Terrorism vs Citizenship

Seems tragic, doesn't it, that citizens are treated like potential terrorists (been flying lately?), and terrorists are treated the way citizens should be treated (the FBI knew that Nidal Hasan [the Fort Hood murderer] was a danger, but they wouldn't take any action, because they didn't want to offend Muslims).

You may already have heard or read this, but it certainly deserves repeating since the FBI announced their prior knowledge just today.

Urgency, Resolution, and Government Money

When I was a kid, there was a cement business just across the bridge from my home town. The business's slogan was, "Find a need and fill it."

Here's what I think (not that you really care, but this is cathartic): there are those who have taken that slogan and perverted it into, "Create a need and fill it."

Today I read in James Taranto's Wall St Journal column, that "James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his 'Gaia' theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being 'alarmist' about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too." Apparently Mr. Lovelock is writing a book in which he says climate change is still happening, but more slowly than he previously believed.

"Climate change" (which used to be called "global cooling" before the temperatures began rising, and used to be called "global warming" before the temperatures stagnated and then going back down) is a myth. "Cyclical climate variations" is real.

I think Al Gore and his cronies peers have "created a need" by going on the alarmist warpath, shouting to everyone near and far that the sky is falling  the earth is warming we've de-stabilized the Earth's climate. And now here's someone who is saying that the climate variations have slowed.

What do you want to bet that the next thing we hear is, "We have no idea how high the temperature would have risen if we hadn't begun our work when we did", or "What if we hadn't started work when we did", or "See? We told you it was rising and now that it's beginning to stabilize it's proof our efforts are paying off. The Money We've Spent was WELL WORTH IT!"

"Oh By The Way: We need more Federal funding to continue our obviously-valuable and life-saving work!"

If it weren't such a predictably pathetic pattern, it would be almost laughable.

Global Climate Change is today's application of the pattern. General Motors is one from the recent past: "What if we hadn't intervened? GM would be out of business. We saved hundreds of thousands of jobs." (Well, no; GM would have been permitted to fail, employees would have found jobs at their competitors to support the increased demand from consumers who still wanted vehicles but could no longer get them at GM dealerships, and we'd have had a wake-up call, jolting us from our slumber about the free market. And quite possibly, we'd have seen other auto manufacturers rise, like Kia, Yugo, Hyundai, and Daewoo. And we wouldn't have experimented with billions of taxpayer dollars invested in a failed electric car.)

Or Health Care: "Millions of people don't get the care they need. We have to do something." (Well, no: anyone, at any time, was entitled to health care even if they didn't have insurance, by simply going into any public -- and sometimes private -- hospital's E.R.)

Okay; what's the point? The point is, life goes on, the free market works, and -- predictably -- people will try to scam us for our money. Everyone's gotta make a living, right?

Interviews

When you are looking for work, the interview is the place many people start - if they can just get their foot in the door, it should be a piece of cake, right?

I submit to you that preparation for the interview is the first step. What questions will you be asked? And perhaps more importantly, what questions should you ask? Here's a good place to start: Begin by asking the hiring manager with whom you're discussing the position this question: "What are you looking for in a new hire that will make him or her successful at this role?" This is the first and foremost question anyone should ask his or her customer: "What are your goals? What do you hope to accomplish? How will you be using my services? What is the best way I can help you in this role?"

Check this Lifehacker.com link for more info about this:
http://lifehacker.com/5897390/ask-these-questions-at-your-next-job-interview-to-leave-a-lasting-impression

Remember: the job is not yours, it belongs to your customer / client / employer. They're simply hiring you to do it for them. What do you bring to the table? Can you improve on their idea of how the job should be done? Do you see glaring inefficiencies in the process you are expected to follow?

You are, in effect, a consultant who is bringing your expertise, experience and training to bear on a problem your employer or client has discovered or identified. How will you solve it?

Onward.

Voter ID: What am I missing?

