Growing Up

Part of the pain of adoloscence is realizing that you are not a perfect entity. Another aspect of adolescence is realizing that your parents are not perfect.

We still live in a society where some believe that government is the solution to all of the problems in society. This kind of thinking has worked poorly for California and the United States in general.

To have a benevolant government "help" rammed down my throat whether I want it or not seems like an intrusion. Thank you, my government for screwing with health care so that my insurance company wants to charge me $690 for a prescription refill. They covered the prescription last year, but for some reason changed it in January of 2011.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

Late to the Party : What I learned by watching Avatar

Well. I refused to give Mr. James Cameron any profit from my viewing of the movie Avatar, as I understood it was a liberal piece of crap. The word "understatement" cannot begin to describe what I found. I am, indeed, late to the party and now that I have seen it, this is what I learned:

1. Human beings are evil
2. Mother Earth has been destroyed by humans
3. Indigenous species are always better than modern civilization
4. Technology is evil
5. Technology destroys
6. Technology has no color
7. Indigenous people have grace, style and beauty
8. Business persons are evil
9. Military persons are evil
10. Science is good, but used by evil humans to be bad
11. James Cameron wants to be a ten foot blue alien
12. James Cameron wants to bone a ten foot blue alien woman
13. Trees are better than humans
14. We should shun technology
15. We will destroy ourselves
16. Being a tree-hugging, military-hating hippie is the only way to go through life
17. James Cameron is very angry with the Bush administration
18. We deserve to destroy ourselves

Wow. The plot was very basic, but I have heard thoughtbarfed many times how the movie was a "virtual orgasm". It was certainly not very thought-provoking. James certainly did not reach for the starts in the arena of thoughtful commentary on human existence.

James clearly feels bad about himself and bad about the human race. This is his prerogative. I am sure there are many who agree with him. It is no accident that the aliens in this movie are rich and visually awash with color, and the human beings are downright gray and more gray.

It also wasn't an accident that these beings towered above the humans in their physical representations. There was no depiction of God for the humans, but the aliens were deeply steeped in their regular worship to their deity(whom the humans snickered at).

The experience of Avatar was so very Hollywood. It clearly communicated how all indigenous species who hunt with a bow and arrow and worship mother Earth are so much better than the rest of humankind.

James Cameron is a self-loathing wannabe. He wants to be anything other than what he is: a Western European male American human being. We should feel sorry for him. He is clearly ashamed. If your goal was to create visual masturbation, then well done, Jimmy! If you wanted to communicate your deep shame, mission accomplished! If you wanted to make a meaningful statement, well Jimmy, let me put it this way. You fell short like you probably would if you were trying to bone a ten foot alien woman. Very Short.

Stick to making pretty pictures, Jimmy. And don't try to think too much. You are, after all, an entertainer.

No Apology Necessary : Van Jones

Well. What can be said about an administration that would put a man like "Van" Jones in charge of anything? You may not have heard about Van Jones if you are getting your news from ABC, CBS, NBC or the NY Times or the Washington Post.

Hello. Dying Old Media? Yeah, BTW..... it's news when the guy who is supposed to be spearheading the creation of jobs in our "new" economy does any of the following:

• Admits to being a communist


• Declares that "white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color communities"


• Demands an investigation into what the Bush Administration may have done that “deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”


• Broadcasts that "only suburban white kids’ shoot up schools"


• Demonstrates in the street for a cop-killer


• Compares a sitting president to a "crackhead licking a crack pipe"

Van Jones has apologized twice so far for making these comments. Why is he apologizing? The Obama administration has yet to unload this character (who hasn't created a single green job yet) and took to weakly defending him this week.

I don't need an apology from this man. The person doing the vetting at The White House should be apologizing (unless this is exactly the sort of person that Barack Obama wants in his administration). My impression is that this is exactly the sort of man Barack Obama wants in his administration.

