The 2012 "October Surprise" Has Already Arrived...

...and it's not good for Barack Obama.

I know you may be thinking "what the hell are you talking about"?  I'll bet that you haven't heard anything about it via the so-called traditional news outlets, and haven't read anything on your regular Internet news feeds either.  I know that I read a lot of news on a daily basis (much more than I write obviously), and I've seen nothing about it.  But guess what, boys and girls?  The much ballyhooed "October surprise" is here, and for those of us still employed and who have employer provided/subsidized insurance, we know exactly what it is.

It's our health benefits annual enrollment. 

For those of you who work part-time, as contractors, or who don't work for employers who provide benefits, I'll provide a bit of a primer.  Every year about this time, most of us who have the more traditional, employer provided health insurance and other benefits plans (FSA, HSA, etc.) receive a notice from our employer which instructs us to advise our HR departments how much in deductions we want to allow for our FSA/HSA plans next year.  It also informs us of any changes in our health insurance plans.

We're all learning, right now, first hand, how much Obamacare is going to screw us.  Surprise!

While "the media" is sitting around speculating what will be the great "October Surprise", those of us who are still blessed enough to have jobs are seeing the increases in premiums, decreases in coverage, and/or the reductions in our prescription coverage...all thanks to President Obama and the Democrat party.  Also, FSA limits are now capped at $2,500 (for the individual and $5,000 for dependents), and people looking at stocking up on over the counter drugs, so they won't lose what's left of their 2012 FSA, will learn that their FSA doesn't cover any of that anymore, so they may lose their money.  As a further note, many people use their FSA (or HSA) as a tax-deterrent means to pay for out of pocket costs for regular medication and/or for expensive out-of-pocket costs for special needs children.

Surprise!  Not as much anymore, chumps.  No more slight discount on that special program for your autistic kid, you "top 1%er" who makes $50K a year.  Obama and his enormous soul eating leviathan government needs your money to "build that" food stamp program for your neighbor's 27 year old "child", Jaeyden.  You've met him a couple of times, he's the one who with the $125K in student loans for his "Wymyns' Studies" degree who just moved back in with his parents.  He's sitting on his ass playing X-Box all day while claiming for Mom and Dad's benefit to be "starting his business" selling artisanal suburban organic wasabi honey mayonnaise on Etsy.

So, while 30 year old "law student activists" are screaming at you about trying to kill them because you're cruel enough to actually believe that if they can afford things like 9 years of Georgetown Law School, business managers, iPhone plans, and flights across country to "rally" 10 other unemployed morons, certainly they can find $9 somewhere to buy themselves some birth control pills...you're being denied a tax benefit for the the ability to use more of your own money to pay for your own actual health care and/or the health care of your family.  And while you're paying more for gas, groceries, and everything else, you're about to get absolutely gored on your health insurance.  I hate to ask, but how long ago was your last pay raise?

So enjoy your October surprise, workers of America, and go on out there and vote for the party of  the high cost of everything (except your paycheck) and especially, "universal healthcare." 

Screw Boston & Chicago & Go Eat some Chick-Fil-A Nuggets or Something

This whole Chick-Fil-A issue has really rubbed me the wrong way. I have no problem at all if individuals choose not to patronize businesses whose corporate philosophies differ with their sincerely held beliefs; my problem is that in both Boston and Chicago, elected officials are using the power of tyrannical government to ban a legal business, simply because these officials disagree with the beliefs of the CEO. I wonder if the people who think this is so wonderful would be so thrilled if a Republican mayor closed down every movie theater in town because he or she didn't want all those communist actors on their movie screens? Let's start burning books...hooray! I mean really, what's the difference?

Ironically, it is this same Boston mayor who has circumvented every established law and code to get a mosque built that many in the area don't want. So the CEO of Chick-Fil-A doesn't like the idea of gay marriage...OK, so do most folks. (For the record, I respectfully disagree with that view.) But, there is no evidence that his company has ever maltreated any gay person. Let's contrast that to the teachings of Islam on homosexuality, which is, well, a death sentence for its participants.

 The mayor of Boston and that retarded ballerina in Chicago are disgusting, hypocritical trolls who should be banned from elective office until they can actually prove to a competent person that they have even a rudimentary knowledge of the United States Constitution.

Of course, I would expect no less pathetic behavior from the open-minded and oh so tolerant left.