What's the big problem with requiring an ID when voting? If you don't want to prove you have a right to vote, why not? Are you hiding something? Do you think that anyone should be able to walk in to any polling place, any time, and pull the lever, without demonstrating a "right" to do so? If you do, does that mean that I am allowed to do that? Do you trust me to vote (repeatedly) the way you want me to?

(By the way: you do know, don't you, that you don't have a Constitutional "right to vote" for the president?)

If you're against requiring that prospective voters identify themselves by using a government-issued photo ID to prove they have a right to vote when and where they're standing, I'm guessing you don't trust me to vote the way you want me to. People have to show their government ID when they write a check, when they use their credit or debit cards, when they register for a class, when they open a bank account... If I'm required to show my ID to vote, and it's a legitimate ID, I will get only one vote. Isn't that what you want? Don't you want to limit my voice to only a single expression? I won't be able to stuff the ballot box quite so easily if I have to show my ID before I'm allowed to vote.

For those who are against a voter ID requirement, I'd have guessed you'd want a way to limit my freedom of expression. Voter ID seems like a legitimate way to achieve that goal.

The Short-Sightedness of the American Left

The American Left appears to have no concept in their pore ole collective head of cause-and-effect. They don't even pretend to understand economics (or if that is a pretense of understanding, it's piss-poor!).

A while back, I read the following over on cluelesshick.com:

Somebody hands you a pay check of some kind, i bet. & if free markets were allowed in the USA, they could hand you any old amount they want...or not...& tell you that if you don't like go someplace else. they dont care, Joe. They don't have to care. There are NO RULES for them. NO REGULATIONS! NO LAWS! NONE OF THAT NASTY 'OVERSITE'!

Now, come on here. Do you mean to tell me that the writer of this comment does not understand that:

• Employers don't determine your pay (YOU do, based on what you know, how skilled you are, how talented you are, how well you've developed your knowledge, skills and talent, and, how well you market yourself)
• You have the ability to price yourself out of the market
• If you were truly worth what you think you're worth, employers would be contacting you to offer you roles at your price, not offering what you think is a pittance
• It ISN'T YOUR JOB - It belongs to the employer, who hires someone to do it for them. If it costs the employer more than the return, the job is ELIMINATED; and conversely, if the job costs the employer less than the return, it's retained
• You don't have a right to a job

??

Honestly! Wake up, will ya? Go take a course in economics 101. Learn what happens when taxes are raised on those who create jobs. Look at what happens when the minimum wage is increased by mandate rather than by the market.

I mean if you're going to pretend to know something about economics, at least pretend to do some research. I didn't do extremely well at economics when in college, but I can at least think about it and reach common-sense (read "logical") conclusions.

But here's another take on this: maybe the libs know that they're not including all the info. Maybe they're banking on the probability that many don't know or care that not all the info is being presented.

My God. I just re-read that last paragraph. What if it’s true?

Name of this blog is.....

"The Blunt Blog" was taken, so let's try "The Bluntness Blog."

Tooth Angel to the Rescue

My son lost a tooth a few days ago and has been putting off placing it under his pillow because he didn’t know what he wanted. (I had to tell him it doesn’t work that way… but I digress.)

Last night he said he couldn’t find his tooth, so asked what he should do. I suggested leaving a note for the Tooth Angel. Here’s what he printed on a piece of paper:

Dear Tooth angel,

I have lost my tooth and I don’t know where it is, so I don’t know what to do.

Sincerely, .

P.S. Can you help me?

This morning, the Tooth Angel agent sent a reply: see below. (Note: our new dog was in her kennel in my son's room overnight.)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tooth Angel #283
Date: Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:12 AM
Subject: Lost Tooth - Request for Help
To: @noreply.com

Dear (Angel Services Recipient):

Greetings from Tooth Angel agent 283. I have been assigned to respond to your request for help. I will be handling all your lost-tooth needs from this point forward.

I received your note but was unable to stay long due to a caged animal in your room. Tooth angels do NOT like caged animals! They think we're toys!

I hope you received the coin I placed beneath your pillow. I did not have time to wrap it - I had to leave the area because the animal was starting to whine.

Thank you for using Tooth Angle Services.

