No Nanny State - Molon Labe!

Orwell: I told ya so!

I was driving home last night, and I heard two seemingly unrelated stories, that I think exemplify where we've come and where we're going.

The first story was about this guy in Florida that was making dentures for old folks. He was making them in his garage, which appears to have been kind of dirty. Maybe really dirty.

Bean performed denture fittings and made false teeth in his garage, charging just $200 for a full set of dentures, a procedure that typically costs more than $2,000, authorities said. But he was not licensed to practice in Florida.

Palm Beach County Sheriff's detective Don Zumpano said there were "health risks with operating this type of facility outside of your house," adding that Bean's workspace was "filthy."

Wow. Sounds pretty bad. Must have had lots of complaints from people he screwed over from his shoddy workmanship, or made ill as a result of his "filthy" garage.

Neighbors and clients, however, praised Bean for saving them thousands of dollars.

Ron St. Mary, 73, head of the neighborhood crime watch, said Bean is no criminal.

"He's helping the old people who don't have a few dollars," he said. "I think the world of him."

Oh.

What a horrible, horrible thing. Some guy possess a skill, is able to help out his neighbors, but because he doesn't have some government sanction, he's thrown in jail. And how sick could you get from dirty dentures? I'm guessing most folks would run them through one of those denture cleaning tablet things before using them anyway. It's not like he was pulling teeth, or doing root canals, or even filling cavities. He was making prosthetics.

No consumer complaints. No illness. Nothing but happy customers. But Nanny didn't give her approval first, so he must be punished.

The other story was about Nanny - this time our moral compass, the FCC - stirring the pot again about regulating what we can see on TV.

A correlation exists between bloodshed on television and violence in real life, the commission said.

Concluding that "exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wrote in a statement accompanying the report that "Congress could provide parents more tools to limit their children's exposure to violent programming in a constitutional way."

Ahhhh. It's for the children. Clearly, some bureaucrat in Washington is better able to determine what I should be able to see, and what I should be able to allow my children to see. Our morals are exactly the same. Actually, his morals must be better, 'cause he gets to pick for ignorant little me.

Whenever this discussion comes up, and people make statements such as, "I can't watch my kids 24/7", or "I don't have control over what they would see at someone else's house" or some other such drivel, I pose them this situation:

Let's say some big network - CBS for example - announces that they have a new show coming out. It's called Horny Harry. It's about the zany adventures of a man - Horny Harry - that spends the entire show with no pants on, a full erection and he carries a menacing riding crop. He spends the show having sex with every man or woman that comes to his sex pad. When he's not having sex with others, he's constantly masturbating. It's a whacky-good time.

If you were a parent, what would you do?

Here's what I'd do. I'd call and write the network and tell them that this was unacceptable and if they didn't cancel the show, I'd boycott all of their sponsors. I'd call my cable provider and tell them the same. I'd call and write all of the sponsors. I'd block the channel on my TV. I'd call all of the parents of my kid's friends and ask them if they allowed Horny Harry to be shown in their house. If the answer was yes, my kid would not be allowed at that home.

In short, I'd be a parent. Why couldn't any parent do the same damned thing for anything they felt may be harmful to their kids? 'Cause it takes effort, that's why.

I would not expect, nor want, the government to be the parent for my kids. So many people expect Nanny to think and act on their behalf. They willingly give up their parental authority in exchange for.... what? Some sense of security? Some sense of empowerment? They don't see that by transferring their rights and responsibilities to Nanny, they are continuing a trend towards helplessness and dependency.

Look what happened at Virginia Tech. Some nut is slaughtering people and (with one exception, holocaust survivor Liviu Librescu) all they could think to do was to hunker down, cower in the corner, and wait for someone else to come and fix their problem. It's not surprising, as it's how we've been conditioned for the past 40+ years. Helplessness is now a part of our national fabric.

And if you're not helpless, and don't play inside the lines - like our quasi-dentist - you are jailed. If you're a kid in school who's a bit rambunctious, we drug you into submission. Don't think like the herd, and be chastised as a lunatic.

