Skeet Figthing Man

Does he or doesn't he?

Union Concerns Over Obamacare

Was Obamacare the answer?

Business were the first to say no.

Now unions who supported it.

I would love to know more about what were the conditions in Canada prior to health care act. Very little information on this. If anyone knows please, I'm all ears.

Welcome To My Fascism

Rahm Emmanuel's request that TD Bank stop doing busines with Smith & Wesson is something that should concern us all as citizens in the West.

If this is not fascism whereby the government is infusing itself between two private companies, I don't know what is.

Already, we hear outlandish claims in defense of this interventionism on the grounds that TD are "banksters" and Smith & Wesson are "murderers." Idiotic logical fallacies.

This is the rationalism that's supporting and driving gun-control policy?

Both are legal entities. Both entered a legal contract to do business with one another. Neither is breaking any laws. Both provide services people want. If they don't want to do business with one another, then that's their choice - AND ONLY THEIR - choice to make.

The government can interfere in ANY product if it so chooses. Just find the right tragedy to exploit and presto!

Honestly, both companies should flip the bird to the Constitutional abusers and flunkies in the Obama administration.

This is nothing but ignorant mob thuggery at work. Hey, no big deal Smith & Wesson has deep roots in American business and law enforcement. So what! They make guns and guns are evil!

I could go on and on. This whole debate and comments about it cuts right through what's become of our natural rights as citizens.

But that's for another time. Presenting an argument about how the welfare state enslaves us is one that demands much thought.


NYT: Free Fall From Grace

More priceless hypcocritcal trash from the New York Times.

Talk about "it's ok when our side does it." Apparently, two wrongs make a right in liberal-land.


That paper can't die fast enough.

Question: How is this not an example of liberal bias in the media?

Pauline Marois: An Abject International, Treacherous Embarrassment

Just when you think you couldn't shake your head anymore when it comes to the hilarious escapades of Pauline Marois, she manages to outdo her own arrogant stupidity.

This time, she felt compelled to offer unsolicited advice to Scottish leader Alex Salmond which was politely rebuffed. Look, most of us know how the Scots must have reacted to Marois's antics. I'm sure they don't feel they have much to learn from Quebec.

The world has nothing to learn from the PQ. Trust me on this one.

There's no intellectual currency to this. It's just another reason to poke fun at the PQ.

The thing that is most unbecoming of this diplomatic faux-pas is if the Brits pulled such a stunt here, the PQ would be foaming at the mouths whining and screaming interference.

While this wasn't much news in Scotland, it is here. It was a ratheroutrageously comical move on the part of Marois. It's one thing to make Quebec look small, and quite another to drag Canada into it.

The aura of self-importance she exudes here only looks more frail abroad.

It further solidified my perception of the PQ being a clueless bunch of hick yokels.

I'm not going to get into the details as to why Quebec is NOWHERE near like Scotland (except in the minds of the dreamers in the separatist camp) but one has to notice the delicious irony in her courting English-speaking people. But knowing the separatist mind, they'll find a way to rationalize this with verbal sophistry.


And, oh, fuck you Mulcair and the NDP.

Fuck you in the ear with a spoon.

You need the Clarity Act you fuckheads. Stop playing effen games you clowns.

From the link at the top of the post:

"...Linda Fabiani, the member of Parliament for East Kilbride, was asked about the 38-word question put to voters in the plebiscite over whether Quebec should leave Canada: “Do you accept that Quebec should become sovereign, after having formally offered Canada a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the legislation on the future of Quebec and the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”

Ms. Fabiani called the question “complicated.”

No fucking kidding. Understatement of the year.


Sexual Abuse Among Teachers And Priests

Are we too focused on the Catholic Church when it comes to molestation?

It does seem we don't see the same outrage when a teacher commits this crime. When a Priest does it, the entire legitimacy of the Church comes under scrutiny. It would be the same as questioning public education. No?

Someone made a point in the threads child abuse happens just as much in the Protestant Church - if not more.

Obama Matches, If Not, Surpasses Bush On Civil Liberties

Greenwald on 'who is the worst civil liberties president in history?'

Of course, Lincoln is the one with the biggest issue with the Civil War. To his credit, he acknowledged he was impeding on State rights.

As for Obama v Bush. Obama has taken it up a notch. Just like spending. Not enough for you? How about 95 examples?

Obama seems a little too willing to threaten to bypass any body to get what he wants.

Norway should be proud.

Anyway. I'm glad he slapped Matt Yglesias's ass a little. Yglesias is the liberal pop-intellectual du jour with a penchant for plastic commentary that sound profound on the surface but don't carry much depth.

Even Ralph Nader has a huge problem with Obama.

Yeah. Wake the fuck up, Samuel Jackson!

Don't Let The Facts Hit You On The Way Out

Why am I not surprised?

FBI: Background checks highest in 14 years.

From the top: Security. Theater.

About unintended consequences...or is it civil disobedience?


Jimmy James: The Constitution An Advertisement For Liberty!

Love Newsradio.

As for Lisa's comment:

It's (advertising) inherently deceptive maybe because we accept deception?

How Do You Define Fascism?

In the wake of Feinstein's "common sense" security theater bill and Berlusconi being eviscerated (by the left of all people) for praising Mussolini, comes this neat little tidbit by way of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Seems like the good mayor is:

"...Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is putting more pressure on gun makers to get behind his push for an assault weapons ban and criminal background checks for gun purchasers.
This time, he wants to go after their bottom line.

Emanuel is pushing two major financial institutions to stop their financial backing of gun makers, unless those companies support “commonsense reforms, including requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales.”

The mayor is urging that banks to stop lines of credit, financing for acquisitions and expansions and financial advising...."

What you have here folks, since we didn't witness it unfold the first time around, is naked fascism wrapped up in progressive gibberish.

All this nonsense, and still no real statistics to back them up. Just vague lamentations appealing to "common sense." That they believe "no one needs such and such a gun" is not a reason to ban (and eventually confiscate) them.

Fascism is the merger of corporate and state interests.

It's something the Obama administration has been excelling at to adoring crowds.


About poor Silvio. Already under stress about not likely being able to bring Real Madrid's Kaka back to AC Milan, he made the grave mistake of putting in a good word for Benito.

The thing I find most hilarious (and depressing) is the left and their reaction.

Right. That's rich.

Last I checked, it was the left that consistently supported and praised ideologies like socialism, Nazism and Communism (like in France, Italy and Germany) in the 20th century. In fact, it's exactly because of the disintegration of humanist and classical liberal thought that led to this vacuum (one in which conservatives warned against.).

From artists to naive politicians alike, they fell on the wrong side of history and they have the gall to attack Berlusconi? Say what you want, but Mussolini wasn't quite the murderous fiend as seen from Stalin, Hitler and of course, Mao.


Being liberal is never having to say you're wrong or sorry.


Contrasting Videos Of The Day: Randy MarshAnd Bruce Springsteen

As in best of...

Love this clip of Springsteen and Van Zandt singing 'Sherry Darling' from the making of Darkness on
the Edge of Town.


The Opinionated President

At this point, why doesn't the President just issue an executive order creating the country in his own image?

I can't recall a President or Prime Minister who offers so many opinions and comments on subjects beyond his realm.

The President shouldn't be using his office in this manner. It's indirect intereference in a private enterprise. He's not an authority on such matters.

Perhaps he should continue to focus on the economy, foreign policy and other far more serious problems his administration faces. Parents and the NFL will regulate itself.

"If" I had a son...he uses that a lot.

Must be that super-brain at work.


Night Watch-Man State

Essay titled Reinventing the Night Watch-man State?

It focuses on the debate of privatizing the police.

What is the Night Watch-Man state?

Greece Can Only Help Itself

A case for why Germany should help Greece.

The interesting part of the discussion is the fact that Greece, if helped, needs to change the way it does things and that can only begin from within. A case I made here before.

One important point made was that while West Germany benefited from aid after WWII, it DID change. The result being it lead to an economic miracle. Even Italy experience its own miracle. These countries went on to produce some of the world's great products.

Greece is in no such position and seems prepared to stubbornly cling to its failing ways.

