'American Independents:' Dumbest of the Dumb

And we all thought Republicans are pretty dumb. Well, they are. But at the top of the heap of stupid citizens, one would have to put the American Independent as the dumbest of the dumb. .

When Independents are tracked down and asked about an issue, any issue at all, they will tell whoever asks that they have yet to make a decision because all the facts are not in, or that they will make up their minds on election day. They must weigh all sides of the issue equally, you see, and then come to an informed and wise decision on the matter. They are moderate and tempered, you see, unlike radical conservatives and left wingers whose extreme views are unacceptable.

.

That's just all garbage and hooey. Gobbledygook. Bunk. It's just not true that Independents weigh any facts, seek clarification or are indecisive because of incomplete information. The truth about Independents is that they are just plain idiots. Stupid cretins. Dolts. The dumbest of the dumb in American politics. And they lie about why they call themselves Independents: they tell you that they are 'middle of the road,' or 'moderate,' or better yet 'don't believe any one side.'

.

Don't believe any of that . They are simply lazy, stupid slugs. The most common answer a moron Independent comes up with in response to any political poll or question the vast majority of the time is 'duh, I dunno.'

.

They will not raise a finger to think about an issue, when the battle lines of conservative versus liberal policy views are right in front of their lazy eyes. 'Too much work,' they say to themselves. 'Tax and spend Socialist liberals?' 'Racist and mean spirited Republicans?' Ah, nuts to all of that work it takes to think about this stuff, they tell themselves. The Independent lazily believes that the truth must lie somewhere in the middle of all of this political blather in the ubiquitous commercials that they see on TV prior to elections. And of course they resent all of these commercials that interrupt 'American Idol' and 'Wipeout.' Can't these politicians understand that they have priorities in life? Enough with the commercials about taxes, immigration reform, national defense, blah blah blah. Just let us Independents get back to 'Jersey Shore,' and tell us how hammered Snooki got last night, and where she puked...this time.

.

They are simply totally uninformed, and do not want to take the time to educate themselves on the issues. When (and if) they go to the polls to vote, they do not have the slightest clue as to whom to vote for. They will often pick the first name on the ballot. Or, more likely, they will pick the more attractive of the candidates; women Independents most often choose candidates in this manner. They will pick the candidate with better hair, the taller candidate, or the cute candidate with the cleft in his chin.

.

And the Democrats know this. They understand the Independent. They actively market to the stupid, the dummies, the morons among us. That is why we consistently are ruled by Democrats year in and year out: they get it. Republicans don't. Republicans believe that people vote in elections after careful research into the positions and come to wise, balanced decisions.

.

Republicans better get with the program and call a spade a spade: Independents are dumber than a bag of hammers, and yet hold the keys to most elections. 40% of all American voters polled claim to be Independent or Independent-leaning. That's a huge percentage, and the Democrats know how to communicate with these dunderheads.

.

Suggestion: The GOP should start marketing to this stupid crowd effectively, using methods that resonate with the dumb: perhaps campaign literature written in crayon, and yard signs using finger paint; dumb things down to the Independent level. The Democrats already do this. The Republicans should take notes if they want to win the day in November.

Are Democrats smarter than Republicans?

I would argue that, given the political landscape and its makeup over the last 50 years or so, Democrats are indeed smarter than Republicans. Look around: polls indicate that around 40% of all voters consider themselves conservative or conservative leaning. 20% call themselves Progressives (liberals) or progressive leaning. That leaves the remaining 40% of squishy independent or independent leaning fence sitters.

All Republicans have to do to win an election is convince a measly 26% of the independents to join them at the ballot box, and the election is in the bag. Democrats, on the other hand, have to convince 76% of those squishy folks to vote their way each and every election, and yet election after election these days we see Democrats win the day.

How is this possible? The media, of course, is on their side, and that helps lots. In addition, the Democrats have inroads into academia and unionized activities, also helpful. Plus, all ACORN fraud and the dead folk vote pad the Democrat ballot.

.

Republicans have lots to learn from Democrats, but they resist getting down and dirty. Republicans are playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules, while Democrats are swinging two-by-fours and chairs in the fight over control of public resources. If a Democrat is charged with an ethics violation, they drag the proceedings out for a few years (Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters come to mind currently), all the while keeping them around and count on their liberal votes each and every issue. Republicans, when a minor amount of dirt is charged against one of their own, immediately throw the wayward GOP scalawag under the bus. No ifs, ands or buts - they are gone.

.

Who's smarter, politically speaking? Democrats, hands down. I wonder when Republicans are going to wise up?

.

I am not holding my breath.