Ad Targeting Failures

So, as I wander the intertubes in search of exciting consumer products to buy, I've noticed a weird phenomenon. I accept, albeit grudgingly, that my computer keeps track of what I'm doing online*. It then communicates these facts to the mighty server farms in Mountain View, or wherever the hell Google has them stashed these days. These servers then reply with appropriate advertisements based on what I've been browsing on the net. I accept this as part of the price I pay for living in a free society accessing free content.

Here's what I find odd: the ads are for the same websites I've already been shopping. Now it may be that these very same websites are the only people paying the Goog for ads about monocles and top hats, or it may be that the ad algorithm could use a little tweaking. I'm not sure which. In any event, showing me the exact same websites I'm already going to doesn't make me inclined to click on the ads. Since getting me, the hapless and foolish consumer, to click on the ad is the point of the whole exercise, I'm inclined to think it fails.

Perhaps showing me ads for similar websites might be a thing? Instead of the 1400 banner ads for Warby Parker and Guitar Center, you might throw one up for someone else in the same line of business. I think somebody else in the consumer marketing biz has a website where they show me similar items I might be interested in purchasing based on all that data they harvest.

Oh, and just an FYI: I only click the links for Elizabeth Warren to cost her campaign money, so keep putting those up. That's money the campaign doesn't get to spend more intelligently or effectively.

*Note to the privacy rabid: Yes, I know how to avoid this and am perfectly capable of doing so, but a majority of the time I'm at work and doing funny things to the work computer makes my IT department peevish.

QOTD

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

--Senator Barack Obama

Coincidence?

"One choice, at this transformational moment, is to say, 'We are satisfied with what we are doing. We — in radio — are providing 11 percent of America with an extraordinary service'."
- Sue Schardt, Current.org

"11% Say Communism Better Than U.S. System of Politics and Economics."
- RasmussenReports.com

I don't think so...

Excuses

So, apparently, the donks are going with the evil influence of undisclosed money and the pernicious influence of Citizens United as the reasons they're gonna get pasted come Tuesday. Frankly, that's a bunch of horseshit. If money was the be-all end-all of political influence, Michael Huffington would be a Senator from California, Jon Corzine would still be running New Jersey, and Meg Whitman will get elected Governor out in California on Tuesday. (I may still get surprised on that last one, but I bet not.) In fact, since the donks have outspent the efenants this cycle, they'd win. Keep this in mind the next time someone calls for campaign finance reform, please.

Since we've disposed of at least one canard the donks are trying to use, I'd like to be helpful and offer some other excuses they might make. They'll all be about as valid as the current line of crap they're peddling. So, for any donk politicians reading, here are some possible answers to the inevitable question: Why did you lose the election?

• My campaign staff was unfocused due to a constant barrage of chicken attacks.
• I suffered from food poisoning.
• I would have gotten away with it except for those meddling kids!
• I have a genetic disposition towards sub-optimal performance.
• In retrospect, I shouldn't have used monkeys with darts instead of conducting actual polls.
  
• The sun was in my eyes.
• Rabbits hacked my laptop.
• I accidentally channeled the spirit of Ronald Reagan instead of FDR during my campaign appearances.
• The Large Hadron Collider has rewritten the causality of the universe, causing my defeat.
• I've angered the gods of Olympus.
• Ninjas and/or pirates stole my votes.
• I've been drunk the entire campaign.
• I apparently did not specify which election I would win when I made my pact with Satan.
• The voters were too stupid/lazy/drunk/misinformed/apathetic/stoned to realize my opponent is actually an extra-terrestrial.
• Hamsters.
• The election board refused to put my nickname, "Stud Muffin", on the ballot.
• An evil scientist controlled the minds of the electorate with his Votinator device.
• Sunspots destroyed the integrity of the electronic voting machines.
• I sacrificed chiclets to the loa when I should have been sacrificing chickens.
• I misread my horoscope.

All I ask is that if you use one of my excuses, you drop me an email with a link to a transcript or video of the press conference. Thanks.

Shock The Vote 2010

So, early voting in Montgomery County starts today. Get your vote on here, if you are inclined to vote early.

As always, I will try to convince you of the correct way to vote. Based on historical evidence and election results, most of you will ignore me. Whether or not that's good is subject to debate. I will point out things wouldn't be any worse had you followed my advice.

My rules of thumb this year: vote against the incumbent and against donks. Now, this may not leave you much to vote for, but many races in Montgomery County have alternate selections (read that as LP) on the ballot. Review and consider your choices.