Germany can bail it out and throw all the money in the world at it, but it won't do anything if Greece remains unchanged. It will find itself in the exact same spot again down the road. In other words, Germany doesn't want to enable Greece.

And so far, I don't see any interest on the part of Greeks to want to clean up its act.

As for comparisons to Germany, the U.S., and even Italy, it's ridiculous. Greece is nothing like those countries. It's essentially an agrarian, tourist based economy while the others are industrial powers.

The bottom line is the excuses will have to stop at some point.

Interesting comment in the article's thread:

"I spent close to 10 years in Greece, during those years I was not questioning if the economy is going to collapse it was when is going to. The middle class, doctors, lawyers, landlords and shop owners by the government accounts were paying between 7-9% in taxes. Everyone was hiding incomes and no one wanted to make them pay. Close to 40% of the population were living on government jobs, 57% of women did not work, the education system had built a double layer of schooling (they call it frontistirio, privately run classes that did not pay taxes). Government workers were striking to get weekly hours limited to 35. Utility companies, phone companies, ports and many others were own by government. Unions were striking against privatization of large state own companies, even though EU it was pressuring them to do so. Most probably the author of this article belongs to the segment of Greeks that still think Germans own them for damages during WWII. Instead of analyzing the reasons and finding internal solutions for their country’s problems they keep asking Germans to bail them out. They did that for 30+ years and what happen? Greece has fairly decent infrastructures, they have a good educated class of engineers, doctors, lawyer, economists, they have all needed to reverse the last 40 years they screwed up. This will happen only if they start finding solutions inside themselves. I hope they do."

The truth is, while the days of the welfare state are numbered for all Western countries, Greece's problem is unique to their own internal issues and no amount of bail outs will ever fix that.

Worse Than Bush

From SE.

Sycophants, infantile idolatry, and shameless followers without a shred of curiosity of what this President has accomplished in the theater of war. The reason hypocrisy is rampant in their camp is because they were the most vociferous voices during the Bush era. Now. Silence befalls them.

They never gave a shit about peace or innocent lives turns out. They cared only for their views defined by narrow ideological ideals. Alas, they have no ideals. A major criticism of Bush was that he acted unilaterally (not exactly true given he did get support from 36 countries) in Iraq (despite having Congressional approval). Nonetheless, the people were valid in questioning the wisdom of going into Iraq (I was not one of them admittedly). As Greenwald points out in the video, Bush was also severely criticized for detaining citizens without due process.

Obama has unilaterally taken that a step further by secretly approving assassination program. Killing people without due process is NOT the same as detaining them - which was wrong in itself.

Shit, I'm all for going to kill those cockroaches but not like this. This is plain unconscionable. Some transformational figure. In this way, he's worse than Bush. Just like the economy is worse under Obama, his military actions are actually more egregious - if you can believe it - than Bush.

Jeremy Scahill of The Nation doesn't hold back calling its actions for what it is: Murder.

The mightiest nation in world history so admired by many, is acting like a tyrannical thug. The only difference is a man with a suave tongue - and joke of a Nobel peace prize -  is keeping people from admitting it.

What's he "fixing" exactly? All I see is the enhancement (spending, tax increases, military action etc.) of previous policies with ONE significant piece of legislation - Obamacare - that the majority of Americans didn't even want.

He's Bush 2.0.

Which begs the question, if the arguments above are accepted: If Bush was the "worst" President in history, what is Obama?

Ladies and gentleman, the President of the United States. Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

Small little tidbit, great as he was, MLK was also, apparently, an adulterer. He was HUMAN. So let's not make him a Saint either. That being said, decency? This is a President who without shame, used kids as props to push gun control. As for Romney being a "catastrophe" that's just projection. And one I reject. We don't know so why insert it to strengthen your argument? He governed Massachusetts. Was that a "catastrophe?" Would he truly have been worse than the guy in power now? I'm not so sure.

Facebook Goes Censor Police

But I bet you, if he had written about Israeli corruption not a peep from Facebook.

Whoa! But the slobs and finks in the PLO and Palestine, don't touch them! J'amais.


And really, is what the journalist reporting that surprising?

So now Facebook is on the political censor caravan?


Rand Paul Is The Crazy One; Canada's Terrorism Problem And Other News Items

It's all a ruse. An illusion of safety. Kids standing behind Obama appealing to your emotions. Oh, but we have to do something and dammit we will!

From Reason:

"...Dicker quotes a Cuomo administration official admitting, "Many of these assault-rifle owners aren’t going to register; we realize that." Which means that state officials were merely posturing rather than entirely ignorant of history when they penned the law and jammed it through. As I've written before, gun laws traditionally breed massive levels of non-compliance — even in places where you might think people have no strong history of personal arms, or of resistance to the state, When Germany imposed gun registration in 1972, the country's officials managed to get paperwork on all of 3.2 million firearms out of an estimated 17-20 million guns in civilian hands. Californians may have registered as many as ten percent of the "assault weapons" they owned when that state imposed registration in 1990 (though the New York Times put the figure rather lower, at about 7,000 out of an estimated 300,000 guns covered by the law)..."

The weird thing is they know it's a long-shot. So what's the cost? Less freedom.


The President talks about tackling the deficit. Cost of his inaugural shindig: $170 million.

A real leader committed to cost-cutting would pull a Calvin Coolidge (putting 'Cool' back into the Presidency!) and go to bed after being sworn in. Being President is not meant to be a celebrity act. It's a duty to the United States.


It's nice to see some groups hitting back at the silly soda ban in NYC.


I may have my qualms with how Quebec handles certain issues including business, but I do think the law is correct when it comes to marriage. Quebec has the right law in place governing unions and alimony.


The cold hard truth, I'm afraid, Canada is no stranger to terrorism indeed. On the heels of a CSIS employee raising concerns of a possible inside threat within the agency, a sobering article about this subject in the BBC.

Friday Night Music: John Coltrane

Crazy stuff. Neat video.

Daycare Update: Groups By Age

I understand the idea or theory it's best, so it's argued, to keep everyone of the same age in one class or group. The thinking goes, you relate best with people of the same age group.

However, it seems contrary to everything I've experienced and observed in life. There are plenty of kids (and adults) who get on with people of different ages. Obviously, values, common interests, character and personality, maturity (or lack thereof), geography, all play a role in determining who you "hang out' with.

Think of the mature girl in high school or the immature guy in school. And while schools have no qualms holding back a kid for a year (or jumping them forward if gifted), I don't understand the commitment to this theory.

I imagine there exists schools that employ a different philosophy?

Right. Not if the government legislates against it.

I wasn't a fan of state education prior to getting into daycare and my time in daycare certainly hasn't changed my opinion. In fact, it solidified it. My aunt owns one of the last pure pre-schools in the province and the government tries its best to find ways to shut her down.

God bless her renegade soul. But I worry the tyrants will get their way one day. It's a matter of time.

Much of the rules, regulations and laws on the surface "make sense" but they bog businesses down in red tape for nothing more than anything. Worse, in Quebec, they publicly display where you "miss" a policy requirement. A way of shaming daycares. Sure, it's meant to help people but too much of it is blown way out of proportion and context. Besides, parents will be much more forgiving of a subsidized daycare that has a poor track record than of a private one. After all, it's cheap at $7 a day.

Aside from putting pricing and wages completely out of whack, government run daycare also prevents private operators from really blossoming and creating their own philosophies. The Quebec government doesn't have a philosophy no matter how well it presents its papers and documents. It's nothing but a collection of American and European theories pasted together.


This is not the point of my post.

The point is daycare groups kids by their ages. For example, 0-18mths, 18 mths-24ths etc.

But kids are not robots nor are they piece of predictable construction paper. They all move at different paces. Sure, there are general rules of growth that must be observed (biology and all that, including potty training etc.)

The government is strict about this. If you have a kid who is 16 months but is clearly capable of being in an older group, this can lead to some problems with the inspectors. What should be a decision between parent and educator is really an unsolicited three-way process involving a bureaucrat.

I don't understand why they don't leave private day care alone. There's no reason to subject us to draconian paternalistic rules that impede us and benefit the subsidized programs.

Why not let us blossom? If one daycare thins multi-age groups, then let the market determine if it's a good or bad idea?

I'm just speaking in general terms of course. My overall point is the government loss to formalize everything into a one-size fits all concept believing it to be best for society as a whole.