'Don't Feed The Bums'

Many of you are familiar with our national park system, and the many signs always posted in Yellowstone, Yosemite and Grand Teton national parks “Do not feed the bears.” What happens when tourists hand out to mooching bears handfuls of goodies in their picnic baskets? You get more and more mooching bears. Bears are not stupid, and neither are professional bums, for the most part. And when I say 'professional bums,' you know who I mean; the scuzzy moochers who beg for money on every major metropolitan street corner as a way of life. Both of these populations - bears and bums - exhibit predictable behaviors: give them freebies, and the word spreads that freebies are afoot. Pretty soon, the place is crawling with moochers - both bums and bears. Speaking of begging, this phenomenon begs the question: just how do we as a nation go about dealing with our ‘professional bum infestation' in the United States these days? What should we do with them? Scoop them up and hose them off? Put them to work…? How about we just stop as a nation supporting the ‘bumly’ way of life? Like all living creatures, bears will choose the easiest way to survive, and not waste any unnecessary energy in inefficient ways. Scrounging for low caloric foods such as nuts, berries and grubs is highly inefficient when they have access to an alternative unending stream of tourists who toss them fat and sugar laden high caloric yummies such as turkey drumsticks, slices of cherry pie and Hostess Twinkies. With such feasts laid out in the parking lot for the taking, only the dumbest of bears are still out foraging for berries and grubs. The bears with any brains whatsoever are hanging out in parking lots and other places where tourists feed them like kings. When tourists feed bears at our national parks, these bears no longer forage for natural sources of food, but rather congregate in great numbers near their human benefactors, where they become at best a nuisance, or at worst dangerous. So it is with bums, and there is no perceptible difference between the behaviors of these two species of mammals. Like any other mammal, they will flourish in environments where the pickings are easy. And our professional bums are doing just that. They typically hang out where they are most visible, likely in urban settings, and beg for money from passers by. They are sure to make themselves look as pathetic as possible, and have their sad sack, down on their luck stories polished to a highly toned presentation. What happened to all of those bears that were congregating in the parking lots of our national parks? Once the park service started cracking down on bear feeding by clueless tourists, did we see bears dropping dead by the hundreds of starvation, clogging the parking lots with their dead corpses? Did the park service personnel have to stack up dead bear bodies like cord wood? Of course not. These bears, once the food supply dried up, simply moved on in search of better and more reliable fare. Governor Tommy Thompson (R-WI) started several programs such as these in Wisconsin several years ago, and once they were originally proposed, liberal bleeding heart opponents wailed and gnashed their teeth at the cruelty of such draconian measures, predicting that the homeless and forlorn would die in the streets in great numbers. Remember that prediction? They said that if these mean spirited measures were enacted, the loss of lives and mass starvation would be shocking.

What happened?

Bums no longer got hand outs from the state, but were required to start working instead. The bums in Wisconsin just started working, or moved out of state to where the pickin’s were easier. Governor Thompson just “stopped feeding the bums.” And we never saw any bum bodies stacked up like cord wood in alley ways, as they dropped dead from hunger. As usual, the liberal pinkos that predicted doom and gloom, death and woe for their homeless constituents were dead wrong. 'Don't Feed The Bums.' It’s as simple as that. We need more welfare to work programs, and a bit more ‘tough love’ with these moochers. When populations (bear or otherwise) are forced to mend their ways, they do so every time. But how do we change the climate here in the U.S. that has become used to feeding and tolerating “the homeless,” the “unsheltered” and those “displaced populations?” Like all liberal programs and ideologies, they were not embedded into our national consciousness over night. They were purposely and insidiously fed to us in bits and bites, incrementally increasing our tolerance of the bums in our midst to their current unacceptable levels over years and decades. We will just have to start to reverse the trend with public service announcements such as “Please Do Not Feed The Homeless.” Then in time work on placing more derision on these moochers among us as time progresses. We have to make the ‘bumly’ way of life an embarrassment like it used to be in the good ol’ days. Sure, there will always be bums, but just not so many of them. Our goal is to attach some shame to begging and mooching, rather than tolerate these moocher’s bumly way of life as an acceptable profession.

Once begging for a living no longer works, these bums will move on to other more productive behaviors, just like the bears did.

So just remember, 'don't feed the bums.'

Remember when they used to be called 'bums?'