I'm going to highlight a few notable races and leave you to exercise my rules on the rest. First off is US Representative for District 8. Kevin Brady is the incumbent. Kevin Brady voted for TARP, therefore he should get sent home to contemplate his sins. I'm reasonably sure Kent Hargett will be no better on the subject of fiscal restraint. I know a lot of hardcore efenants have problems with libertarians in general and the LP in specific. However, if you send back to Congress anybody who voted for TARP, next time push comes to shove they'll spend another couple hundred billion dollars of your money. I can guarantee any libertarian that manages to get into office ain't voting for half the stupid crap the efenants and donks have managed to pass off as necessary. Vote for Bruce West.

Next up: Governor of the State of Texas. Vote for Rick Perry again, and keep getting what you've been getting. Sweet. Vote for Bill White and get yet another donk with no concept of fiscal restraint and a penchant for interesting accounting. There's a great idea, on both counts. Again, I advise you all to try LP.

I will now take a moment to advise you on the tactical issue of voting LP. If you efenants in the audience really do feel like a donk may win in a close race, feel free to vote GOP yet again. I only want you to do so in the full and certain knowledge the GOP will not change if you do. If you continue to vote for the GOP when they misbehave, they'll continue to misbehave. A sharp uptick in the LP numbers will send a signal to the GOP that something is wrong, and they need to recalibrate. Incentives matter, and the GOP needs to learn they can get unelected right quick if they continue to be the party of less big government.

Moving slightly further down ballot, David Dewhurst can choke on a bucket of fail. I'd like to say I don't care who is the Lt. Governor as long as ain't him, but I'd be lying. There's a Green Party candidate in this race. A dead weasel is a better choice for elected office than anyone who runs as a Green.

Most of the other down ballot races I'm not incensed enough to berate you over. I note CISD has several positions open, and they are contested. Here's the relevant summaries if you live in CISD.

As always, be kind to your poll workers and if you don't bother to educate yourself, stay home.

Better On Nothing

If you, like me, are not a partisan of either donk or efenant, occasionally some well-meaning rabid supporter will attempt to convince you the proper place for you is on their side. This is usually a tough sell for many, many reasons, but even more so in the current political climate. My sympathies lie slightly towards the efenant side, since they seem a wee tad bit more determined to let me keep my guns and more of my money. Given the rest of my political sympathies, this sometimes baffles the donks I know. After all, I'm for gay marriage, drug legalization, less militarization of the police, criminal justice system reform, and a whole host of other issues that liberals and progressives supposedly support.

Here's the issue, and it applies to the R as well as the D. I can't go by what the boot-licking sycophants tell me some politician would do or would like to do. I have to go by what the honorable Random Weasel actually does. On that note, both of y'all's parties suck. But since the donks are currently in the Whitehouse, let's pick on them.

So, let me ask about a few issues supposedly important to you liberal and progressive types. Did the DEA stop cracking down on medical marijuana? Made any progress on slowing down the Drug War either? Hey, did your shiny hopey changey President get Gitmo closed? How about that PATRIOT Act that was gonna get revised? We stop bailing out huge corporations with taxpayer money yet? How's the whole increased transparency coming along? Damn, the answer to all that is still no?

And finally, the issue that started this post: warrantless wiretaps. The Obama declared he was gonna put an end to that nonsense. Oh, wait. Maybe not. Let's expand it, instead.

So, somebody on the left clue me in. On what rational basis do you claim your side is better on any issue I give a damn about? Either make some progress on liberty or admit your half of the donkelphant is just as awful as the other half. In the meantime, don't seriously expect me to believe I belong with either side.

Random Monday Thoughts

Afghanistan is a failure of the Westphalian system. Not in the usual sense of a failed nation state, but a failure in trying to impose an alien paradigm on a populace which is having none of it. Much of Africa has the same issue.

Walmart is starting to have ammo back in stock sporadically. Even with tax, I can get .45 ACP cheaper at Walmart than I can buying in bulk.

I found out today I need a tux by Friday. I hate it when that happens. But I'm still better off than J, who has to figure out what to wear. Formal wear is so much simpler for guys.

Facebook got a lot more pleasant once I figured out how to block applications. I don't give a shit about Mafia Wars, Farmville, or any of the rest of the nonsense.

Joe Klein is a dipshit who wouldn't know sedition if someone slapped him in the jaw with the definition.