Bunch of alchemists if you ask me.

Pauline Marois in a recent article made the ridiculous claim, in an effort to defend more government intervention in daycare, that more complaints are levied against private daycare. Naturally, the state has to step in and save the day. We get the picture, private enterprise bad "pour la societe."

It's the trend on the continent - engaging in "redistribution of economics"

Of course, they rarely - if ever - produce evidence of this but if it be true, it's not surprising. Think of it, if you pay $40 a day your demands will be more than if you were paying $7. Ergo, complaints will generally follow. It's like anything else. You want bang for buck.

Conversely, parents will tolerate horrid conditions in daycare solely based on the cost.

We know the cost of everything and value of nothing - and the state only helps to cement this.

Hating The Rich

Mickelson's curse:

"...Something has changed, even as our society has become wealthier. Sure businesses have to comply with regulations and millionaires need to pay taxes, but somewhere we’ve shifted from honoring success to envying it, from viewing government as a limited tool to achieve a few necessary things (infrastructure, enforcing the rule of law) to seeing it as the be-all and end-all of our society.

But the scorn should be expected. The state uses a static model for calculating revenues. It assumes that if you raise taxes by, say, 20 percent that the state will get 20 percent more money. In the real world, people move to lower-tax places or work less or hide more of their income, and the government gets 20 percent of a smaller pie.

If wealthy people keep leaving, then the state will have to pare back its budget. Perhaps the backlash against Mickelson is a sign of desperation by those who understand there might be limits to how many golden eggs the geese keep laying..."

I don't get it either. I don't know why a guy like Mickelson gets evicerated for stating a simple fact. A fact so logical to anyone with a modicum grasp of how to invest cash. Money moves silently around all the time in reaction to government policy that threatens earned wealth.

Here in Quebec, it's a well established fact money is "parked' by investors waiting to move it to Ontario because of the PQ. Who in their right mind would want to forego more on, say, capital gains taxes?

Quebecois elites are as bad as their counterparts in Massachusetts. The former prevent their subjects from going to English schools while they send their own children to either English or American schools, while the latter ask for their subjects to pay more taxes while shifting around their luxury items to avoid paying those same (or proposed) tax hikes.

Above that, and it's been a consistent theme on this blog, there's a meek envious streak among peopl these days against all things wealthy. Some will say, "it's not the rich we hate, it's those who inherit and do nothing we have a problem with!" Meanwhile, the same people won't extend that logic to, say, poor people who sit on their asses all there collecting welfare.

It's a problem because policy is being formed around this attitude.

Heck, Obama (that transformational figure - I hate the word, makes me think of tyrants) constantly plays that shtick. For all his weaknessess, I don't recall the dreaded Bush focusing so much empty rhetoric on dividing people under the guise of the "greater good."

Meh. It got him elected for a second term.

Reilly Is Hurt

Holy shit this piece about Lance Armstrong by Rick Reilly is terrible.

And that's saying a lot given the mountains of bad articles by Reilly.

"Among my emails Wednesday morning, out of the blue, was one from Lance Armstrong.

Riles, I'm sorry.

All I can say for now but also the most heartfelt thing too. Two very important words.


And my first thought was ... "Two words? That's it?"

Two words? For 14 years of defending a man? And in the end, being made to look like a chump?"

Can't stand seeing people use nicknames in what should be a professional relationship. Can't stand it. Anyway, it's been very well documented and reported that Armstrong is a supreme, arrogant, narcissistic jerk. That "Riles" got an apology is rather remarkable. Or was Riley also in denial about that too? That's one more than hard core cycling fans who had posters of Lance hanging over their beds. Unless, Riley had one too. One would think he was tearing up as he typed this stuff.

Riley made himself look like a chump because he willingly chose to be deceived. Even with all the doubt that mounted over the years, you mean to tell me not a shred of skepticism entered the guy's head? He couldn't be bothered to at least investigate it further? Fuck.

For a guy in his position, (with all his awards no less) and all the access to information he is privy to there's no excuse what's so ever to be pulled in by Lance. None.


"...But here's the thing. When he says he's sorry now, how do we know he's not still lying? How do we know it's not just another great performance by the all-time leader in them?
And I guess I should let it go, but I keep thinking how hard he used me. Made me look like a sap. Made me carry his dirty water and I didn't even know it."

Oh, now he starts to ask questions? Are you a professional or not? Used you? What are you, 13?

And why is this about him anyway? He sounds like a girl who willingly chose to fall in love with an asshole. Boyfriend, "Hey, bitch go get me my beer." Reilly (to shocked onlookers), "He's stressed out."

Look, I've been fooled before. I believed Mark McGwire was hitting those home runs all on his own natural gifts. I believed Joe Paterno couldn't possibly cover up something so grisly as child molestation. I bought Manti Te'o's girlfriend story. But those people never looked me square in the pupils and spit.

Ah, yes. You weren't alone. Legions of bozo writers got roped in. Many of them feel so scorned (used to use Reilly's term) they probably took their revenge by not voting for McGwire at the BHOF. Never mind they should have done their jobs in the first place.

It's partially my fault. I let myself admire him. Let myself admire what he'd done with his life, admire the way he'd not only beaten his own cancer but was trying to help others beat it. When my sister was diagnosed, she read his book and got inspired. And I felt some pride in that. I let it get personal. And now I know he was living a lie and I was helping him live it...."

It's best to recall ESPN pays Reilly millions for this stuff.

Not hundreds, millions.

Millions to play the part of the jester and fool.

Romneycare: You Mean It's Not Free?

Been following Massachusetts politics for some time now. Wow, I thought Quebec was bad, but Massachusetts has got to be a rival. Move over Bruins-Canadiens, there's a new rivalry in town!

Deval Patrick has governed over some of the most outrageous characters in his government from Dookhan to that chick who was a big shot in the transportation department only to be a reckless driver herself.

Now the people of the Commonwealth will start to see the true cost of Romneycare. Is this a harbinger of things to come with Obamacare?

Then there's the whole tax issue.


"...To help this bad medicine go down, Mr. Patrick would lower the state sales tax to 4.5% from 6.25%. He says the sales levy "is widely regarded to be the most regressive tax that states impose," which is funny given that Mr. Patrick is the same guy who raised the rate to 6.25% from 5% in 2009. Then he said raising the rate was essential to pay state bills and wouldn't hurt the economy. Now he says it's regressive and must be cut...."

I'll let you sit on that. It truly is a magical mystery ride trying to get inside the mind of the liberal elite on Beacon Hill.

Anyway. The above paragraph made me think of the character Mr. Darling in Barrie's novel Peter Pan. Darling was a "deep one" who knew stocks. "Of course no one really knows, but he quite seemed to know, and he often said stocks were up and shares were down in a way that would have made any woman respect him."

And so it is with politicians. Obama, or any politician for that matter, is Mr. Darling. They know how to make the irrational sound so rational.

All this and he, Patrick, apparently wants to give free college tuition to illegal immigrants.

Once again from the top: Taxes are INEFFICIENT.

The Romans said, "the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt a society." The same can be said with taxes. The MORE taxes and laws you have, the more likely, when people get off their bloody asses, corruption is present.


Eveyone's a monster and racist with the left.

Rand Paul is taking heat for asking some pretty basic and valid questions first to the utterly incompetent Hilary Clinton and now to the person expected to replace her, John Kerry. Man, the Democrats just love recycling mediocre talent.

Clinton failed to answer the question and so did Kerry.

"...Above is a great conversation between Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and the failed 2004 presidential candidate, who got his start in public life by (rightly) denouncing the Vietnam War in which he had served. Among the basic questions that Paul asks of Kerry: If the U.S. was wrong to bomb Cambodia without congressional authorization (and it was), then why was it A-OK for Obama to join in bombing runs over Libya?

Another excellent question raised by Paul: Why are we sending big fancy fighter jets to Egypt even as the leader of that country is going full Capt. Queeg, with a fixation on the Jews standing in for obsession about stolen strawberries?"

Rand asks TWO incredibly important questions that get at the heart of an incoherent American foreign policy. TWO questions certain to outrage the left. TWO questions that get right at the heart of Democratic hypocrisy. If Bush's legacy is tied to Iraq and lies (despite Congressional approval), how is it any different with Obama who chose, like a King, to bypass Congress? Isn't this a threat to the integrity of the Constitution?

