Four months after the presidential election, another political convention took place on Sunday evening. This one was limited to a one-day session in Los Angeles. This annual assembly consisted of militant vegans, outspoken Christophobes, materialistic airheads, America-bashers, neo-Marxists and sexual deviants. Every year, they congregate in order to spout specious platitudes to the assembled audience and television viewers. Apparently, this yearly meeting had another purpose in the past but that has vanished under a sycophantic tide of paparazzi and reporters. The opulent outfits and outspoken opinions of the attendees dazzle the media covering the event in the same manner as dangling, shiny objects captivate dim-witted animals.
Over the course of the meeting, members bestowed statuettes on fellow participants. These golden effigies entitle the bearers to some time in front of an open microphone. Some speakers used their minutes to proselytize to the audience the wonders of Scientology, Buddhism or paganism. Others engaged in monologues bitterly bashing or grotesquely gushing over prominent politicians or recent elections. Rumors persist that these glittery anthropomorphic speaking invitations previously carried a different significance yet it seems that has been lost to history.
As usual, some recipients of the statuettes delivered noticeable speeches. One man brilliantly performed an impression of a spoiled brat indignant over the result of a ballot initiative in California. The speaker stopped just short of childishly screaming "Do over!" even though the issue on the ballot had been seemingly decided by two separate plebiscites approving of the initiative. He whined, "We've got to have equal rights for everyone." Of course, his performance recalled his portrayals of a useful idiot cavorting with dictators of Marxist regimes. Surely, the viewers laughed hysterically at the irony of someone demanding presumed unprecedented rights for some in one state yet singing the praises of autocrats that routinely deny widely recognized rights in other countries. He extols ideals of rights while spurning the right of a majority to decide democratically a resolution. His performance was so convincing that one must wonder if he realizes the inherent contradiction of his statements.
Mysteriously, one man received a speaking permit yet he did not attend. He had, in fact, fatally overdosed on prescription medication several months ago. Nevertheless, some members of his family accepted the invitation to speak on his behalf. They did not deliver a sanctimonious sermon or an effusive effort at conversion, an obvious violation of the organization's mandates. The actual hardware will be given to his toddler-aged daughter. Whether she will eventually receive a chance to perform a condescending and self-aggrandizing monologue at a future conference has not been determined at this time.
25 February 2009
18 February 2009
Fate and Faith of the Cult of Personality
Now that the Obama administration has achieved the passage of its much ballyhooed stimulus package, all that remains to do is witness the fallout from the socialistic ordinance/ordnance. The package promises to bailout those who purchased houses without sufficient income or cash to cover the monthly payments; in other words, people who never should have been allowed within sight of any mortgage-related agreement. The legislation contains other goodies to satisfy those with a hankering for income-redistribution.
What could Obama do that would destroy or even diminish the euphoria among his throngs of worshipers? These are not simply people who voted for him or actively supported his campaign. These are the dervishes that chant his name and slogans at the slightest provocation as one would expect from members of a religious cult. Sporting buttons featuring Obama's face on their lapels, they evangelize the message of "Change" with myopic zeal but no precise definition of how and what that term includes. These types ostentatiously display portraits of him created in the socialist-realist style whether on clothing or on artwork. These images and the fierce pride in their display eerily resembles the obsession of iconography in totalitarian regimes. This mania recalls such practices as the mandatory hanging of a photograph of Saddam Hussein in a prominent area of every Iraqi home during the Ba'athist regime, the substitution of any traditional greeting for "Heil Hitler in Nazi Germany or the universal attribution of any positive event in the Soviet Union to the existence of "Comrade Stalin".
Two obvious perils of this obsession exist. First, the increased usurping of more economic and social freedom will be ignored by his sycophants or labeled as some sort of politically incorrect "ism", thus summarily dismissed. Secondly, when increased seizure of financial control and personal liberty inevitably leads to sufficient suffering to awaken his devotees to the harsh reality, the glaring light of what their messiah has wrought will induce psychological breakdowns or disillusionment with any semblance of freedom or government which result in the pursuit of reckless extremes of anarchy or totalitarianism. These results will reveal the danger of merely pursuing change when intelligent improvement is needed.
