Wednesday, September 28, 2011

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!

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

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.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

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? 


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.