/That old rag?

Why is it, Kerry? Right. "Fuck you, because we say so." Got it.

Predictably, rather than further the question, the media is going off erecting all sorts of strawman. Apparently, Rand is "riling up the base." As if Obama doesn't "rile his base up" with all sorts class warfare junk. But isn't that what most politicians do anyway?

Liberal: "You monster! You racist, awful, awful, undignified man! That's Hilary. The most popular political figure in America! Show some respect! John Kerry is a man of utmost credentials. A modern St.  Francis of Assisi! Why do you lack so much humanity? You reptilian asshole! Imagine asking such questions! We workd three jobs (sniff, sniff), I have to face those people when the coffins arise. I am an American patriot....These attacks..."

Paul: Fine. Fine. But you can you answer the question please?"

Keep hammering Rand. Keep hammering the bums.


Nice conversation in the libertarian section of the WSJ. When arguing with liberals, it becomes painfully clear the libertarians are not the extremists. To me, it's rather basic, common sense thinking.



What's The Difference?

What's the difference about anything after the fact, right?

The mind boggles.

Clinton's body language, emotional posturing and smirks wasn't helping matters.

And then there's the whole "blame the video, but we didn't say it" crap.


Washington Is Coming

...not the British children!



You heard me.

Looking out the window for polar bears and sea lions. Preferably if nature permits the food chain unfold as it should before my eyes.

Rambo Teachers And Mickelson's Tax Concerns

States push ahead with arming teachers.

It's interesting. As the government pushes for one thing, the people are acting differently.

Does it mean they agree with the NRA's position?


Predictably, Phil Mickelson is taking a pasting for his complaints about high taxes.

Of course, also predictably, I agree with Mickelson (and Depardieu). How much is enough? He didn't need to apologize. It's funny. We tend to pick and choose which opinions we tolerate.

So much for freedom of speech...I guess.

It's irrelevant they are millionaires. They're entitled to their opinions as well.

I don't know at what point we got on this anti-private, anti-rich, anti-free enterprise narrative but we're on that track. And don't tell me we're not. Just listen to Obama's feel-good-fuzzy collectivism. It's socialism by other means.


I hate golf.


President Obama To Assign A Bureaucratic Angel To Each Citizen



Je Suis En Amour: Super Brain

Hello shit.

What's up with Maureeeeeeen Dowd?

Obama's "super brain?"

He's so super he's the superest of all the superian super-brains ever created by God.

Man. They really do want a cape for the President.

He will have written the best political memoirs since Ulysses S. Grant?

They're hopeless. They're not capable of any rational, objective thought regarding his Presidency.

Just let the batch run past expiry and hope the next in aren't this bizarre.

As I told my liberal friend - who is fond of comparing America to a decadent Rome but is satisfied with Obama's performance - Obama is no different than the mediocre successive line of emperors left behind by Augustus (thanks to an apathetic population) that ruled Rome; they included Tiberious, Germanicus and, ahem, Caligula. By then, the Republic had long ceased and Rome entered a dictatorship maintaining an empire on the decline.


Since I put it that way, Obama is super-brain after all!


Companies are sitting on cash. I think that will continue the next four years. There's talk that Biden is serious - gulp - about running for the Presidency in 2016. If that be, they may sit on it (Sit on it, Potsie!) still some more.

This Blog Needs More Diversity

I don't know the culture of the NFL so I can just assume.

But this "diversity problem" discussed by John Clayton at ESPN in the NFL and the need to "refine" it make me queasy.

All I know (and I do find it unlikely in this day and age any entity of any kind would actively practice racism) from what I've learned in life is that racism is not always a one-way street. The second you enact policy to "equalize" a perceived wrong it comes at the expense of another. Thus racism and prejudicial practices becomes a two-way street.

That you're intentions are good doesn't make it right.

As for the sublte racism part, good luck with that. Subtle racism is so subjective anyone of any color, stripe, creed etc. can practice it. Think Obama never joked with his friends in the past about "whitey?"

Also, that the league is 70% black doesn't equate to the necessity to have 70% black coaches. That's false logic. 100% of the owners are white. Point? See how silly it is to throw stats around without any real context? Obama is the President/ Not enough! Make all Congress more black!

Diversity sure; where merited. Diversity for its own sake no way.

Fall Of The West Reason 5, 868 677 224 445 009

This is why I tend to ignore those "Gender equality" stats that the Nordics seem to excel at.

They're mostly meaningless as they at some point become a means to an end.

But Denmark is taking it to absurd, insane, idiotic levels. Equal haircuts for men and women? Fucking idiots.

As I said about Quebec, why not just NATIONALIZE EVERYTHING? Why have free-market principles and pricing? Why let the market decide? Hang on, you DO realize we don't have a free-market, right? What the left bashes about capitalism is really cronyism, right? I don't expect a person who never had to price a product, measure supply and demand and/or cut a pay cheque to grasp it either.

The EU has lost its mind when it comes to social engineering and we'd be wise to go the other way.

We're screwed because you KNOW this is coming to "progressive" California - and then the rest of us.

Reactionary Moderns

I'm telling you, there's gonna be a revival in Calvin Coolidge. I remember reading about his Presidency and wondered why it's not discussed more.


About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."

Quoted for damn truth.

This fetish for central authority Obama pushed yesterday is going to run - hopefully - its course. Then America's resurgence will really begin.

Here are some quotes from Obama:

"But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; "

No clue what that means.

"that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action."

Ah. Yes. What pages is that in the Big Book Of Marx? Or communism?

And my personal enigmatic favorite:

"For the American people can no more meet the demands of today's world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. "

The guy is one gigantic false dichotomy. What the heck does he mean here? That collectivism leads to better technology? I don't get it.

No wonder I avoided the TV yesterday opting to read Sherlock Holmes instead.

Obama The Messiah

This is why I have a huge problem with the left and its depiction of Obama. Witness the "Second Coming" cover on Newsweek. Try and tell me these folks are objective. More like a teen-age crush.

Or a cult. I can't tell anymore. Didn't see this under Bush at all.

I honestly don't see the fascination. Especially when I see him compared figuratively to Jesus. It irritates me to no oned because that's bad. Real bad in my view. Says a lot about how they view Jesus.

Moreover, I for the life of me can't tell the difference between he and Bush. And spare me the "compassion" crap - just look at Bush's record on the matter - which is more akin to liberalism - and his executive orders.


Atari Not Big Enough To Fail

What? No bail-out love for Atari; the company that helped my generation turn into video game fiends and fanatics?

Wait. What's the union membership of Atari again?

Easy Economic Budgetary Lesson

This was emailed to me from a friend.

American economic budget explained:

U.S. Tax revenue: $ 2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $ 3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $ 14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Remove all those bothersome zeros to make it look like a "normal" household budget:

Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Total budget cuts so far: $38.50

Keep using that credit card. Because it hasn't been refused yet doesn't mean you have money. You don't have the luxury of a "budget ceiling to increase."

Keep voting in the people who use the credit card the same way.

Any questions?

Middling Political Musings

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."George Bernard Shaw

Watching Obama speak to the drones and his "This time it'll be different!" speech I offer the following: Things I know will happen under Obama:

1) No spending cuts.
2) Higher taxes for all Americans.
3) Sluggish employment.
4) Nothing on Kyoto or climate change.
5) More divisive class warfare.
6) A strategy of blaming the extremists in the GOP.
7) Gun control agency that will add up to nothing. I will apply my "Superhospital" theory here.
8) The maintaining of the military and drone strikes.
9) Blame Bush.

Yahoo! readers are having none of his "our journey is not complete" speech.

The government will take care of you alright; just like the Natives. Remember them?

I know we can do it! So long as the government tells you how!


I don't get the annoying Manti T'eo story. Either he was a victim or he's gullible; like millions of people. Besides, didn't the President have fictional composite girlfriends in his books?


And from Canada. Justin Trudeau is hammering on the "Harper has no vision" line. What would he do instead? "Reach out to Canadians." Wtf? Grown men with vision don't use vague terms like this.

