The agenda of the useless.

“The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company... a church... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you... we are in charge of our Attitudes.”

Charles R. Swindoll

       We have all seen this quote, and I have always disagreed.  Partly because it is my nature to be disagreeable, partly because nothing so sunny could possibly be true.  Mostly it is because it is the biggest, fluffiest ball of crap ever committed to paper.  

       I say this because having an optimistic outlook doesn't actually change a damned thing.  It may help you feel better, assuming you have a high degree of cognitive dissonance, but it changes nothing.  Someone born to poor parents will not become rich by having a sunny disposition.  Someone who's car was stolen does not recover it by optimism.  

       All that is accomplished by spreading this manure is empowering useless people to feel vital.  We all work, or attend school, with someone who is completely worthless, but feel like they contribute simply by having  a positive attitude.  My attitude is awful.  But if someone wants a something done, done right, and done fast, they come to me.  

       In fact my attitude is best when those with a positive attitude are nowhere in sight.  When I'm surrounded by other grumpy people, all of us see an increase in productivity.  I am not talking only about my current position, but every job, and every school I've ever attended.  

       That is not to say everyone with a positive attitude is worthless.  I know quite a few people who are tops in their field, and unabashedly positive.  But even if they were the rule rather than the exception, to say that attitude matters more than fact is asinine.  

       I am also not saying that negative people are all productive.  Many are quite the opposite.  And a negative unproductive person is worse for morale than a positive unproductive person.  In theory anyway.  The negative unproductive person will never get an undeserved promotion because of their sunny disposition.

       Positive people get promoted more often, but look around your company, do they do a better job?  The people who take an honest look at the situation, and make the best of it, are a different class of people than those who only see the good.  It's well past time we acknowledge the difference.

A violation of civil rights.

       The constitution, as it was originally worded, left allowances for slaves, chattel, and indentured servants. Not too long after this was corrected, but not before many lives were made worse, by being treated as second class citizens.  Slavery was abolished but wrong-headed practices endured.  People were denied rights based on their ethnicity, country of origin, and sometimes even religion.
       Much later many brave souls stood up and declared that they would no longer tolerate this.  Such treatment was a violation of their civil rights.  They complained that whole classes, races, ethnicites, and even religions were being pre-judged as dangerous, or criminal, based on the actions of a few, with whom they were in no way connected.  Their civil rights were being violated.
       Apply this logic to what we see today.  The rights of an entire group of people, representing just about half of all Americans, depending who's chart you believe, are being told that rights guaranteed to them by our constitution, will be curtailed, or for lack of a better word, infringed upon.  This group is nearly equally represented by men and women, Democrat and Republican, young and old.
       Based on the actions of a infinitesimally small amount of people, and to combat a problem that represents 0.16% the number of drunk driving fatalities, some in Washington are seeking to ban a popular type of repeating rifle.  (FBI crime statistics.  18 fatalities from so called "Assault weapons", 10,839 drunk driving fatalities.)
       That's right.  The patent office recognizes semi-automatic firearms as a type of repeating firearm.  This means one trigger pull equals one bullet fired.  Semi-automatic is a bit of a misnomer, because it in no way can match the function of a fully automatic weapon.  The other thing to consider here is that to ban any type of firearm is a violation of every single American's civil rights.  The same as if they decided on a state religion, or to preemptively arrest all persons of African and Hispanic ancestry, because of statistical findings.  If reading that infuriates you, good.  Because it is no different.
       The numbers show we don't actually have any type of problem with those rifles.  Crime statistics show that there is absolutely no reason to act against any particular type of gun, but least of all what they are incorrectly terming "assault weapons".  Of all firearms used in the commission of homicides, let alone general crimes, those are used least, and by a huge margin.  The numbers are 92.73% of homicides committed with handguns, 6.99% with rifles, and 0.27% with what they call an "assault weapon".
       Stop solving a problem we don't have, and solve the ones we do.  You may have noticed that as a country, we are nearing insolvency.  Taking action against the law-abiding gun-owners is a violation of their civil rights.  The question here is why is the ACLU not involved?  Why are they not being called out for their hypocrisy in this?  Why are we allowing Washington to waste money we don't have, to solve a problem we don't have, and distract us from the real issues?

The President's agenda has changed. Or has it?

       You can say a lot of things about Barack Obama.  One thing you cannot say, (at least accurately) is that he is stupid.  While I disagree with a lot of what he has attempted to do; he has been the most politically savvy President in a long time.  I have previously, jokingly suggested that his agenda for 2013 was to sell guns.  I think now I have figured out what he is really doing, and I want everyone to hear it from me first.
       He assigned the biggest fool on the left side of the aisle, Joe Biden, to head up a commission (which I'm sure was a four-star, blue ribbon panel, since they all are) to look into possible gun-control solutions.  This is significant given Biden's role in the Brady bill, and his political nearness to extremists like Feinstein.
       Examine what a farce this panel has been already.  Meeting with the makers of video games, movies and television shows to discuss whether there should be gun-control measures.  Someone said this is like asking the makers of Hot Wheels their opinions on automobile safety.  I concur.  Considering how badly Hollywood and the gaming industry botch firearms in general, it is moronic to ask for their input.
       Unless your idea is to shake up your political opponents.  Here comes the NRA, the 2nd amendment foundation, and the whole of the Republican party, riding in on their white chargers.  They are yelling that guns are not the problem.  Mental health care and schools are the problem.
       The President, while taking V.P. Biden's suggestions "under advisement", meets with the NRA and the Republican leaders.  He ponders for a while, then declares that he thinks they are right.  Education and health care are what need to be fixed, not the private business of law-abiding citizens.  He then invites the Republicans, and those in the Democrats who previously voted against reforming health care, to join him in this noble cause.  To correct the issues that were his primary platform to correct.
       He will have forced the Republicans, and the Democrats who didn't vote for those reforms the first time, to gladly join him in reforming these things now.  In doing so he will have built a bridge between both parties. Brilliant, when you think about it.

