you have secured your public service gig?

 Public sector jobs are now the only available gig in the country that never have to cut back in hard times or do without when the economy turns south and in general share the pain of the rest of the population during hard times.  You are exempt from all of that.  And you never have to perform at even a modicum of decent output on the job. 

 In the private sector, the question is always on the table (whether it’s stated or implied): “just what have you done for us lately?”  To sit on one’s laurels and coast works great in the short term, but once the boss walks in and asks this question, there better be some production in the ol’ hopper or you’ll be sacked like a bag of dirt quicker than you can say ‘where’s the unemployment office?’  Every successful sales person who works in the private sector knows this.  It doesn’t matter that they were ‘salesperson of the year’ last year, and got huge commissions to go along with their great sales production.  The next year, they start out with zilch, zero nada on the books and have to produce, just like the next schmoe regardless of how great things went for them in the past.

 But not public sector folks, no siree Bob.   Once they get their foot in that door, it’s Fat City from that point on.  Especially if they are a member of a union.  Phoning it in is the way it’s done.  No negative consequences for bad performance or even no performance.  Just keep cashing those paychecks, courtesy of the tax money collected from us producers out here in the public.

 And you would think that these folks on the public payrolls would be grateful.  Nope, they are angry that they are now coming under scrutiny and demand that the rest of us just shut up and keep our wallets at the ready.  See this for yourselves as those ingrates form mobs to yell down the legislators who want to change this unsustainable system in Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Indiana. 

 We’ll see if this scrutiny as to exactly what we get from these parasitic public employees will change any behavior on the part of these blood suckers.  I suspect not, not until we eliminate their unions and demand that these ingrates start to perform, with accountability for under performance, as well as rewarding superior performance.

 Until that happens, these public sector slackers will continue to ‘phone it in.’

Would America be better off...WITHOUT YOU?

Did you ever consider asking yourself this question: is my existence a net gain or a net loss to my country?  Since you have never considered outright asking yourself this question, you probably  have not thought of how you fit in to our society.  If you are a titan/captain of industry, a small or medium business owner and entrepreneur, you know the answer to this.  You are a big, meaty net gain on our our country's profit and loss statement (or more commonly known as a 'P&L' to you liberals out there) and are the cornerstone of our economy.

If you have never worked a day in your life, and are on public assistance, food stamps, welfare and think government cheese is like manna from heaven, you also know the answer to this: you think you are ENTITLED to every measly scrap of government largess you can lay your sponging hands on.  And think you should get MORE. And you think you are the reason that America exists, and of course your value to society cannot even be measured, it's so huge.  In other words, you are clueless. 

This question doesn't take a lot of soul searching or staring at navels to obtain an easily objective answer.  Pull out your calculator, and start punching buttons:

• If you have a public sector job, subtract $100,000.00
• If you have a public sector job and are a member of a public sector union, subtract an additional $100,000.00
• If you are retired from a public sector job and retired in your 50's, subtract $750,000.00
• If you are retired from a public sector job, and retired in your 60's, subtract $500,000.00
• If you are retired from a public sector job, and retired in your 70's, subtract $100,000.00
• If you are retired military, but have a private sector job currently, add $100,000.00
• If you are retired military, and are 'double dipping' (have another government job), subtract $200,000.00
• If you are retired military, and have retired from your second government job, and are now collecting two government pensions and SSN (triple dipping), subtract $500,000.00
• If you have a private sector job, and have a 401(k),and don't plan on retiring until your 70's, add $1,000,000.00
• If you have a private sector job, retired and now have your savings and SSN: add $250,000
• If you have a private sector job, retired and are collecting a pension with SSN: add $100,000
• If you never really had a job, have always been broke and collect SSN, Medicaid and other public assistance, subtract $500,000.00
• If you are retired profession politician and have never worked a day in the private sector, subtract $1,000,000,000.00 (1 Billion). 

Now look at the number in the calculator's register: if it is negative, you are a drain on society.  If it is positive, you are benefiting society.  Pretty easy stuff to cypher.

There are lots and lots more scenarios, but I think most of you except liberals and professional moochers (and I am being redundant, liberals are by definition professional moochers) get the picture.

If you contribute more to society than you take, you are a net gain to our country, and we salute you.  If you take more than you contribute to our country and society as a whole, you are a net drain and subsequently a detriment to your country.  And you teachers, firemen, policemen, military and other public sector employees of this nature, feel free to calculate your benefit to society over your working years by the number of lives you have saved, lives you have effected positively and dedication to public service that you have rendered.  Only YOU know the answer to this and assign the value it deserves. 

In that case, after punching the buttons on your calculator and you find that you suck more out of our economy than you put in,  do your patriotic duty:  do your country a favor and drop dead now. 

I mean it.