How you gonna reach out to me, Justin? By bashing Harper?

In any event, be wary of people with "visions." They rarely end up good in the end. Liberty tends to be a casualty since having a vision generally means social engineering.

Nobody has visions; just illusions.


I get nervous when I see poets and artists slobbing over political leaders as we've seen at the inaugural. Why? Because they're usually attracted to dictators and the like.


Last the PQ want to add another 13 000 CPE spots in daycare. I thought the 15 000 just (crookedly) doled out were the last (since the government really can't afford it) for daycare. I guess not. Does it occur to them there are private daycares out there that have obligations to rent, mortgages and loans to pay off? Families are behind these enterprises.

They're going to put people out of business but boy they're going to want their tax money nonetheless, eh?

At this point, Quebec should just nationalize itself. It has no self-respect and self-belief anymore - like all of North America and we're gonna get four more years of "you didn't build that" and "you don't need that" rhetoric. The people have been conditioned to believe the government should take care industries of "national concern."

So be it.

Private enterprise and entrepreneurship is under severe duress on the continent. Unfortunately, the majority of voters don't seem to notice; or care.

It's a disease this addiction to progressive programs we have no money for.

There's Talk And Then There's Action: Action!

Like awards ceremonies I can't watch Presidential inaugurals. They annoy me. All that superficial crap it too much for this tiny brain to handle.

Reality. Reality I like.

Like Duck Dynasty. Man those guys are funny.


Maybe I Have A Whole New Career Waiting

As the dedicated reader of this blog knows I wrote here that my pre-season Super Bowl picks were the Ravens and 49ers.

Guess what?

Baltimore and San Francisco are in.

Shoulda put money down. Damn. Wonder what the odds were.


Decline Of Liberalism Began Long Ago

Two subject matters I'm engaged in these days are Rome and Liberalism; specifically the degeneration of liberalism. I listen to contemporary political liberalism and I don't recognize it. I don't connect to it. It's a cultish, monstrous, hideous love fest for Leviathan.

John H. Hallowell was a Conservative historian. He wrote Ethics when he was 28. Link to essay at JSTOR below. I selected some quotes (and odd comments) here:

"...Liberalism, as conceived integrally, acknowledged no limitation, upon individual will, except that imposed by conscience."

Good Lord, have times changed. "Conceived integrally" meaning the liberalism founded during the Renaissance (based upon, among other things, ideas from the Christian church. I know. Shock!).

"Of the factors which have contributed most to the decline of liberalism as a dominant ideology (integral): two emerge with particular clarity: the infiltration of positivism into all realms of thought and the gradual disappearance of individual autonomy and initiative in social and economic life. Both have led to the formalization of liberal concepts and of the repudiation in thought and practice of the fundamental postulates in terms of which liberalism was originally conceived."

On the growth of democracy"...the varied rights of man were threatened with submergence in a single right, that of belonging into a popular majority, or more accurately, of being represented by a legislative majority."

"The liberal state (Rechsstaal) is no longer conceived as a state founded upon justice to each but simply as a state that issues its commands in legal form. The individual is no longer declared to be free from all unjust compulsion but simply free from all illegal consumption.

I don't know how anyone can observe what's going on today and not conclude the same.

"Problems that were once individual problems amenable to individual solutions have become social problems requiring social solutions."

As I've argued before, we rely way too much on government for even small problems. We've gone from wanting to care for individuals to essentially enabling them and when we attempt to revisit these programs it is charged those who do so "lack humanity." We've completely weeded out the value of individualism, and Hallowell argues, this must necessitate the fall of liberalism.

ETHICS:The Decline of Liberalism, John H. Hallowell, 1942.

**You will have to register at JSTOR to read part of this essay. I am pleased JSTOR has made available some of their articles to the public.


Lewis Mumford from Faith for Living on "pragmatic liberals."

"Their color-blindness to moral values is key to their political weakness. Hence, they cannot distinguish between barbarism and civilization...Refusing to recognize the crucial problem of evil, the pragmatic liberals are unable to cope with the intentions of evil men. They look in vain for mere intellectual mistake...Evil...has no positive dimensions."

The 20th century history is replere with major liberal miscalculations. From Italy to Nazi Germany, liberals usually picked the wrong side. They couldn't "see" the evil plans of Hitler. They didn't see because the moral compass of the relativist outlook prevented it.

If I understand Lewis, relativism and liberalism merged.

What passes off as "liberal" today is really something else. More along the lines of progressivism or socialism but it's not liberal in its classical sense. Too much faith in the state and too little in the individual. Hence, the reliance on coercion legislated by laws to "control" the aspects of man they can't control. Consent is meaningless to them.

Niemyer: In proportion in social conditions create a type of individual incapable of autonomous and independent decisions, individuals lose the faculty of judging the value of political actions by a yardstick of non-political derivation. Political power, being the instrument of the centralmost coordination of social energies becomes identified with his existence. He ceases to be aware of standpoints from which to measure the value of political facts, other than their political successfulness. All this tends to eliminate the humanistic criterion of value from our system of social standards."

Want to help people? I argue reject modern liberalism which is just a method of enslaving people to the government.

Heck, they're downright hostile to the notion of permitting individuals to solve their own problems. Pick up any liberal website and you don't have to go far to see this. It's no surprise, in reading this, why liberals are incapable of believing - perhaps because of their own cynicism - individuals can solve their own problems or be "trusted" to make "proper"decisions. My liberal friends tell me this all the time; that man can't be trusted ergo better to offshot power to the state than leave it vulnerable to say, corporations. It's a remarkably cynical view if you ask me.

Hallowell wrote this in 1942. The fall has only accelerated since then like a meteor about to crash land on a planet.

Do Your Homework Before Paying On The Internet

The best way for us consumers to learn about companies (heck, life in general) is to get burned. Eventually calls for government action and intervention will increase as the stupid will demand to be protected from the jackals.

I realize I don't possess the "humanity" of a liberal but fuck that.

When exploring and browsing the internet a lot of information can be culled about websites and companies. It takes time however well worth it. There should be no excuses. And where you get bagged joining that phishing site that suckered you out of $49.99 don't cry to the Feds or your local politician. Quietly take it as a learning lesson. I know, I worked for one of these scammers for four months.

The internet can be a vigilant self-regulating (and effective) entity and community (crazy notion given the apparent anarchy) but you have to do you part too: Caveat Emptor. Better known as Buyer Beware.

Look it up, it's a Roman classic.

Kids Letters Sent To The President

These are other smart kids that should help form public policy.

Dear Mr. President,

I care a lot about people. When are you going to make compassion law? Benny, 7 in Vermont.

Dear Mr. President,

Me and my daddy like to make hot-dogs everyday. But then my daddy lost his job. He says his shitty company wasn't "important" enough to get a big ass bail out. Now me and my daddy don't make hot-dogs anymore. Why did you take our hot-dogs away Obama? Jenny 5, Arkansas

Dear Mr. President,

When are you gonna stop killing kids with drone strikes and when are you gonna "man up" about Fast & Furious? You can't have gun control for the masses and not for you! It's illogical!

(This message was removed by the Secret Service. The parents of Lamatilda have reported her missing).

Dear Leader,

I don't ever want anyone I love to die. Ever. My mommy was killed in a car accident - she was drunk as a loon - but I want to know when are you gonna get these damn cars off the roads! Jake, 36, Kentucky.

Dear President,

I'm addicted to chips and sugar. I can't stop. I'll only stop when Michelle helps me! Ban chips! Heather 8, Iowa.

Dear President,

In my "Diet for champions but everyone is a winner class" I learned broccoli is a miracle vegetable. When will you make it mandatory for people to buy broccoli? Jackson, 7 Jacksonville

Dear President,

Common sense and love. That's all you need I always tell mommy and daddy. You the man paesan! Gaetano, Illinois


Quirky Quebec

Apparently, the language czar attached to Anglo affairs (whatever the fuck the title is) Jean-Francois Lisee has publicly stated the STM is not prohibited from offering English services to clients.

Gee. Some normal response from the PQ finally. It's a rare sighting. Like Big Foot.

The STM claimed Bill 101 prevented them from speaking English to people. In the process garnering some negative publicity among some of its workers who took issue with some English speakers.