They used to be called “bums.” The thesaurus also lists quite a few terms to describe what we used to call a “bum:” drifter, beggar, derelict, dodger, malingerer, shirker, slacker, gamine, ragamuffin, urchin, or waif. I’m sure that there are more names for these shiftless folks than Carter has pills, but the main topic of this post is a frank discussion of America’s losers who for whatever reason ended up in the American gutter after they were booted out of their last known domicile for a myriad of reasons. My working definition of a “bum” within the confines of this post is as follows: one who has no established residence and wanders idly from place to place without lawful or visible means of support. But they are not, according to politically correct folk (a.k.a. liberals), to be referred to with these pejorative, colorful and truthful terms anymore. No, they are the “homeless” or “unsheltered.” Or better yet, they are simply “displaced populations.” Do you know why the thesaurus didn’t spit out any of these helpful descriptions when I entered the term “vagrant” into the search? The thesaurus search did not display any of these new terms because they are in no way accurate in describing the losers who fit this definition. The people who came up with these new terms for America’s losers will have none of this “bum” business going forward. The word “bum” implies that the entire fault regarding the circumstances that led to the homeless person’s plight resulted from self destructive behavior on the part of the bum. This is not what these people believe. The liberal do-gooders and homeless advocates firmly believe that “there but for the grace of God go I.” Well, except that they don’t believe so much in God’s grace and all of that, these compassionate liberals and do-gooders think that each and every one of us could end up on the mean streets of America through sheer happenstance. These foolish do-gooders truly believe that many of us are just one paycheck away from losing our homes. They think that each and every one of those wretched homeless people you see huddled over hot air grates on the cold, New York sidewalks are good, hardworking souls who just fell through the cracks in the American dream. That these homeless souls are on the streets through no fault of their own, but rather are in their unpleasant situation because of circumstances beyond their control, and that the system didn’t cut them any slack. That kind of thinking is just so wrong in so many different ways. Bums become bums not because there are external and uncontrollable forces at work actively trying to take away the roofs over their heads, but more accurately because these bums had an active and conscious role in making their own roof over their head disappear. The true reasons for homelessness are many and varied, to include drug addiction, mental illness, alcoholism, extremely poor life decisions, just plain bad luck on rare occasion, and at times even willful and calculated preference to life on the streets. Allow me to sum up in one word the basic and primary cause of homelessness: irresponsibility. . But to think that the homeless people wandering the American streets contributed little or nothing to their current circumstance is just foolish. There are losers everywhere in the world. And there are factors completely within their control that are the proximate cause to the straights these losers find themselves in. To remove blame and scorn when discussing “homeless” people is to ignore reality. I still call them bums because that's what they are; irresponsible bums.

Fredd's Top Ten Sci Fi Flicks

Science fiction movies have come a long, long way since 'Godzilla' terrorized Tokyo way back in 1955. People walking around in big rubber suits knocking over cardboard buildings just don't cut it with the movie going crowd these days. With advances in cinematography and computer animation, Hollywood is able to bring snarling, hideous lethal aliens right into your living room....in 3 dimensional high definition terror.

Here are the best of the best Sci Fi flicks:

1. Robocop. By far the best all around entertaining version of what Detroit will look like in the early 21st century. In a future Detroit ruled by criminals, a metropolitan cop gets killed in action and his dead body is put to use in combination with a cyborg frame, and then armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. Cool, as my 9 year old daughter would exclaim. Cool, indeed.

2. A Clockwork Orange. Stanley Kubrick's demented version of the future has Alex and his droogs (buddies) looking for folks to pound in a post apocalyptic setting. Lots of senseless violence, and great camera work.

3. 2001: A Space Odyssey. HAL the computer runs amok and has to be put down in deep space. This dated yet awesome Stanley Kubrick flick has some outstanding special effects, considering it was filmed in 1968.

4. Alien. A seriously buffed Sigourney Weaver kicks some serious alien butt with the help of a futuristic fork lift. These aliens are virtually invincible, and when by sheer luck Weaver takes a piece out of them, they bleed sulfuric acid. Truly a bad to the bone monster in this one, and the sequels are pretty good, too.

5. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Ricardo Montalban plays a most thoroughly excellent bad guy, and the effects are great. Almost makes you want to root for Khan vs most of the original cast of the 60's TV series.

.

.

.

6. Contact. Nerd scientists monitor the radio spectrum for decades, seeking proof of intelligent life somewhere out there. Then they find it. Jodie Foster and Tom Skerritt are excellent in this one, and it almost makes you want to believe...

7. The Terminator. A killer cyborg (Arnie Schwartzenegger) travels back through time to kill the future leader of the human resistance to a machine controlled future world. I've never been much of a time travel premise believing guy, but this one works out much like 'Back to The Future.' Best line, delivered in Arnie's thick German accent: 'I want your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle.'

8. Star Wars. Fantastic story of the future, governed by a malevolent galactic fiend who controls 'the Dark Side' of 'The Force.' The good guys, using 'The Force' for good (of course), eventually prevail by blowing up the bad guy's mothership, and the evil Empire falls apart. It's all good, and the hero gets the girl.

9. Predator. A squad of elite commandos effect a rescue mission in the Central American jungles only to get picked off one by one themselves by an extraterrestrial human hunter, known to the locals as 'The Devil Who Makes Trophies of Men.' Best line, delivered by future Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura: 'I don't have time to bleed.' Also starring another future California governor, Arnie Schwarzenegger, as the cigar chomping, super buffed 'Dutch.' Casting includes another super buffed Carl Weathers (who played Apollo Creed in 'Rocky').