Toe the line, or pay the price. God Bless America.

Labels: nanny state, Self-Defense, Self-Reliance, Thought Crimes

Match?

This link is a fantastic documentary that debunks virtually every point Al Gore & Company make in An Inconvenient Truth, as well as all of the other lemmings that espouse man-made global warming.

The video is a little over an hour, but will give you information to refute the man-made alarmists. Take the time to watch this. It's worth an hour of your day.

Hmmmm. Maybe I need to send my buddy Adam at TerraPass an email with this link. I wonder how he'll feel about his "carbon offset" business once the general populous understands the scam.

Labels: Eco-fraud, Global Warming

Bwahhhaaaaa!

I've mentioned before that I'm on the Brady Campaign's mailing list. I do it to keep an eye on the enemy. After the VT tragedy, I fully expected them to start gnashing their teeth and flailing their arms regarding the evils of guns. They did not disappoint.

I received an impassioned letter asking all recipients to, "Tell Our Nation's Leaders: Act Now To Stop Gun Violence!" They provided me with a pre-filled letter that, based upon your zip code, would be sent to all of your federal representatives. They actively encouraged me to personalize the letter, as that would make it more likely to be read. So I did exactly that.

Instead of using the towel wringing, "guns are bad" rhetoric, I sent the following letter. I did keep the original first sentence of their letter:

I am outraged by this week's tragedy at Virginia Tech. Unlike the Brady folks that want to disarm decent, law-abiding citizens, I ask you to ensure concealed carry laws are enacted in all 50 states to ensure tragedies such as that which occurred in VT will not happen again.

Imagine what the outcome would have been had even a small percentage of the people in the classrooms been carrying a defensive weapon. Certainly, 33 would not be dead.

Yet the Brady Campaign wants to further restrict the ability of law-abiding Americans to defend themselves.

It is time for you to take steps to end gun violence to prevent tragedies like the one at Virginia Tech. [ed. This line was from the original letter, as well]

I do support a number of laws and regulations to ensure that those that are carrying weapons have received an adequate background check and training. Once this is completed, the permit carrier should be able to carry their weapon anywhere they choose, other than courthouses or private businesses where the owner wishes to prohibit weapons (I can choose NOT to go to private businesses that don't allow concealed carry).

In closing, think about all of the mass shootings that have occurred in recent times. They have all occurred in locations that have prohibited defensive weapon possession. Schools, malls, etc. Why is that? Because the criminals that are perpetrating these crimes know they are easy targets.

YOU can reduce the number of easy targets by loosening the laws on concealed carry, and making all public property (other than courts) allowable for concealed carry.

Bush, Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein and McNerny all got this letter (Babs Boxer does not allow mass mailings). Continued pressure by concerned Americans is the only way we can ensure our rights are not further eroded, and our lives are not placed at undue risk.

Labels: Brady Bunch, Gun Grabbers, Self-Defense, Self-Reliance

They must all be light-headed right now

The tragedy that has occurred in Virgina is going to be looked upon as a reason for guns to be outlawed and made less available to the general public. Of course, the exact opposite is what SHOULD happen.

Consider the outcome had one student or one teacher been armed. Consider if half of the class had been armed. How many would be dead? One or two innocents, perhaps. And the bad-guy shooter would have been number 3.

And the proof is in the pudding. Remember the mall incident in Utah? The only reason that was not a slaughter was because they got LUCKY and an off-duty cop was in the mall at the time. He put the dog down. They weren't as lucky in Philly the same week when something similar occurred.

I recently wrote the NRA and told them that if they placed a bill before the California legislature for a "shall issue" statute, I'd sign up as a life member. It doesn't even have to pass (although that would be great). I just want the discussion to begin so we have the opportunity to disprove the fright-mongering in a public forum. If we have the ability to chip away at the lies, we can make progress towards regaining Californian's ability to protect ourselves against lawlessness.

I'm not overly optimistic.

Labels: Brady Bunch, Gun Grabbers, Self-Defense

Hope he's able to spread the word

Well, Imus has been canned from his radio show. The race-baiters have gotten him fired by threatening the sponsors and the networks, and trying to get white America to chastise his boneheaded comments.