I want you to stew on that for a second.


Think how bizarre this is. A law prevents people from acting...civil to one another? No one in the STM was capable of standing up and saying, "Look, we have to do right by people. Our jobs is not to be political but to offer a SERVICE. In that public service, we meet people from all over the world. We want to project a proud and respectful Quebec. Not a parochial one fearful of another person's language. Do right by people."

How bloody hard is it to do the right thing?

Everyone stood around shrugging their shoulders until the government said it was ok?

This is a civil society? If this is not paternalism I don't know what it.

Lisee says all the right things. He seems to be catching up on all the grievances that have been built up for quite a while.

Problem is the actions of his party point to exactly the opposite.

Action speak louder than words.


The social malaise is so silly that I was at a chicken place earlier this evening and we noticed on the fans/ovens several stickers reading "Safety First." We joked about how long before some jackass hardline Quebecer complained and snithed on the company to the OLF for its English trangfressions.

We laugh a lot at the PQ and the OLF.

Abstract Of The Night

The Pathological Politics of Criminal Law.

Foreign Maple Leaf Invades $20 Bill

Not that I would ever notice, but apparently it's a Norwegian maple leaf on our $20 bill.


No one thought to ask "hey Gordie, better make sure this is a native Maple Leaf and not one of them damn foreign ones"?

Does Canada have a check and balance anywhere? My Lord.

I keep writing the government about putting a smoking beaver on a unicycle giving what appears to be the middle finger to the Queen but I never get any response. Wonder why.

If not, why not just a green piece of paper with a 2 and a 0? In the zero you can make a smiley face.

Or isn't about time to promote the Scotsman on the Canadian Tire bill?

I got plenty of ideas.


Obama's Values

For a guy people claim to be intellectually advanced and not all that comfortable with "political propaganda" using those kids was rather dispicable if you ask me.

It was one gigantic cynical appeal to emotions. It probably worked too.

That spoke volumes of their belief system.

While we're at it, newspapers publishing names of fellow citizens putting lives at stake for lousy ideology is equally hideous.

You may not like people owning guns but you have no right to break the public trust in this manner.

More On Gun Control

One from the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control.

And here. Which offers another factual perspective.

It's worth it. Now git.

I will pick away at one of the many arguments used by the anti-gun control group. Tyranny. As in protection against tyranny of the government.

On its surface, this notion seems crazy and irrational. Come on, the gov'mint aints gonna comes and attacks youz!

Well, they do. History demonstrates it does. Not in a military sense but they do bully citizens - see the video below. The state can and will destroy lives if it deems necessary. You see, the state is made up of people. People are sometimes driven by greed and ambition on the public side, not just the private side. And while they're entrenched in power, they can wreak havoc for the silliest and most arcane of reasons.

Aside from that, for an ideology that keeps hammering about the dangers of repeating history, the cold, hard fact remains the logic used by liberals to dismiss the tyranny argument was applied in the late 19th century and early 20th centuries with the rise of anarchism, Nazi socialism (which is a direct outgrowth of the fall of liberalism), fascism, communism, Stalinism and other tyrannical forms of ideologies that went on to murder citizens and commit genocide.

"Oh come on! Hitler doesn't want to invade! You're just exaggerating!" was the prevailing attitude among liberals. They went from appeasing to being useful idiots.

They're choosing to put first a policy in front of historical reality that tyranny does exist, and if it seemingly isn't, it's possible it's dormant. It can strike at any time in many forms.

Which is why "eternal vigilance" is asked of citizens.


Fearless Prediction

Now that the irrational issue of "assault rifles" is settled (which basically are just rifles; not fully automatics like in the military) the roads has been semi-paved for the next waved of control: Pistols. Guns. Revolvers. Rifles.

After all, by then, people will ask "who needs that dinky revolver?" And don't tell me that won't happen because it will. You have people looking to get rid of the Constitution and getting space in the NYT to express that view. No major leaps of logic there.

I'd like to think that they've pushed it as far as they can but I'm skeptical.

Predicting policy action is not that hard.

Question; Europe's Anarchy, Quebec Goes Assisted Suicide

It doesn't take much to be called an "extremist" or "Nazi" these days it seems.

On that theme, how is it that discussing about taxes is an "extremist" position, but feminism is not? How is arguing against excessive spending or expanding government is extreme but not, say, gay marriage?

Do they not all delineate into some area of "extreme" assuming our point of reference is "moderate" whatever that means anymore?

They say the GOP has been hijacked by extremists but so too, it can be argued, have the Democrats. Some argue that the right-ward pull of the GOP has forced the Democrats to go right. However, the DNC seemed to convey more of a leftist message to me.


What about taxes? Been reading on various liberal websties people freaking out their pay cheques are less now thanks to, wait for it, increasing taxes.

President Obama made two promises that have turned into lies. One, was spending. He's hasn't cut it and he won't. Two, no higher taxes (including capital gains) for everyone making less than the arbitrary (and magical unicorn figure) 250k a year. Taxes have gone up for all. Proportionally, I don't know who's taking a hit more but they've gone up. Just google taxes-Obama-2008 and you'll see. It's plain for all to see and 3) he wouldn't touch gun control Of course, Sandy Hook changed all that.

Hey, that's three!

Anyway. Bush was a liar about Iraq. He is forever banished to the Inferno. And Obama?

As for the taxes, if kids are reading stop because it's gonna get vulgar. If you don't like swearing move on:

You stupid, dumfuck idiots. What the fuck did you expect? You have a President that has expanded the social safety net and took over 1/6th of the economy and you expected 1% of the population to pay for it? You have, from what I read, a serious unfunded liability issue in social security, pensions and the like, and you didn't think taxes were going to go up? You actually thought this administration had a "neutral" mathematical formula to give you a cake to eat as well? Damn moronic unicorns.
You deserve what you vote for.

Where was I?


Was talking to a gentleman from France about the march against Hollande's decision to ram through gay marriage in France. Hundreds of thousands marched in Paris and according to the gentleman it was less homophobic (the French, despite their short comings, maintain a civil discourse unlike us here), and more to do with traditionalism. In Europe, holding traditional values is not a bad thing.

Combine the Catholicism of the French (I thought the French were the most secular and existentialist of all the Catholic nations...meh) and the fact that 15% of the population is Muslim (he himself is Jewish), it's inevitable gay marriage will be met with some resistance.

Ramming things down the throats of so many is not healthy either he argued.


I mentioned in another post that Europe is in a state of anarchy. France is a mess. Germany is struggling to maintain itself while juggling the reality it is the engine of Europe, Italy is confused and the English have gone PC-mad.

In Greece, violence is personal. Thugs and gangs roam the streets. It's a bad situation. The Neo-Nazis got 500 000 votes and are the third party there. What's 500 000? In a county of 10 million, that's massive. I was told the elderly voted for the Nazi's because apparently they offer protection against violent immigrants like the Albanians.

There's more to Greece than Aristotle and souvlaki. And it ain't good.

One need only watch its sports across the continent- soccer in particular. Racism is on the rise. Nationalism is on the rise. Neo-Nazi groups often merge with soccer fanatics. The scenes in Serbia, Russia, Belgium, Germany, and even England, France, Spain and Italy are ugly.

The crap you see there you simply do not see here. Scenes of officials and FIFA pleading for racial tolerance are completely absent here.

So Piers Morgan can shove his pompously misleading "do you know how many people were killed in Britain by guns?' argument and shove it up his ass and let it ooze out as liquidity and painful as possible. England is further along the Mad Max dystopia than the Americans are.

Things are far, far worse over there - and has been for some time.

America or Canada need not copy.


Finally, the PQ are set to allow doctor-assisted suicide with euthanasia in Quebec. Need not worry there will be "strict rules" governing it. For example, people won't be forced to take an injection like in Europe (where there have been cases in Holland and Belgium).

Yes, this coming from the one party that wrecked public health (and education) more than anyone else. I wonder if dying with dignity (whatever that means) will have to be in French only. I can just see Marois now: There is too much Hen-glish in the 'Ospitals...Hostie!

Let's call it for what it is "murder by other means" and move on, ok?

If they want it, let 'em have it. Patients are a cost to the state anyway. That's why you always see some lobbying against certain habits - it's less about YOU and more what YOU cost the system. 