As long as we're on sedition, how does the Smith Act square up with a document that says throwing off a despotic government is not only a right but a duty?

I realize it'll happen when hell freezes over, but I'd like it if either Microsoft or Apple started including FLAC support in their products.

WANT.

On that note, I'm out and home for a drink, some dinner, and tux shopping.

ObamaCare Supporters Are The 3/5ths Who Shouldn't Vote

Well, I think I’ve calmed down enough to have this post not be just an endless tirade of profanity. What the hell, even the morons at io9 have chimed in on health care and how it will prevent possible future dystopias. If they can chime in with their completely asinine nonsense, I figure I’m entitled. However, if you, for whatever misguided reason, supported this monstrosity, you need to shut the fuck up. This is my little lesson to you and why, exactly, you bought a bill of goods with money that wasn’t yours and that you had no right to spend. More importantly, you won’t get what you want and it’ll cost even more than you were told.

So, what shall we tackle first? Let’s try an easy one. All you morons who thought this bill was “revenue neutral” or would reduce the deficit, raise your hands. Got them high up in the air? Good. Now bring it back down, as hard as you can, on top of your pointy little skull. Stings a bit, doesn’t it? It’s only what you deserve for being gullible. The bill will cost more than projected, which means it will be neither revenue neutral nor deficit reducing. I predict this with absolute certainty based on the knowledge that every other national health care entitlement in this country has done so. So, if we’re only off on the cost by as much as we were with Medicare, this goatscrew will cost us all a mere $8.6 TRILLION over the first ten years. Oops. Of course, if we did better on the math this time around, it might only cost us $1.8 trillion. I feel so much better about fiscal responsibility already, don’t you? The cost could be anywhere from double all the way up to 17 times the estimates, based on historical data. I don’t see any deficit reduction with those kinds of errors.

So, let me ask another dumb question. We’re going to give everybody insurance and then we’re going to make preventative care visits free for everybody. So, one might reasonably conclude the demand for health care will go up. That’s usually what happens to the demand for goods when the price drops, in case you were wondering how I deduced this. Is all this extra health care going to magically appear from nowhere? I don’t see any incentives in the bill to provide health care, and I certainly can see more than a few disincentives. So, if your head isn’t still sore from your self-administered beating in the last paragraph, can somebody who supported this crap explain where the actual health care to meet all the new demand is going to come from? I don’t mean the magical insurance talisman you managed to get everybody to pay for, I mean the actual doctors and nurses and facilities and equipment. Any provisions in the bill to address this minor, almost petty, issue? Any at all? Hmm. This might could be a problem.

Now, let’s be real about what this bill does. It’s a huge, brazen attempt to shift the cost of providing health care to anyone but the people actually receiving the care. Why anybody thinks this is a good idea is beyond me, since this usually means otherwise productive resources get wasted. One of the issues here, since a bunch of people apparently spent years taking the short bus to school, is transaction costs. Passing the money around from you to the insurance company to the doctor incurs costs every time the money changes hands. Add the government into the mix, and there’s at least another set (or twelve) of hands the money has to pass through before it gets from you, the recipient of health care, to the doctor, the provider. So, if we initially had a hundred dollars of purchasing power to spend on health care, by the time the money passes through all the hands in a complicated dance of regulatory legerdemain, how much is left? Here’s a hint: less than a hundred dollars.

How much less is the question, isn’t it? Who here thinks throwing government into the mix is going to raise the amount money that actually gets spent on health care? No, instead the money will go to pay salaries of GS-7s to shuffle around your doctor’s request for reimbursement and some other random pieces of paper until they’re all neatly paper clipped together and sent to finance where some other overpaid fed drone will enter the data into the system to send a check for the wrong amount to a different address. All of this activity, by the way, will be lumped under “health care’ in the budget, so “health care” spending will have gone up, despite you actually getting less health care for the same budget.

As an aside, I may start a tattoo shop that tattoos TANSTAAFL and Somebody always pays on peoples’ foreheads. I figure if you dolts see it enough, sooner or later it might just sink in. I figure if you supported the health care reform, you’re almost certainly not imbued with enough understanding to figure out why paying to get self-evident truths tattooed on your forehead is a bad idea. Really, you’re the perfect audience if I could just get a government subsidy for you to give me.

