Monday, July 16, 2012

You Didn't Hit That!

The New York Post reports that Obama wedding registry fund-raising strategy not a hit with brides.

Imagine that! In the scheme, Obama "asks couples to request campaign donations from their guests in lieu of wedding gifts."

Given my previous post regarding Obama's "You didn't build that" statement, maybe Obama could educate newlywed couples with a speech on the theme of "You didn't marry that!" or "You didn't hit that!" to make them understand that the couples really owe society -- especially the Obama campaign -- for their marriages.

Here's my sample speech. Just trying to be helpful, Barack, buddy, really. Because you didn't write those speeches on your own, you know!

“If you’ve married the love of your life, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart and so handsome. There are a lot of smart people out there.  There are a lot of handsome people out there. It must be because I wooed harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardwooing people out there.
“If you got married, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great wingman somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create those unbelievable romantic dates that allowed your love to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges for you to drive on to get to those dates. If you’ve got a spouse, you didn’t bag that. Somebody else made that happen,” he said. “eHarmony.com didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the dating companies could match perfect soulmates on the Internet.”

That will be a big hit, don't you think?

Sunday, July 15, 2012

You Really Want To Go There, Obama?

Obama to business owners: 'You didn't build that'
As a small businessman, I could respond to this huge slap in the face with a detailed rebuttal, citing the value of ingenuity and individual initiative and creativity, citing the incredible amount of hard work it takes to build a successful small business, and the value it brings to its employees and customers as well as its owners. But the heck with that. I won't waste my wisdom on anyone who is a big enough ass and a big enough idiot to make the proposition Obama makes. I'll just say this.

Fuck you, Obama. I goddamn well did build that. It's not yours. I don't owe you or the government anything I haven't already paid for. My teachers got paid, my laborers got paid, I paid all my taxes and all my utility bills. My balance sheet is fucking clean. My business would not exist if my wife and I hadn't created it and put hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours into it. I'm sure as hell not going to share credit for that. Fuck you.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

'Robin Hood Tax' insulting to Robin Hood

Lefties have been sullying the good name of Robin Hood for years by promoting the "steal from the rich, give to the poor" lines, when in actuality Robin Hood stole from the government and gave to the poor, but naming a tax after him is beyond the pale!

The citizens of Nottingham were suffering under excessive taxation by Prince John (to pay for King Richard's ruinous crusades and policies, but that's another topic), enforced by ye olde villain, the Sheriff of Nottingham.

So, naming a tax after Robin Hood, the great anti-tax champion of English myth, is Orwellian in its reversal of meaning.

The so-called Robin Hood tax is a 0.03% tax on financial transactions. I find it ominous that the Robin Hood Tax booster site's "How this Works" page is extremely vague regarding how this would be implemented and what financial transactions it would apply to. Also that the page uses the language of the 1% versus the 99% is a hint that this tax is more about class warfare than sound fiscal policy.

The page says "That money could provide funding for jobs to kickstart the economy and get America back on its feet." Hmm, really? Because it is the private sector that creates jobs, exactly how is it efficient to take money away from the job creators and filter it through the government in order to create jobs? Are there people out there who still believe that the government is the engine of job creation? The idea was ludicrous on its face even before it had been so thoroughly debunked in practice by the current financial crisis and the failed stimulus bill.

No, what that money will really be used for is to fund government spending, at the cost of jobs. It's simple fact, you don't take money away from wealth generators and expect to create jobs.

The page goes on "So it's time for justice for ordinary families and businesses. For American families faced with a choice between buying food or paying the heating bill." Again, really? How dumb do they think I am? I'm an ordinary American. Well, maybe not so ordinary, because I'm in the declining percentage that pays more in taxes than I receive in government services. I also own stocks, in my 401k, as millions of other "ordinary families" do. This tax will steal from my 401k and put no money in my pocket. It won't help pay the heating bill or the food bill (because I'm not on government subsidized HEAP utility payments or Food Stamps -- I pay for my own damn heat and food, thank you).

Nowhere does the page explain exactly how this bill will give "justice" to ordinary families or help them pay their heating or food bills without increasing their dependency on the state. Increased dependency is not justice in any sense of the word!

A tax on financial transactions would simply be deferred throughout the rest of the economy. If commodity trading is 0.03% more expensive for the traders, then commodity prices will be approximately 0.03% more expensive to consumers in order to account for the added expense! That means oil, gas, basic foodstuffs -- it will come right back and hit "ordinary families" in the pocket book.