They could care less about the care. Care costs money. Money we ain'ts gots.

Palliative care is basically over-stretched, under funded - heck under-everything - in this province.

IF we TRULY were a caring and compassionate society, we'd shift our attitudes towards a more patient-centric system (like in the U.S.) away from the cost-centric, and we'd focus on long-term care and facilities.

But sticking a needle in someone under rational pretenses is easier - and cheaper.

Good Lord, we passionately fight against the death penalty but not for the sick?


Alex Jones Makes For Great TV

Alex Jones is batshit crazy but I'll tell you what, he owned Morgan. He was prepared. He's absolutely right about Britain and good for him for not letting Morgan pimp out his bull shit.

England is one of the most violent nations in Europe. Heck, Europe is in a state of anarchy. A person I know is from Greece and was telling me what's going on there. Pure. Anarchy.

Evil Fanatics

When the state destroys lives, how can it be rationalized?

It can't.

This is a functional, free democracy? There scary thing is this shit happens every single day. The government - you know, the one that apparently is compassionate and out to "protect" people - can (and will destroy if necessary) lives.

They make movies about evil corporations destroying communities. I bet you that pales in comparison to what the government has done. Where are the mooooovies about that?

That it happens at all is astonishing. How can the people fight back? 

As for the EPA, that bunch are worse than the mob.

Bears Hire Trestman

Marc Trestman is heading to the NFL after all as Jimmy Johnson said the Chicago Bears were going to hire the Montreal Alouettes coach.

When Johnson tweeted it was a done deal, local sports media reported - after Trestman denied it - hadn't spoken to the Bears. Looks like the local guys were out scooped in their own town.

Anyway, Trestman was a class coach. His stay in Montreal was too short to really judge (59-31 record in four seasons with one Grey Cup championship and one appearance loss) but it's safe to say (as I told a friend a while ago) it was his plan to go the NFL all along. He originally came from the College ranks with experiences in the NFL.

He'd be nuts to say no.

Trestman takes over one of the most storied sports teams on the continent. The Bears, though, have a lot of problems and dealing with a temperamental drama queen QB like Cutler is going to be tough. Cutler ain't no Anthony Calvillo in terms of where working relationships are concerned.

The Bears, basically, should be in rebuilding mode. So I don't know what the expectations of Trestman will be. It's a toughish division but doable. The Lions took a step back, the Vikings are unpredictable and the Packers may not be as good as we think; especially without Rodgers. Beyond the division, no, they have too much to do. But again, look at what they're up against the NFC East isn't a power at the moment so that's two divisions where teams are retooling. That leaves, essentially, the 49ers? The Seahawks? The Saints?

The NFC isn't so strong these days. So this may help Trestman.

All I can say is good luck.

Ban On Assault Weapons Official

Just watched the President talk about the gun-control issue. Look, to me, without getting into the nitty-gritty of the 2nd amendment, they seem like "reasonable" measures.

For example, stronger background checks is a no-brainer. If you're ok, you have nothing to worry about. If you're a criminal, it should be hard if not impossible for you to get a gun.

Read others here.

This one I find interesting: Providing resources to allow schools to hire 1,000 "school resource officers"

Isn't this what the NRA sorta proposed?

In any event. his "900 murders this month and will only increase" assertion can be disputed. I doubt that stat is accurate.

Also, I could do without the use of kids to promote policy action. It's borderline shameless. Disgusting really. The NRA is under attack for its own ads on using the President's children.

The left hated it when Bush did it with Iraqi veterans, so why should it be any different here? In fact, using children is an emotional appeal that should be off limits.

Finally, he asserted no one should be allowed to sell guns to criminals. Oh. You mean like Fast & Furious?


I personally don't think much will come with this but it is what it is. The President has spoken.

No Petition For You!

Answering to the people is hard.

Four times as hard!

My Own Private Anarchy

When I took a Russian history class (yes, it was that dreary) back in University, the professor who was of Russian of Greek origin and educated at Columbia University, said in reaction to fist fights in the streets he saw in Toronto in the Greek community concerning one Alexander the Great. Back in school the Greek student association had stickers proclaiming "Macedonia is Greece, Greece is Macedonia." By that logic, that Alexander was from Macedonia meant he was from Greece.

It was all so technical and parochial.

The good professor argued that it was a stupid debate. Alexander, thanks to the passage of time, doesn't belong to Greece or anyone else. He belonged to the world now.

Public domain for historical figures. I like that.

Italians face a similar issue - albeit less passionate - when it comes to Christopher Columbus. I believe over 20 countries claim him but I-talians ain't fighting in the streets over him. I'm certainly not. Not because I don't think he merits it, but rather because it's pointless. Besides, with the evidence we have, I think it's pragmatic to conclude he's from Genoa. So. Moot.

As an aside, the professor also spoke of Italian art as "opulent" painting it with one broad brush. Excuse the pun. I found that a curious statement then and still do now given the number of different artistic movements, periods, events and styles that came from Italy. Some were more opulent than others indeed, but as a whole, I don't see how anyone can make such a generalization. Shoot, the art-nouveau-deco movement in Italy in the 20th century dictated that function triumphed over form hardly resulting in "opulent" works.

I digress.

I apply his position about Alexander to Quebec.

Whenever I hear PQ nationalists assert Montreal is a French city, I reject it. It's not. It's a multi-lingual, multi-cultural city that left to its own devices would and could be the Beirut of North America.

Instead, it's burdened by petty linguistic nonsense. Whenever I see the OLF attack and harass, I can but spit in their faces figuratively - as many do I am sure and know. My own private anarchy helps to keep me sane.

Montreal doesn't belong to the PQ anymore it does the Natives or minorities.

Montreal belongs to its citizens; its people.

Politically, the city doesn't side with the PQ - thankfully.

It should project itself proudly on this point.

Montreal belongs to the world.

Let the PQ wallow in the hinterland intellectually. It's their funeral.

Feel Better?

Liberals (I guess January is bash liberals month here) often said after Homeland Security was created, "feel safer now?" and that all it would do is further increase terrorism. It was a valid concern shared by libertarians.

Only libertarians are far more consistent and honest with their positions.

Take gun-control.

Libertarians are sticking to their guns - excuse the pun - to the extent limiting high capacity magazine rounds (a term clearly the majority don't understand) is bunk. It won't make you safer. In fact, it is argued, all it will do is create criminals out of honest Americans as this Sheriff in Oregon contends.

It's not his place indeed to make such proclamations but it does point to an important question. Where the state is (perceived to) infringing on the rights of people, is civil disobedience valid?

Liberals beg to differ. Even if you rationalize it, they fall back to the "we gotta do something" default positions.

The ONE thing I can't stand coming out of the mouths of people these days is "nobody needs" (insert) to do (insert). Governor Cuomo used this paternalistic, presumptuous piece of gibberish logic to push his grandiose and draconian gun law.

Who needs anything? It's not my place or yours what anyone needs or wants. Attempting to change this is called coercion.

My liberal friend always says, "who needs such a big house?" and "how much money does someone need?" (he actually advocates capping salaries. I kid you not). And you know my thoughts on such reasoning. Beside it being insane and communistic, the fact that it's "out there" means it will become a point of debate somewhere down the road among politicians. When the students rioted in the streets because of tuition hikes in Quebec, the first thing I asserted was they ain't stopping there; especially if the government caves. They will ask for free tuition. What happened? Free tuition was put on the table.

I doubt people will critically assess the law moving forward. And what will the point of reference be anyway?

Hey, hysteria wrapped up in a preventative mindset is the perfect recipe to turn alchemy into a legit science, right? I will be watching intently to see the unintended consequences of this.

Personally, the government is over reacting and using specious logic to take advantage of a tragedy. I've read all the "reasoning" behind their bans. This is gonna be like the drug war, alcohol prohibition and the like. At some point, the people won't stand for it. The full force of the state might hits an (expensive) wall when met with resistance at the local level. If local law enforcement doesn't enforce the gun law, then how will the Feds know? If the reaction to excessive gun bans are such that it touches a nerve with people, it won't go anywhere.

Liberals are fond of saying "people who don't know history are deemed to repeat the mistakes." Perhaps this is a true axiom but one thing is clear, they don't apply it when it comes to their positions.