What could Obama do that would destroy or even diminish the euphoria among his throngs of worshipers? These are not simply people who voted for him or actively supported his campaign. These are the dervishes that chant his name and slogans at the slightest provocation as one would expect from members of a religious cult. Sporting buttons featuring Obama's face on their lapels, they evangelize the message of "Change" with myopic zeal but no precise definition of how and what that term includes. These types ostentatiously display portraits of him created in the socialist-realist style whether on clothing or on artwork. These images and the fierce pride in their display eerily resembles the obsession of iconography in totalitarian regimes. This mania recalls such practices as the mandatory hanging of a photograph of Saddam Hussein in a prominent area of every Iraqi home during the Ba'athist regime, the substitution of any traditional greeting for "Heil Hitler in Nazi Germany or the universal attribution of any positive event in the Soviet Union to the existence of "Comrade Stalin".
Two obvious perils of this obsession exist. First, the increased usurping of more economic and social freedom will be ignored by his sycophants or labeled as some sort of politically incorrect "ism", thus summarily dismissed. Secondly, when increased seizure of financial control and personal liberty inevitably leads to sufficient suffering to awaken his devotees to the harsh reality, the glaring light of what their messiah has wrought will induce psychological breakdowns or disillusionment with any semblance of freedom or government which result in the pursuit of reckless extremes of anarchy or totalitarianism. These results will reveal the danger of merely pursuing change when intelligent improvement is needed.
11 February 2009
Bailing out More Millionaires?
Mirroring the disturbing trend of businesses which are struggling financially, the professional football and basketball teams in New Orleans expect to receive subsidies from the government of Louisiana. (http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9205212/Louisiana-faces-Saints,-Hornets-cash-payments?MSNHPHMA) Even during an economic boom, one could expect antipathy to governmental contributions of cash to private entities, particularly to such unessential enterprises as professional sports franchises. Given the declining economy, such assistance offends many taxpayers to the utmost.
Although the deal with NFL's Saints and NBA's Hornets were signed during the governorship of Murphy "Mike" Foster, it now falls to Louisiana's Governor Bobby Jindal to handle to dilemma. Jindal is considered one of the rising stars among Republican office holders. He is facing a situation that will test his commitment to fiscal conservatism. His unequivocal statements about the dire fiscal situation of the state would not square with multi-million dollar remunerations to a franchise worth 937 million dollars in the case of the Saints (http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/10/nfl-team-valuations-biz-sports-nfl08_cz_kb_mo_0910nfl_land.html) or to the Hornets worth 285 million dollars (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/32/nba08_New-Orleans-Hornets_328959.html). He must weigh the loss of potential sales and income tax revenues from the presence of the two teams against the withdrawal of cash from the state coffers. Additionally, he must decide whom would he would rather alienate and risk losing their votes for his re-election: fiscal conservatives as opposed to die-hard fans of the Saints or the Hornets.
This situation demonstrates the folly of subsidizing any private business with taxpayers' money. The state's residents would rightfully howl in protest of this funding of entities whose most prominent employees receive a minimum 310,000 dollars annually as NFL rookies or 457,588 dollars for NBA rookies. The owner of the Saints, Tom Benson, has been subtly threatening for several years to relocate the team before Hurricane Katrina. The owners of the Hornets have already shown willingness to uproot their franchise as evidenced by their move to New Orleans from Charlotte. These and far too many professional franchises prefer to demand outside funding instead of generating more of their own profits then threaten to bolt elsewhere until a ransom is received.
As for a solution, Jindal and the legislature should pursue alternatives to a simple transfer of state funds to the sports franchises. Reductions of taxes that adversely impact the two teams' finances should receive consideration. These cuts could be on sales taxes on items sold at the teams' venues. The absurdly high prices on food and other items could be lowered enough by eliminating the sales taxes to entice more fans to purchase these items, thus driving up profits. Finally, Jindal must not cave into threats of relocation. These franchises are unlikely to find any other city willing to accept them and their hefty demands for public funding, especially now.
Although the deal with NFL's Saints and NBA's Hornets were signed during the governorship of Murphy "Mike" Foster, it now falls to Louisiana's Governor Bobby Jindal to handle to dilemma. Jindal is considered one of the rising stars among Republican office holders. He is facing a situation that will test his commitment to fiscal conservatism. His unequivocal statements about the dire fiscal situation of the state would not square with multi-million dollar remunerations to a franchise worth 937 million dollars in the case of the Saints (http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/10/nfl-team-valuations-biz-sports-nfl08_cz_kb_mo_0910nfl_land.html) or to the Hornets worth 285 million dollars (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/32/nba08_New-Orleans-Hornets_328959.html). He must weigh the loss of potential sales and income tax revenues from the presence of the two teams against the withdrawal of cash from the state coffers. Additionally, he must decide whom would he would rather alienate and risk losing their votes for his re-election: fiscal conservatives as opposed to die-hard fans of the Saints or the Hornets.