It worked. And the black community is no better off from it. It was all a big smoke screen to make them feel better and powerful and relevant. But their own are still calling themselves ho's and skanks and bitches.

Jason Whitlock in Kansas City, gets it. Please, please, please read his entire article. Whether you're black, white, Hispanic, Asian or an kind of mix thereof, this man gets it.

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

Great stuff. I hope minorities everywhere are listening to his message. I hope whites everywhere will read it and understand that self-flagellation accomplishes nothing.

Labels: Race-baiters, Self-Reliance

There is the old saying, "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." It basically means that, unless you are without fault on a given subject, you should not criticize others.

I'm not going to beat this horse to death, but that's how I feel about this Imus thing.

If the black community wants his head on a stick, they need to clean their own house first. They need to be asking for the resignation of the CEO of the BET network for the music they play. They need to make very public attacks and sustained boycotts on the record companies that produce this crap. Women are regularly described as, "ho's" and "bitches" and "niggers" and portrayed as sluts, grinding themselves into the groins of these rap singers.

The likes of Sharpton and Jesse Jackson don't boycott these peoples (and won't in the future) because this is black-on-black. Unlike Imus' boneheaded comments, this musical degradation of women has been going on for many years, and continues to thrive. For some reason, they get a pass.

Put down the stones and pick up the brooms.

Labels: Race-baiters

In One Easy Step

There has been a lot of coverage on TV and the Internet today regarding Bush's new and improved immigration strategy.

The plan would grant work visas to undocumented immigrants but require them to return home and pay hefty fines to become legal U.S. residents. They could apply for three-year work visas, dubbed "Z" visas, which would be renewable indefinitely but cost $3,500 each time.

Great idea, George. For a fee of $100 per month, you too can take an American job. I'm so glad he's looking out for the people that put him in office.

Think about how insane this is: Our government has devised a plan that will ensure the wages of our poorest, legal residents are kept low. The flood of dirt-poor, uneducated people will continue to pour into our country - depressing wages - since "No Americans will take the jobs". Proponents of this point never fail to omitt, "... at these slave wages" from the sentence. I wonder why.

At least we're making a $1,200 a year of off each of them right?

Wrong.

Not so widely publicized was the recent Heritage Foundation study that showed the give and take of a lack of education. This has nothing to do with whether you're an American, an illegal alien, or a legal resident. A lack of an education has a net cost to our society.

Overall, households headed by persons without a high school diploma (or low-skill households) received an average of $32,138 per household in direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based ser­vices in FY 2004.

Hold on there, Mr. Smartypants, what about the taxes they pay, huh?

[T]otal federal, state, and local taxes paid by low-skill households came to $9,689 per household in 2004.

Oh. So the net cost to us tax-paying, high-school educated, law-abiding Americans is over $22,000 per year.

I wonder how many illegal aliens are high school graduates.

You know what? I'll bet that even the uneducated illegal aliens can do this math: Spend $1,200 per year, get a net of $22,000 in return.

You want a real kick to the groin?

Strikingly, as Chart 4 shows, low-skill households in FY 2004 had average earnings of $20,564 per household; thus, the average cost of government benefits and services received by these households not only exceeded the taxes paid by these households, but substan­tially exceeded the average earned income of these households.

Not only did we give them over 3 times what they contributed to the system, we GAVE them more than they earned on their own. How do you sustain that kind of system? You can't.

It's bad enough that we have to do this for our own citizens and legal residents. We're now going to offer this deal to other countries so we can take their uneducated masses off of their hands?

Hell, sign MY ass up. I am sick and tired of being the provider to the masses. I'm going to become a drain on society while there is still some money to be had. I'm going to sell all of my stuff, put it in a non-interest bearing checking account (so I don't have to pay taxes), and move to San Francisco (it's the Hilton of Homelessness).