Barack has had many documented connections to communism and communists, dating back to at least 1996. In eight months he has nationalized the banking and automotive industries less than six months after taking office. Who can deny what is happening in our country?

Currently, the federal government is in the process of trying to nationalize one sixth of what remains of our economy, the health care industry.Why should it surprise anyone that an avowed radical communist should be put in charge of "green job creation"? Van Jones's book, "The Green Collar Economy" suggests that poverty and the economic crisis can be solved by investment in a green economy.

The creation of "family-supporting, career-track job that directly contributes to preserving or enhancing environmental quality,” will be the basis for this "green collar" workforce. This sounds impressive if you don't think about it too hard.

The fundamental problem that I have with this vision is twofold. One, the technology does not yet exist to profitably transform our economy into a "green" workforce. For those of you who don't get it yet, consider that our banking system is bankrupt, unstable at best and not loaning any money. The banking system is currently propped up by our Federal government.

Therefore (Two), the money to create all of these "green" jobs will be leeched from those who haven't lost their jobs yet in the form of massive taxation and spending by the Federal (and perhaps state and local) governments. We are already in debt to the tune of ten trillion dollars (and this is before we extend health care to everybody in the country). Incidentally, this is the administration that recently got its figures wrong by a full twenty percent (two trillion dollars) without so much as an "oops, my bad" last week.

It should be clear that what is going on here is a massive redistribution of wealth via taxation. The IRS will be empowered and expanded to make sure your income is redistributed. For you lefties out there this is the definition of communism.

I hope nobody gets too bent out of shape by Van Jones. Of course he is a communist, racist America-hater. Of course. We elected a shady sleazy-ass Chicago politician with friends like Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko. Who is honestly surprised that he would bring a man like Van Jones into the White House? I don't need an apology from any of these people.

An apology for those of you who dumbasses who voted for Obama will be entertained.

A final note for those of you who want to do some more research on the matter can find a particularly interesting take on "Obama's Friends".

Pop Goes The "King of Pop"

Hero worship in our culture knows no bounds. What a tragic figure was one Michael Jackson, an American star from a very young age who went through several increasingly bizarre and very public changes. Why does the conduct of a mega-star person in their private life not affect how they are publicly perceived?

Michael Jackson was, by all accounts, a pedophile. For those of you in denial about it, please explain (to yourself) why he had a warning system installed so that he could be made aware of people approaching his bedroom. He acknowledged in an 2003 interview that he liked to share his bed with children. No "normal" (read:not a pedophile) adult male would think it was OK to share their bed with children who were not their own. period. This behavior suggests that this was a compulsion he could not control because anyone other than a pedophile would stop this type of "innocent" behavior after paying $15-23M dollars to settle a lawsuit about child molestation.

Let's recap about Michael:

• Pedophile
• Surgical self-disfigurement
• Self-loathing
• Bizarre narcissism
• Drug addict

Now with all of these qualities, why should the fact that he was an original and gifted musician make these OK?

Michael was so addicted to drugs, he was taking anaesthesia to sleep. What "normal" (read: not a drug-addict) person takes sedatives to sleep? I am sure there are legions of people to make excuses for Michael. In 2007 a pharmacy filed a lawsuit against him for not paying his bill totalling $101,926.66. Jackson was eating one meal a day, his hips, thighs and shoulders were riddled with needle wounds that were likely the result of narcotic painkillers. The only thing in his stomach were partially digested pills.

Michael Jackson was an adult. His handlers don't have any responsibility for keeping him alive. We are responsible for the choices we make, yet Michael won't be in the ground long before his family files a rainbow of lawsuits against a legion of targets. Where was his family when he was swirling the drain? Have they no shame? If he was anything other than a meal ticket to them, perhaps they might feel some responsibility for how Michael ended up.

Nevertheless, Michael Jackson is a perfect example of a tragic life, not a tragic death. He spent his money frivolously, engaged in cosmetic surgery frivolously. His death was not a "tragedy". It was completely predictable. This man had so little regard for his children that he dangled poor "blanket" off a balcony railing for the paparazzi.