Now, let’s cover a few facts about insurance. This bill includes a version of shall-issue coverage. This means no matter what is currently wrong with you, an insurance company has to issue you a policy if you can pay the premiums. (If you can’t pay, you’ll get a subsidy, so don’t sweat it.) The insurance companies are not allowed to deny you coverage because of your medical history, gosh darn it! Because insurance is vital! And a right! Or some such bullshit. I admit, I don’t understand the deranged fantasy economics that make this a good idea. There’s also no lifetime limit on coverage. So, in our brave new Obamanation you can obligate some company to unlimited expense by buying a policy from them. Now, in a world where ignuts didn’t try to repeal the law of supply and demand, this would mean your insurance would be pretty damned expensive. Right? If I could obligate you to unlimited expense by writing you a check, that check would be pretty substantial, wouldn't it?

Now enter the notion of community rating, which is also in the bill. The insurance company doesn’t get to charge premiums based on the risk of something going wrong with your health. They are forced to charge the same premium to everybody. So if somebody has a really expensive policy while most people have much less expensive policies, guess what happens? The premiums level out until the same amount of money comes in to the insurance company. So for most people, the premium will go up. How special! But that’s okay, because you’ll get money from the gummint to pay for the premiums if you can’t afford them! How much money will this cost the government? Nobody knows! However, I’m going to boldly make a prediction it’ll cost more money than anybody projected, and will break the federal budget. At least, it's working that way in Massachusetts so far, so I've got a pretty good data point for my prediction.

Of course, maybe if we weren’t spending all our money on insurance, maybe some of the money could go towards the actual provision of health care. But I’m guessing none of you supporters understand the concept of opportunity costs. I recommend a primer that can be found here. I think the pull quote is right up front in the third paragraph:

the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil

Substitute “politician” for “economist” and the result is much the same. Seems like we got a bunch of bad politicians and shitty economists around here setting policy, doesn’t it?

Of course, that’s what got us into this mess in the first place. Short-sighted legislators made a bunch of bad policy decision, and kept piling on more in various misguided attempts to fix the unintended consequences. This kept up until all y’all fools felt Obamacare was somehow a good idea and not a clusterfuck. Let’s review the first law of holes, shall we? If you’re in a hole, stop digging. Likewise, if your well-intentioned, well-meaning government regulations are causing a problem, don’t add on more regulations. You just get more problems. Did this simple concept ever occur to any of you as the administration and his enablers in Congress led you by the nose towards disaster?

Finally, I’d just like to add one more thought: FUCK YOU. You’re so damned terrified something bad might happen and you might have to pay for your own medical care that you feel you have carte blanche to make the rest of us pay for your insurance. You think your desire for something is enough justification to get the government to take it from the rest of us. If the idea that you, and not me, and not the government, are responsible for your life, your health, and your destiny terrifies you that much, go get a lobotomy and have yourself institutionalized. You don’t deserve to walk the earth pretending to be a citizen of a free country. You think like a slave and you act like a slave and you want your master, the government, to protect you from the imagined horrors of the world. Well, guess what? Some of don’t think we’re incapable of facing the world without the government telling us how to manage our lives. Some of us don’t want the shackles you would so willingly place on yourself and everybody else. More to the point, we’re not going to wear them. Don’t think this over. You haven’t won a damned thing.

Enemies List, Texas Edition

So, I'll mention briefly who you should be working on unelecting this fall. Basically, every donk in the Congress. Conveniently enough for Texas, we already had our primaries, so these chumps will be on the ballot barring death, withdrawal, or felony convictions. The following individuals voted to screw all of us over:

Henry Cuellar
Lloyd Doggett
Charles A. Gonzalez
Al Green
Gene Green
Ruben Hinojosa
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Solomon P. Ortiz
Silvestre Reyes
Ciro Rodriguez

One of our donk congressional delegation either had some good sense or was afraid for his reelection. But, what the hell, he's complicit by party membership. Unelect Chet Edwards, too.

I trust everyone knows how to make their displeasure known in the appropriate fashion.

The Prophet Orwell

Too many people in DC apparently think 1984 was an instruction manual. Steny Hoyer (D-underhead) comes to mind as he is currently working on our very own homegrown version of Newspeak. I’ll let you read his flatulent pertrouserations and decide for yourself.

By the way, let me make it clear: I don’t refer to nor do I believe that these are penalties. What we are saying is everybody will contribute, whether you are a business, [or] an individual, contribute to making sure that health care options are available to all of our citizens.

So, when the government forces you to pay for something you neither want nor need, that’s a contribution.