If I ever need a break from the "grind" of hustling money from liberals, or eating at city-sponsored soup kitchens, or flopping down at one of the city-sponsored shelters, or getting free health care from a city-sponsored clinic, I can make a withdrawal of funds and take a vacation to "get away from it all".

Might not be idyllic, but it's a lot less stressful, and sure beats being a free ATM for the masses.

Labels: amnesty, illegal aliens, Taxes

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." -- Thomas Jefferson

There has been an ongoing fight about how big or little of an influence the various forms of government should have in our lives. Most people would agree that national security is something best addressed by the federal government. Education, on the other hand would probably best be served at the local or state level.

Of late, we've seen a growing trend of the government not simply regulating a product, service or use of private property, but of their specific, direct interaction into private affairs. Smoking bans. Cable and broadcast TV censorship. Gun laws. Drug and other "vice" laws. Both sides of the aisle support their version of "appropriate government" and rail against the other. Here we are, stuck in the middle just wanting to live our lives as we see fit without infringing on others.

An historic example of the government directly and forcefully injecting itself into our lives has to do with mandatory inoculations for school children. I think most people can see the logic in inoculating against TB, polio, measles and the rest. These are debilitating diseases that are easily transmitted between individuals going about their normal business. In this particular case, kids being kids - fighting, running, wrestling - the whole can of worms. Many of them are spread through coughing, so physical contact is not even necessary to become infected.

Most folks would consider this a reasonable, well-considered use of forced compliance by the government.

How can you say the same about this?

Twenty states are currently considering legislation that would require preteen girls to receive vaccinations against various strains of sexually-transmitted Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a virus that can cause cervical cancer.

Other than the Nanny State argument ("We know what is best for you poor, uneducated sops"), there cannot be a logical justification behind this.

• The disease cannot be transmitted through casual, normal-course-of-business contact.
  
  
• Every girl will NOT be exposed to this disease at any time in their lives (virgins, for example).
  
  
• The vast majority that ARE in a position to be infected, do so as a personal choice. Having sex carries many risks (and rewards), one of which is contracting a deadly disease. THEY can choose to be inocculated, or if they're sexually-active minors, their parents can make that decision for them.
  
  
• The small minority of those that will be exposed to this by rape do not justify the forced inoculation of all female children. If this is the crux of the argument, then, applying the same logic (an incredibly small portion of our population may die if we don't fix this) we must also enact the forced seizure of all personal automobiles. It is a well documented fact that 40,000 Americans die each and every year in automobile accidents. Not become injured, not get scraped up - they die. Clearly, the sops don't have the mental capacity to handle such dangerous devices, so they must be removed at once (The cars, not the sops. That would be crazy.) Plus, think of all the back-seat sex that would be halted as well. It's a two-fer!
  

Just as the smoking and trans-fat bans were passed, this too, will become law. Parents will hand their daughters over to the will of the State. They won't even put up a fight. Not worth the grief. Nanny is just looking out for our best interests, right? "Don't you love your child? Then how could you be against what's good for them?"

How, indeed?

Labels: nanny state, Self-Reliance

More good news...

What could that number be? The salary of a business executive? The cost of a small home? The price of a tricked-out sports car? Perhaps the prize in a lottery drawing.

Not even.

No, it is what it costs us to run our federal government. For one second*.

That would be $2,900,000,000,000 per year (two point nine trillion dollars).

Let's let presidential hopeful, Congressman Ron Paul, put this into perspective:

When I (Congressman Paul) first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.

About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed "mandatory" entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I'm sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.

For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans.

The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases military spending to make up the difference. The bottom line is that both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more total spending in 2008 than 2007.

We are getting raped and pillaged at every turn. Regardless of the party in power, spending increases with no discernible increase in benefit. Social engineering give-ways galore. Pork, pork and more pork. I'm so fucking tired of this shit.

Start the revolution. It can't be any worse than what we have now.


* Do the math: $2,900,000,000,000 /365 days / 24 hours / 60 minutes / 60 seconds. Now vomit.

PS: Happy Birthday to me. My 3rd blog birthday on April Fools Day. Yeah, I think it's appropriate, too.

Labels: nanny state, Taxes