 I work for a subsidiary of Boeing. If Boeing stock is 0.03% more expensive to trade, thus financially impacting Boeing, that hurts me, the Boeing employee. It hurts people who invest in Boeing and people who might be hired by Boeing. It hurts other companies that do business with Boeing. All it does is give more power to the government, which for starters has to take a cut of whatever money the tax generates to pay the tax collectors and regulators necessary to implement the law. Then the money gets spent by government on things that don't generate wealth or create jobs -- the "social safety net" that's looking every day less like a "safety net" and more like a net trap.

People don't need handouts, they need jobs, but every time you raise taxes you take money away from the people who create jobs and give it to the people who give handouts. Government handouts don't raise people out of poverty, they just make them more settled and comfortable in their poverty. Jobs raise people out of poverty. Companies, big and small create jobs, not government. Wall Street funds the companies that create jobs. Stealing from Wall Street is stealing from the wealth and prosperity of the nation.

Robin Hood would have had no part of this.


Saturday, July 7, 2012

The Oath


Playing Games With My Son's Life

My son will be deploying to Afghanistan again in a couple months and this week he made the off-hand comment that the Rules of Engagement have changed since last time he was there. Then, someone with a two-way radio was presumed to be a hostile and could be shot. Now, that person has to be presumed to be non-hostile.

We're not talking about someone strolling on their way to the grocery with a two-way radio to keep in touch with their kids. What every soldier there understands is that men with two-way radios are spotters. They're setting the troops up for an ambush or a manually-triggered IED. Now they have to just let those guys go, let them deliver their murderous message, and hope they can handle whatever is coming.

Bastards sitting safely behind desks in air conditioned offices made that rule. My son, in a dusty HumVee on a chunk of barren Afghani road, has to live or die by it.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Every Tiny Bottle Of Liquor You Take From The Mini-Bar Is A Slap In The Face Of Our Dear Leader!

Got this from barackobama.com -- they're having a contest for dinner with the President and First Lady. Beyond the assumption that I, a mere peasant, should be about messing my pants over the prospect of dining in Barack and Michelle's august presence, is the pettiness of the attempt at humor.
One of my responsibilities as chief operating officer of this campaign is to sign off on travel costs -- so I see every expense for a hotel room or plane ticket.

If you win Dinner with Barack, I'll be the one approving your flight arrangements from your town to your dinner with the President and First Lady.

Managing the logistics of these dinners is tough, but we do it because giving supporters a seat at the table -- literally -- is a huge priority for this campaign. You guys are out there knocking on doors, making calls, and working hard to re-elect the President. You deserve a thank you.

Plus, the donations you chip in make a huge difference in getting us ready for the long haul to November.

The contest ends tomorrow night -- so donate $3 or whatever you can right now to be automatically entered for a chance to join the President and First Lady for dinner:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Dinner-with-the-Obamas

And don't forget -- I see the hotel bills, too, so don't break in to that minibar.

Good luck,

Ann Marie

Ann Marie Habershaw
Chief Operating Officer
Obama for America

Seriously? Obama's travel bill and carbon footprint could support a small nation and you're needling me about the mini-bar?

"You guys are out there knocking on doors, making calls, and working hard to re-elect the President. You deserve a thank you." But you don't deserve the mini-bar!

Monday, June 18, 2012

Today We Learn That BDSM Is Racist

Adidas blasted over new 'shackle' sneaker

When I saw these things, the first thing I thought was that they were going to be popular in the lighter, more playful end of the BDSM community. Little did I know that these sneakers are racist!
Syracuse University economics professor Boyce Watkins:
"Shackles... the stuff that our ancestors wore for 400 years while experiencing the most horrific atrocities imaginable, most of which were never documented in the history books and kept away from you in the educational system, all so you would be willing to put shackles on your ankles today and not be so sensitive about it."
"I am offended by these shoes because there is nothing funny about the prison industrial complex, which is the most genocidal thing to happen to the black family since slavery itself," he added.

Because, you know, the shackles. Which means, logically, that all BDSM apparatus is racist, right?

Way more racist than some silly day-glo plastic shackles, right?
Way more racist than some silly day-glo plastic shackles, right? $130 at Hypnotic Steel Designs!
Tell me where I can find the flaw in my logic. Please.