Sincerely,

Roberto

Tooth Angel Agent 283

tooth.angel.283@gmail.com

"Recycling Today's Lost Teeth For Tomorrow's Dentures"

Should women be entitled to birth control?

First of all, can you find somewhere in the United States that a woman is not permitted to obtain birth control?

Neither can I. It's a legally-prescribed medical solution to a variety of medical problems, and the prevention of unwanted pregnancy.

So the issue of provision is, well: it's not an issue. It's a diversion from the real issue, which is one of entitlement. More specifically, taxpayer-funded entitlement. Provision is there. The issue is this: who will pay for the contraceptives?

Pro-entitlement citizens want the government to either:

• require private healthcare-related corporations to provide birth control (contraceptives) without charging the patient, or
• provide taxpayer-funded supplemental healthcare benefits that pay in whole or in part for contraceptives, or
• a combination of the two options above.

So here's my second point: why? What gives any patient anywhere the right to the product, service, time, energy, or money of another person?

Put another way, what gives any patient the right to lay claim to money I've earned so that they can have a medical solution to some problem they've encountered? Why are they allowed to reach into my pocket to pay for their needs? What about my needs? 

Here is the statistic I heard this morning: While 51% of the U.S. population does not pay any income tax of any kind (in other words, whatever they might pay is refunded to them), 40% of the population (nearly 80% of the first statistic) receives supplemental assistance from the government.

Sorry to keep coming back to this, but pretty much every government funding problem can be solved by paying only for those solutions  required to protect me from harm at the hands of another.

And from my perspective, abortion funding is so antithetical to the point in the previous paragraph that it should be obvious that it is not the woman's "right" to abortion that is at issue; it is instead the right of the unborn fetus, the viable human who is still developing, who needs protection from harm at the hands of another. The government funding currently earmarked to pay for that should instead be directed to protection of unborn children whose lives are endangered by their parents' irresponsibility.

If the name is available, I'm changing the name of my blog to "The Blunt Blog." This may change again in the future, but for now, I think I want to focus a bit on some of the 'intemperate' thoughts I claim to have. They very likely will be blunt; if you remember that they're not personal (unless they apply specifically to you! You know who you are!), you should make every effort to take no offense.

Some things just need to be said, y'know? So from that perspective, you can count me among those who compare themselves to Neal Boortz.

Onward.

My problem with the left

The biggest problem I have with government generally and Democrats specifically is this: They don't ask me what I think, or why, or anything. They just tell me how I should feel about some "social injustice" and then tell me what they plan to legislate so that I can contribute to fixing the "problem" they've identified. And their "fix" always involves a tax on my earnings, or limiting the earnings of someone who has made a comfortable living in the "free market."


It seems to me like they think they're bigger than any problem anyone has, and that they're well able to fix any problem anyone has. In fact, they appear to believe that they are BETTER able to fix any problem than anyone else could ever hope to imagine they might possibly be under the best circumstances. Worst of all, they appear to think it's their job to fix my problems!


What they appear to not realize is that my problem is mine to solve. If they have a suggestion for me, I'd welcome it if they would first welcome my explanation of how I feel or think about something. 


But they don't, so I don't share with them anything about how I feel.


But I'll share it with you.


First (and I've said this before - just ask Shawn), the government cannot give anyone anything without first taking it from someone else.


Second: if the government legislates that health care is a right (it isn't), then that means that they are telling doctors that they do not have a right to choose how they'll use their expertise. They are in fact requiring doctors to provide health care (which is a "right" according to government) to anyone who needs it.


Okay; let's go with that for a minute: I have a right to the effort, energy, work, product, service of another.


Let's go one (not two, but one) step further: I have a right to your money. (According to the government, I do, if you make more than a certain amount and I make less than a certain amount.) And the government will take it from you if you don't freely give it to me.


Here's the problem with all this: The government defines me as a "victim" if I make less than a certain amount, and defines the wealthy as "greedy" if they posses more than a certain amount. But if I claim money that you've earned as my own and use the government to transfer that wealth, doesn't that make me greedy and make the wealthy the victims?