This situation demonstrates the folly of subsidizing any private business with taxpayers' money. The state's residents would rightfully howl in protest of this funding of entities whose most prominent employees receive a minimum 310,000 dollars annually as NFL rookies or 457,588 dollars for NBA rookies. The owner of the Saints, Tom Benson, has been subtly threatening for several years to relocate the team before Hurricane Katrina. The owners of the Hornets have already shown willingness to uproot their franchise as evidenced by their move to New Orleans from Charlotte. These and far too many professional franchises prefer to demand outside funding instead of generating more of their own profits then threaten to bolt elsewhere until a ransom is received.
As for a solution, Jindal and the legislature should pursue alternatives to a simple transfer of state funds to the sports franchises. Reductions of taxes that adversely impact the two teams' finances should receive consideration. These cuts could be on sales taxes on items sold at the teams' venues. The absurdly high prices on food and other items could be lowered enough by eliminating the sales taxes to entice more fans to purchase these items, thus driving up profits. Finally, Jindal must not cave into threats of relocation. These franchises are unlikely to find any other city willing to accept them and their hefty demands for public funding, especially now.
10 February 2009
Bewildering Pursuit of Bipartisanship
President Obama has been attempting to convince Republican members of the Senate to support his "stimulus package". He has not been dissuaded in his effort despite the fact that no Republicans in the House of Representatives succumbed to his pleas for support. His efforts beg the obvious question: Why bother?
Due to his victory in November, Obama claimed a mandate for change as he sees fit. To further bolster this claim, his supporters point to the increase in the Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress. Democrats have no need to beseech Republicans in the Senate. The numbers reveal the reality of the balance of power. Even if eight Democratic senators defect and oppose this legislation, the administration still has the winning card, a vice presidential casting of the tie-breaking vote, up its collective sleeve.
So what is the true purpose of attempts to lure some Republicans on board this ship? It will cruise up Pennsylvania Avenue whether or not the minority party helps unfurl the sails or tries to drop the anchor. No flimsy "spirit of bipartisanship" argument will not pass the "smell test". Politicians who reach the lofty status of membership in Congress or the Presidency have not achieved such powerful positions by gratuitously helping their opponents without some quid pro quo or ulterior motive in mind.
Since the Republicans find themselves in a debilitated minority status, only one explanation for the Democrats' efforts in seduction would make sense. Republican support for the bill, even if only a token gesture by those labeled as "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only) would give Obama and his party some reassurance. Those Republican votes would be deployed as cover when the economy further collapses following passage of the pork-laden package. Republicans' efforts to blame the anticipated continual economic decline on this bill would face a counterattacking salvo of "Republicans supported the bill too!" if any of their membership voted in favor of it. Even though those retorts would lack credibility since the bill was not Republican-originated nor widely favored among their members, that will not dissuade Democrats and their allies from screaming that refrain early and often.
If the Republicans have any hope of changing the current power distribution in the mid-term elections, they must differentiate themselves from Democrats. Unanimity in dissension, even if ultimately futile, will not go unnoticed by fiscal conservatives. Craven catering to further expansion of socialist welfare agenda would merely convince past supporters of Republicans that George Wallace was right: "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties."
Due to his victory in November, Obama claimed a mandate for change as he sees fit. To further bolster this claim, his supporters point to the increase in the Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress. Democrats have no need to beseech Republicans in the Senate. The numbers reveal the reality of the balance of power. Even if eight Democratic senators defect and oppose this legislation, the administration still has the winning card, a vice presidential casting of the tie-breaking vote, up its collective sleeve.
So what is the true purpose of attempts to lure some Republicans on board this ship? It will cruise up Pennsylvania Avenue whether or not the minority party helps unfurl the sails or tries to drop the anchor. No flimsy "spirit of bipartisanship" argument will not pass the "smell test". Politicians who reach the lofty status of membership in Congress or the Presidency have not achieved such powerful positions by gratuitously helping their opponents without some quid pro quo or ulterior motive in mind.