Nancy Pelosi (D-unce) has jumped on the bandwagon as well.

“It’s not really a public option,” she said. “It’s a consumer option.”

Got that? The government version of health care is a “consumer option”. Who exactly is the consumer and who is the consumed I leave up to your imagination.

Finally, the President is reportedly going to sign into law, if he hasn’t already, the odious Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. We’ve got the Orwellian trifecta today. Two Newspeaks and a thought crime bill!

Orwell thought he was writing fiction. More and more it seems he was writing a prophecy.

Intentions Are Key

So, the n00b won the Nobel Peace Prize for... for... wait, what the fuck? According to the Swedes, it's

for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples

Seriously? Are you people on crack? He hasn't accomplished a bloody thing. Oh, wait, he didn't have to according to the committee. He got a Nobel for effort. When I was but a lower-case t, the prize for effort meant you were completely useless, but tried real hard. Are they going to apply this standard to the other prizes? Because, really, won't that make the prize way more inclusive? Maybe Pons and Fleischmann can get a Physics prize now, since they tried really, really hard to make cold fusion work. And they tried even harder to make people think they had. Surely that level of effort deserves some kind of reward.

For most of us, 1994 marks the nadir of the Nobel Peace Prize. When you hand out a prize for peace to a guy simply because he agrees, in theory but not in practice, to stop slaughtering people to achieve his goals, you've pretty much rendered it meaningless. I could also point out 1981 as a fail point, when they handed it to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. One could make the argument the completely ineffectual work the UNHCR has done with regards to the Palestinians has done more to prolong conflict in the Middle East than any other single organization.

Seriously, aside from the fact they give out big cash, why does anyone care about this award anymore? It's a sick joke.

UPDATE: I am allied with the GOP and terrorists! Or so says the head donk:

"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,"

The jokes write themselves. Or run political parties. Whichever.

A Little Light Lunchtime Reading...

Apparently, Teh Barackulous' transition rejected a proposal from the Bush folks to publicly join forces in setting tough conditions on GM and Chrysler in return for money to "survive". Not that I agree with or endorse any of this mess, but it should put to rest the kvetching by his majesty's minions that they unknowingly inherited this mess.

Kwame Kilpatrick, former mayor of Detroit and convicted felon, is getting some new and improved subsidized housing. What I want to know is how do these guys find people who are willing to give them these high paying lucrative jobs and pay for their housing without providing sexual favors or anything else in return? I am in the wrong business.

Thomas Sowell discusses the varieties and ramifications of doing nothing. Kind of an interesting analysis.

Apparently there's a firestorm surrounding some ignunt filming drunk kids doing what they do: shooting off at the mouth. This time they’re in Jerusalem and they're talking about Obama. I think the biggest problem here is that journalists are pissed that these kids are talking trash about their holy messiah.

I Think My Brain Just Broke

So, the n00b is gonna cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. I just want to point out two things in the article.

Calling for fiscal restraint

his $787 billion economic stimulus package

So, can anyone tell me how that works? The same guy that just signed a spending bill for all the moneys now says we have to exercise fiscal restraint? Is this another one of these "do as i say, not as I do" deals? Because from where I'm sitting, it sure looks that way.

What really infuriates me more than anything else is that we have taken the problem and pushed it off on the younger generation yet again. God forbid somebody tell the boomers and the rest of us adults the cold, ugly truth. The money for all the stuff we got promised just ain't fucking there. So you know what that means? We don't get the stuff. Big Daddy Gubmint got a pay cut down at the mill and there's no more money to keep handing out candy to the kids, so shut up and eat your vegetables.

But we, collectively, just won't let that happen. Apparently, we think it isn't fair that somebody's not going to get something they were promised by an organization going bankrupt! You know what? It's also not fair to screw some kid that just turned 18, or 12, or was just born, into paying for stuff for somebody else. But that's exactly what we're doing. All you people with young kids should be screaming bloody murder, because Congress and the President just raped their future while you stood around with your thumb up your ass. Unless, of course, you voted for the donks in the last election cycle. Then you actively contributed to the destruction of your children's future. Well done, you.

Strange Affliction

One might, if one were paranoid about the possibility of further gun control legislation being enacted, have gone shopping recently for some things liable to fall under any new bans. In such an instance, one might have left work because the power went out and gone to pick up the 3 DPMS LR-308 lowers one had ordered. One might then be shopping for magazines, LPKs, and uppers online to see how much it'll cost to finish these builds out. In which case, one should get in a long damned line, because everybody else is panic buying, too. One might have also picked up a couple of 5.56 PMAGs while getting the transfer done.