Is Chris Christie too fat to run for President?

       I had heard this questioned being seriously punted around in the media, so I will present a multiple choice test here, with this as the only question.


1)  Is Chris Christie too fat to run for President?

   a) Yes.
   b) No.
   c) What does his weight have to do with anything?
   d) What kind of person would even think to ask that?
   e) Is that really what our political process has devolved into?
   f) He's too fat to run for anything.


How did you do?  Lets see by examining the possible answers.

a)  If this was your answer you are an unthinking moron who's voting rights should be removed.  I hope you die in a fire, while sitting in a filthy bathroom stall, with the most painful food poising you have ever experienced, causing explosive diarrhea.

b)  You might not be as big of an idiot as the person who answered a), but probably should have read further.

c)  Partial credit for having some sense.

d)  Partial credit for appropriate moral outrage.

e)  Full credit.  being disappointed with the whole process is the only intelligent response to such an asinine question.

f)  Partial credit for having a sense of humor about such a farcical process as our Presidential races.

Starting the year with an economic boost.

       Just before the end of 2012, the President gave a speech that praised republicans for ceding ground in the negotiations prior to the dreaded "fiscal cliff".  The same speech "damned by faint praise" his own party, and made mention of the need of both, to work harder to compromise.  He also stated that , personally, he would have liked to address all of the issues in one broad sweeping agreement, but that this congress was not up to that task.
       Given that he was seeing congress fail to do their jobs yet again, and seeing there was a tragedy that unfolded just after the start of the year, I would like everyone to consider the following tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory.
       A school shooting unfolds where many innocents are killed.  The country, and congress, lose focus on fixing our fiscal problems.  (which are boring and likely mean higher taxes or service cuts we don't want)  What if there were a way to use that tragedy to prevent the economic downturn that would happen, due to market uncertainty caused by congressional inaction.
       The president could have advised conversations about the possible need for gun control measures.  The response of the public is that those who do not care about guns, and those who want them banned, behave exactly as they always have.
       Those who enjoy shooting sports and hunting however, would react by going on a buying frenzy.  (which is exactly what has happened.)  The items they are buying are domestically produced, rather expensive firearms.  These are sold by the manufacturers to a distributor, and from there to the shop where Joe "Armed-Citizen" purchased it.
       Small business owners profit.  Distributors profit.  American Manufacturing profits.  The downturn in the economy, and the downturn in manufacturing are prevented.  A large portion of Americans start spending some of the money they had been hoarding, due to the fear of losing their jobs.  (for the second time, in many cases)
       Also there are those who were buying up the existing stock in an attempt to have a supply they could sell at huge markups, if there were a ban.  This scarcity drives up demand, and thus prices, even further.
       I'm not saying that the President turned that idiot Feinstein loose just to sell guns in a panic buying frenzy, thus staving off another recession.  But since that is exactly how it unfolded, perhaps we should entertain the idea that it was not an accident.

They all need to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress

       So here we are day one, 2013.  Back sometime last year we were made aware of a looming "fiscal cliff".  Congress, with their usual show of bravery, and willingness to address pressing issues, opted to put off making a decision until after the election season.  This is so any pain that was inflicted by a tax increase, or program cut, would happen after the selfish, greedy leeches had assured themselves another term.
       To be clear, I'm calling out both parties on this.  Both Democrats and Republicans voted to put off making the decision.  In a speech on the last day of 2012, even the President called out all members of Congress, of every party, for failing to reach a consensus of any sort.  He praised the Republicans for giving ground, but stopped short of calling out his own party for failing to.  The message was there though, neither side is doing their job.  Mark your calendar, I agree with a sitting President whole-heartedly on something.
       So here we are on the First day of 2013.  The automatic cuts, and automatic tax increases have technically taken affect.   Now Congress is scrambling to pass some sort of compromise so that we aren't impacted much.  A job that is many months old, many years overdue, and frankly should never have been allowed to happen to this country.
       So as a service to you, I have included a link above to the Wikipedia page with the names of every member of both houses.  They all need to go.  None of them have done their jobs.  So the next opportunity you have, vote the lazy bums out.  Try voting for a dentist, or a plumber, or maybe even an engineer.  We have given the rich and the lawyers, and even the rich lawyers their chance, and where are we.
       Coins make better decisions when flipped, from a statistical standpoint, because they land on their edge so rarely.  Congress fails to decide something every time it is presented with a choice.


       I know many of you were waiting for a post about the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban".  I might still write one.  For now though lets go back to 1994.  Prior to certain politicians defining what an "Assault Weapon" was, there was no such thing.  The same rifle, with one stock option was not an "assault weapon", and with another stock option, was.  No mechanical parts changed.  The rifle functioned the same either way.
        Those same people, wholly ignorant of firearms, save for how scared an armed, law abiding populace makes them, (food for thought) have waited in the wings for an opportunity to make another attempt at removing this right.  Guys, when you lose half your base (Southern Democrats), I don't want to hear how the Republicans biased the public against you.
       You are doing it to yourselves.

       Just like we are, by allowing any member of Congress who was sitting in 2012 to be elected another term.