Since the Republicans find themselves in a debilitated minority status, only one explanation for the Democrats' efforts in seduction would make sense. Republican support for the bill, even if only a token gesture by those labeled as "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only) would give Obama and his party some reassurance. Those Republican votes would be deployed as cover when the economy further collapses following passage of the pork-laden package. Republicans' efforts to blame the anticipated continual economic decline on this bill would face a counterattacking salvo of "Republicans supported the bill too!" if any of their membership voted in favor of it. Even though those retorts would lack credibility since the bill was not Republican-originated nor widely favored among their members, that will not dissuade Democrats and their allies from screaming that refrain early and often.
If the Republicans have any hope of changing the current power distribution in the mid-term elections, they must differentiate themselves from Democrats. Unanimity in dissension, even if ultimately futile, will not go unnoticed by fiscal conservatives. Craven catering to further expansion of socialist welfare agenda would merely convince past supporters of Republicans that George Wallace was right: "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties."
06 February 2009
Loon with a Huge Womb
Nadya Suleman, the woman in Whittier, California who recently delivered octopulets, has become the latest example of a lunatic on the loose in American society. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/04/america/04octuplets.php?page=1) The fact that this unwed woman was already a mother of six children deserved to be a cause for concern. Six children would strain the energy levels of a married couple, if not, totally overwhelm a typical husband and wife.
Now this deranged woman has more than doubled the number of lives depending on her. The American taxpayers, especially those in California, will end up paying for this woman's selfish irresponsibility. She possesses neither employment, a husband nor a Kennedy-sized trust fund. Therefore, the plethora of socialist governmental programs disguised as altruism will prop up her egotistical irresponsibility.
"She loves children, she is very good with children, but obviously she overdid herself," Angela Suleman, the grandmother of the octuplets said. Nadya Suleman overdid herself?! A women who has scheduled visual, dental, gynecological, psychiatric, chiropractic and proctological appointments in the same day has "overdone" herself. What did this woman has done qualifies as deliberate and criminal child abuse, or at least, neglect. Her mother's statement has already secured the title "Understatement of the Year 2009".
Incredibly, this idiot was working as a psychiatric technician in a hospital until less than a year ago. One can only hope that her psychosis was not contagious and not transmitted to the patients at this hospital. She should have inquired into any psychological aid available, not the reproductive services, of her employer.
If any positive effect results from this situation, it would include stricter laws restricting artificial insemination. Preferably, an outright ban on the practice deserves to be enacted. This procedure abets women, homosexual or heterosexual, who deliberately want to deprive children of fathers. That practice harms children and society in general. Just one consequence of this behavior is the majority of prisoners in the USA grew up in homes without their fathers. The satisfaction of their misandrist whims has turned into a burden and affliction that society must no longer tolerate.
To paraphrase Gloria Steinem's favorite saying, Nadya Suleman needs children like a fish needs a bicycle.
Now this deranged woman has more than doubled the number of lives depending on her. The American taxpayers, especially those in California, will end up paying for this woman's selfish irresponsibility. She possesses neither employment, a husband nor a Kennedy-sized trust fund. Therefore, the plethora of socialist governmental programs disguised as altruism will prop up her egotistical irresponsibility.
"She loves children, she is very good with children, but obviously she overdid herself," Angela Suleman, the grandmother of the octuplets said. Nadya Suleman overdid herself?! A women who has scheduled visual, dental, gynecological, psychiatric, chiropractic and proctological appointments in the same day has "overdone" herself. What did this woman has done qualifies as deliberate and criminal child abuse, or at least, neglect. Her mother's statement has already secured the title "Understatement of the Year 2009".
Incredibly, this idiot was working as a psychiatric technician in a hospital until less than a year ago. One can only hope that her psychosis was not contagious and not transmitted to the patients at this hospital. She should have inquired into any psychological aid available, not the reproductive services, of her employer.
If any positive effect results from this situation, it would include stricter laws restricting artificial insemination. Preferably, an outright ban on the practice deserves to be enacted. This procedure abets women, homosexual or heterosexual, who deliberately want to deprive children of fathers. That practice harms children and society in general. Just one consequence of this behavior is the majority of prisoners in the USA grew up in homes without their fathers. The satisfaction of their misandrist whims has turned into a burden and affliction that society must no longer tolerate.
To paraphrase Gloria Steinem's favorite saying, Nadya Suleman needs children like a fish needs a bicycle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