.

10. Jurassic Park. Highly entertaining Michael Crighton novel is brought to the big screen as rampaging Tyrannosaurus Rex's and velociraptors gobble down people left and right. Great, great special effects, and the premise is not all that unbelievable.

MSM uses good ol' 'Baghdad Bob's playbook

We can all recall the comedic reports from good ol' "Baghdad Bob" (a.k.a. Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf) towards the end of the second Gulf War. Ol' Baghdad Bob would put a happy face on every defeat and military blow that Saddam Hussein's crumbling forces received at the hands of a vastly superior U.S. military. His official title was Iraq Information Minister, and the 'information' he routinely put out there was anything but. More accurately, rather than information, ol' Bob would come up with misinformation, bald faces lies, propaganda, and if he were feeling somewhat truthful at the odd moment, perhaps spew some exaggerated spin on an event that did not go Saddam's way. One of his last broadcasts had him denying that U.S. tanks were entering Baghdad, and had Bob reporting that this armored U.S. force had been met at the border and were soundly defeated by the brave Republic Guard, who were in active pursuit of the fleeing and routed enemy, Allah be praised. And most famously quoted, good ol' Baghdad Bob predicted that those defeated U.S. soldier's 'stomachs were roasting in hell,' even as the unmistakeable roar of U.S. M1A1 Abrahams tank turbo diesel engines just outside his surrounded compound were almost drowning out his words at that very moment. Just like Baghdad Bob, our media refuses to report the truth as it bludgeons them upside their obtuse heads. Our economy is headed for the cliff, and yet they report a glorious 'recovery.' This recovery of the MSM consists almost entirely of government job growth, government spending, and government borrowing. All of which will kill any kind of 'recovery' if ever one shows up during this God awful administration ('regime'). New housing starts: down. Way down. New unemployment weekly claims: consistently in the 400 thousands, week after week after week after week after week after week after week after week.....you get the point. Consumer confidence: at all time lows. GDP growth for the 2nd quarter: ??? I am confident that the MSM will report a huge leap, when in fact it will likely be quite anemic or negative. There is no recovery going on. None whatsoever. There are more unemployed people in the United States right now than ever in our history. Yet the "Baghdad Bob" MSM will continue to report that the wolves at our doors have in fact been slain at the borders, and their 'stomachs are roasting in hell.' And yet in the backgound of their rosy red reports of beds of roses thanks to Obama's wise policies, we hear the howling of the wolves at the door nearly drowning out their gibberish.

Nobody in the military respects Obama

Gen. Stanley McCrystal has been placed in a position in which a precious few high ranking military leaders have had to endure: taking orders from a man-child like Barack Obama. This particular man-child does not like having to deal with anything of military concern, and in fact does not believe that the military is a necessary tool in dealing with matters of foreign policy. Obama is still of the mindset, much like Chancellor Neville Chamberlain seven decades earlier, that he can talk hostile foreign powers out of their aggressive plans against sovereign nations. His intellect will rule the day, his words and words alone will prevail upon all parties at odds, and all will be right with the world.

.

Accordingly, the decisions that are necessary in waging a war are incomplete, contradictory and delayed. Managing a conflict like the Afghanistan campaign under these conditions will of course generate some disgruntled comments, and not just from the command. Every boot on the ground knows that Barack Obama is possibly the worst commander in chief in our history. And the Obama jokes abound within the rank and file, from the general officers down to the lowliest slick sleeve private (E-1, for you those of you like Barack Obama, who do not know how to pronounce the word 'corps').

.

Having served under three commanders in chief (Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan), this author has also been privy to the disgruntled comments and jokes about the former top military guy, Jimmy Carter, during the Iran Hostage crisis in which Carter was completely ineffective and pathetic in his job as commander in chief. He must now be very happy to know that his legacy has moved up a notch, and is now only the second worst commander in chief ever. Barack Obama reigns supreme in that category, and will likely retain that honor (or more accurately, shame) in perpetuity.

.

The only mistake that Gen. McChrystal made in this sad affair was allowing a nefarious publication like Rolling Stone to get anywhere near the command structure for comments. Dissatisfaction with incompetent leadership has always been around, from the Roman Caesars to the current general grade officers in the military today.

.

The only situation in the past that even comes close to the disrespect among the entire military establishment of Obama today is when Nero was crowned emperor of Rome at age 16, and would immediately start lecturing the great Roman general Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo on how the military worked. This great general simply listened to this man-child rant and rave, responded 'Hail Caesar,' and marched on. But I'm sure the snarky jokes and disrespectful comments abounded in the rank and file, even way back when.

.

When Obama fires McChrystal, it will not change the military's disrespect for him. It will only replace him with another general officer who holds identical opinions as Gen. McChrystal, but who presumably will keep Rolling Stone reporters away from the officer's club.