Just curious, when talking about "common sense" and "history" do people actually think assclowns like Morgan and Bashir comparing the NRA to Hitler are intelligent and sound voices for the left?

Alas, it's the "will" of the people to live in deception.

Feel better?


Tuesday Night Music

Random Thoughts

At this rate, why doesn't King Obama offer to add another amendment to a "risk-free" and "guaranteed" life?


Ray Lewis and Lance Armstrong.

What about them?

Two miserable, cynical individuals.

Both with large fan bases for different reasons.

Lewis in particular really perplexes me. Here's a guy who was an accomplice to murder and now he's viewed as a great member of a community? I'm sorry, he has not accounted for his actions that terrible night (innocent or not) and no amount of suits and eye wear and Bible-speak is going to change that.

Armstrong is just doing what any politician does. He's sorry he got caught.

Attacks On Mental Illness A Little To Loose

I have a huge problem with the way both sides of the gun-control "debate" is treating mental illness.

They throw the term around as if it's a means to an end. As if there aren't varying degrees of "mental illness." They're all guilty of it - Obama on down. For such "smart" people they sure know how to "mob hit" people. Sounds as though we're about to lynch a whole class of people who really don't pose a threat. The stigma of mental illness is already deep and profound in society so lets "ban" guns from those with whatever mental disorder they possess. I wonder, will those with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder be on the list? What about autism? What about anxiety? I highly doubt this came into play. They can't draw the lines between what is normal and what's not.

We're all insane to some degree. I reckon. So, in essence, we're really ill in the way we assess ourselves; mostly the mind.

Politicians are, for the most part, narcissistic sociopath bent on controlling others. How else to describe the incessant need to intervene and interfere in all facets of our lives?

To me, they're the LAST people who should be formulating laws around "mental illness."

Does Obama and his crack team of cynical politicians qualify as mentally ill? I mean, really, have you looked at the track record of the people in charge of the nation's finances go back to the mortgage crisis? All crooks and dopes. But they're gonna lead the charge on preventing another Newtown?


They can't find the balls to cut spending on the deficit but they're gonna take on a social issue so big only God has answers to. Even then.

To me, that's arrogance to the ultimate degree.

And that's enough to make me mentally ill.


Comparing Washington to Rome is inevitable though a dangerous intellectual exercise. Everyone does it!

So I too shall.

Rome went, simplistically speaking, from obscure town to Republic, to Empire, to Dictatorhip and eventually a standard city.

Washington too went from horse town to Republic, to Empire and what some argue to be entering its dictatorial stage in the post-war era.


Quotes Of The Day

"I am I, plus my circumstances." Jose Ortega y Gasset.

"All the best and most relevant laws have been written going back to Rome. All the rest is just ball busting." T.C.. No wiki entry as of January, 2013.

Empty Headed Suit Morgan Gets Basic Lesson

Oh my God does Colbert clean Morgan's clock. Even the conservative Ben Shapiro managed to insert a fair argument about Chicago's own violence despite tight gun control to which Morgan had no answer.

Of course, at the very HEART of it, Colbert is correct. The 2nd Amendment, as I argued below in another post, is pretty straightforward. Trying to read "between the lines" is a game for contemporary minds.

Morgan is an emotional pimp. His stats are misleading. Notice his cries of "nonsense" when Colbert (rationally) appealed to waiting before acting. There are reports surfacing about Morgan's own questionable pass. The joke is the UK doesn't want him back. I gather the CBC may be lining up to pick him up. There aren't many irrational liberals they'd turn away I reckon.

Anyway, even his spiel on England is bunk. Just look up the stats (I've posted a few in past posts). The UK has higher violent assault rates than the USA.

Buzz Word Of The Moment: Common Sense

Heard Governor Andrew Cuomo talk about how his gun control law is "common sense."

President Obama uses the the word often.

Which can only mean it's the opposite.

But even it "is" common sense, it doesn't mean it's rational.

That's Interesting

Should we be surprised? It's their MO. Do as I say not as I do.

It's being reported the President is prepared to sign as many as 19 EXECUTIVE ORDERS on gun control.

New York passed its own gun-control laws. The mentally ill (even though not a shred of evidence is ever provided that they are ticking time bombs) are among the targeted.



Legault's Wrong Move

During the debates a few months ago, Francois Legault made a salient point when he argued with Jean Charest that Quebec's social, and economic record lags most major jurisdictions in North America.

He was right of course. That alone made me think about voting for the CAQ. I like their perspective on the economy and business. It's nice to hear people not talk in reactionary tones regarding business.

Imagine my disappointment when they decided to vote alongside the PQ on Bill 14.

So much for a voting option for me.

Here's Legault having the courage to tell it like it is about Quebec, only to vote for the one party with a tired outlook that helps put Quebec in this backward mess in the first place!

What a shame.

That Old, Tired Piece Of Paper

Wow. Such confusion about the 2nd amendment.

To me, it's "a controversy" fabricated by faux-liberals but I don't want to waste my breath on them.

There is no controversy. To me, again, the 2nd amendment was probably the most logical of all the amendments to the extent it mirrored human nature and man's relationship to the state. Until 1776 the world was nothing but about tyranny. They, the imperfect Framers, were aware of that. They also understood the undertaking of a Representative Republic was precarious - hence, prudently laying the right to bear arms - in whatever form. It's called "eternal vigilance." or as the Romans asked : who will guard the guardians?
Selling the Constitution to the people was a tough thing as everyone involved (maybe not so much Hamilton), had a natural, inherent distrust of government so the Bill of Rights was added to the Declaration of Independence to secure the rights of the people. They understood full well what they were writing in the 2nd amendment.
What I don't understand is all the revisionis garbage about the Constitution being "old/"
So is Greek Democracy and the writers of that time. So is Roman Law. So is the Magna Carta. But no one claims those ideals or documents as "old!"
Beethoven? Old! Dante? Old! Hugo? Old!
I contend there's a big picture with regards to The Old Paper. A picture that reminds us that all the great documents in Western culture were predicated on preserving the rights of man each building upon each other adding new attained knowledge at each interval of brilliance. 
The Constitution is nothing but a culmination of all the wisdom and experiences culled by great minds to that point.
That the government can pass a point to tyranny is not an exception but a rule to history.
It's pretty much what happened with Rome when Caesar was the trigger point of transferring it from Republic to Empire eventually paving the way to dictatorship under Augustine. 
As a side point, and one I choose to insert for argument's sake, there was Cicero - lone conservative voice speaking truth to power and logic - alone and ignored. Much like Burke about his ruminations on the abominations of the French revolution and Churchill's horror to liberal appeasement in the 20th century 1700 and 2000 years later respectively.

That Didn't Take Long

Over the week-end I read that England was going to help out France with their situation in Mali. I thought to myself, how nice. What's one thousand years of bickering and war between friends?

It was natural a European neighbor and ally help another out.

Then I thought to myself, when and if this gets messed up, how long before they call for American help?

Not long. Of course, they will revert quickly back to reactionary anti-American rhetoric once things don't go their way.

Isn't that the common, tiresome, theme? Bash Americans for their ignorant, hamburger eating, John Wayne attitude but when the shit hits the fan, send lawyers, guns and money, mommy!

If there's ONE thing I can't stand about the West - Canada included - is its childish and miserable hypocrisy when it comes to American defense and its military.

We all hate it and shriek in horror at its mighty power, but it's nice when you need it, eh?

A guy I knew served in Kosovo back in the 1990s with Canadian peacekeepers. One thing he learned fast was there was no "peacekeeping" without the full force of American might backing it. The Serbs went nuts when the felt the Americans were around, but when the Canadians called for American air support, they ran for the hills.

Note to Europe: Stop dicking around with socialist welfare spending and allocate some of the coin back to your military. You're gonna need it it looks like.


It's interesting to note socialists went into Mali. America has a choice here. Pay back for the misery France caused it during Afghanistan and Iraq and ignore the request or take the high road and help the Gallic ego get its ass back in gear by being a good ally.

As for Canada, yeah, we're getting involved. Sounds like those people could use a hand. Canada usually answers the call when allies call. For that, I can never really blast my country.