Of course, we all know there's no reason to be paranoid about further gun control legislation, right? No reason at all. Hell, nobody has any interest in making gun owners get a license to own any handgun or semi-automatic weapon with a detachable magazine. Certainly nobody would think of making it a felony to continue to own the guns you already have if you didn't get such a license. So any fears you may have about upcoming legislation are just signs of your paranoia, which means you're crazy and unfit to own a gun.

So if one did all those things I mentioned above, take comfort in knowing there are others who share your strange mental affliction. In fact, there's a support group. It meets at the range every weekend. Look for the guys and gals with black rifles. You'll be among friends.

Also, contact your congresscritter and tell him to beat HR 45 to death with a stick. If said congresscritter accidentally gets in a few licks on Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Hoplophobe) in the process, that'd be just too bad.

The Voter Registrar

So, with all the news on voter fraud going on over the past couple of days, ACORN, Obama people, and the like, I notice this transcript that our local TV station broadcast recently.

I don't know about everywhere else, but I can tell you how voter registration and the rolls work in Harris county. Paul Bettencourt's office works his ass off on this, and Click 2 Houston isn't being entirely accurate. I am sure there are dead people on the rolls, but as long as a voter is shown voting (the name is signed in the voter book)...which means as long as the election workers in the precincts are perpetrating fraud, a voter will stay on the rolls.

A voter is placed in suspense if he goes something like 3 elections where he doesn't vote. The line next to his name in the sign in book will have a notation and the election worker must see a photo ID if he shows up. In the meantime notices are sent to the address of record. After the next general election, if no response is received by mail and the voter doesn't show, he's removed from the rolls altogether.

As a former Election Judge, I have personally dealt with an individual (stupid donk twit) who came in, was rude to my 82 year old Grandmother, started bitching and moaning because she wasn't on the rolls, demanded her right to vote, produced her ID, and let me look her up. I saw no record, so I called Bettencourt's super secret election day number for judges in situations like this. Guess what? Uncle Paul's office can tell me that she re-registered in OREGON the previous year. I look at the twit in question and state, "according to the voter registrar, you registered in the State of Oregon last year, is this true?" Then I sit back, secretly smile, and watch the idjit twitch. I say that is pretty darned impressive on behalf of the registrar's office.

Prior to the introduction of ESlate in Harris County, I witnessed in precincts in Sheila Jackson (TV) Lee's congressional district, the workers go through the books near the end of the polls closing, sign by peoples' names who didn't show, and vote for them. And yes, you can see there will be 4 or 5 people in a row with the exact same handwriting in the book. Where the problem lies in our area, is at the precinct level, and then post-election. An individual who ran for state rep several years ago in that same (Queen Sheila's) area lost his race by less than 500 votes due to a ballot box with a broken seal that arrived to the county at 2a. When issues are reported, certain folks cry racism, the matter is swept away, and rightfully elected candidates are branded as sore losers.

I think probably what the counties need to do in the case of the dead is link up with death certificates issued in their respective counties, drop a couple of cards in the mail, and if they get no contact, remove the voter. I honestly thought they already did this. I also would love to see more volunteer poll watchers assigned to these precincts to see what is really going on in those rooms. A lot of people need to go to jail.

As an aside, I think the key to involving more people in elections in general is making it an additional exemption to jury duty.

As a second aside, I find it odd that all of these fraud issues only seem to occur with Democrat organizations, in Democrat precincts, and with Democrat workers and voters. The news media tells us how everybody hates and disagrees with Republicans, and yet it is the Democrats who cheat at every level and still can't totally sweep elections. Hmmm...

And finally, I think it goes without saying that the lazy assed news media should really engage in a little more fact checking.

Umm... Who?

So, the donk VP was announced Friday, just in time for the convention in Denver today. Sen. Joseph Biden is the man standing next to, or slightly behind, the man.

Wait, seriously, Joe Biden? Somebody with a more of a clue is going to have to explain this to me, because I just don't get it. Aside from being possibly one of the whitest white boys in the Senate, what the hell does he bring to the table? Delaware? Which has how many electoral votes and has gone donk since '92? I'm not getting the rationale here.

Anyhow, expect more coverage from all quarters on the donk disaster in Denver. I've got work to do.