This freak of humanity pursued material belongings and earthly pleasures as a way of life. Remember the hyperbaric sleeping chamber and the chimp? The only people surprised by how Michael Jackson ended were the ones deluding themselves about what kind of person he was.

This said, what is wrong with our culture that this kind of person should be celebrated, even worshipped? Soon Michael Jackson will be in the ground, and I can't wait to move on. I am sure that bizarre drug addicted pedophiles die every day somewhere on Earth, but I cannot understand why a bizarre drug-addicted talented pedophile should warrant a parade of mourning. Our culture is sick. I hope that we can heal ourselves, but it starts with being honest with ourselves.

Michael Jackson was dead long ago. He can now only offer humanity a reminder that fame and money mean nothing. Loving our loved ones and giving of ourselves in the form of time or treasure are the only pursuits worth pursuing.

Leave it to Beaver

There is a horrible dichotomy to being a man and trying to protect your children from the sexualization of everything in our society. I can remember when the most overt sexual exposure I had in my face at nine years old was the Playboy magazines that were stacked neatly in my local barber shop. I did not muster up the courage to open one up until I was a cocky thirteen year old (Sorry).

These days, our children are exposed to every sexual act imaginable before they are of age.

I'm a guy. I have checked out MILFs and (of age) teens in my time, I will admit. I don't do these things around my wife or daughters. I don't turn my head even if she's stacked. I don't ogle women. In my era (I'm only 35) women didn't run around with their underwear (skimpy ass underwear) hanging out, either. How is a man supposed to raise his children (yes boys too) to be chaste in the USA today? We live in a highly sexualized society. Children are sexualized too. Milkshakes are bringing boys to the yard all over these United States.

A report by the American Psychological Association reports that:

"The proliferation of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising and media is harming girls' self-image and healthy development."

Duh!

Perhaps more revealing and certainly sadder yet is the press release related to this same report indicating that: "sexualization of girls is linked to common mental health problems in girls, eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression"

The details of this report are stark, bleak and very real for those of us who feel compelled to take the challenge of raising mentally healthy boys and girls. Too often is the focus solely upon girls and societal attempts to sexually objectify them. Almost nonexistent are the affects of psychological damage upon young growing men whose perceptions are manipulated until their sisters, mothers and female classmates become whores.

We have been endlessly told of the importance of teaching children to put condoms on bananas in the name of educating about sex (and the younger the better), but as Michelle Malkin points out... Why isn't this same argument used to support gun safety? We should be teaching children the same basic information about how guns work to "promote safety" just like we desire to give "age appropriate" sexual education for Kindergartners. A reasonable person might even assume from this that the sexualization of our young children is a priority to some in this country.

Children are the victims here. A increasingly common high school graduation gift for girls from their parents is breast augmentation even though breast implant patients are twice as likely to die of brain cancer, three times more likely to die of lung cancer and four to five times more likely to die of suicide than other plastic surgery patients of the same age.

Who would give their children such a "gift"? ABC News reports on a story under their "Beauty and Fashion Secrets" section of their website entitled, "Teen Trend : Breast Enhancement No Big Deal" and subtitled, "Cosmetic Surgery Offers A Quick Fix For Teenage Self Esteem Issues". This ABC "article" from only one month ago reports that girls can "not only boost their cup size, but their confidence".

I have personally been telling my children to raise their confidence through physical activity, competition in the classroom as well as in sports and by engaging in appropriate public speaking. How does one tell a girl to be smart and then sexy will come at the appropriate time in her life when she is currently judged by to what degree men and boys want to have sex with her (at fourteen)?

Sexualization has entered into every segment and layer of our society. Burger commercials have been sexual in nature when starlets known best for the night-vision recordings of sex romps were released on the Internet are seen stuffing messy burgers into their mouths. A new low (Death Valley low) for you Californians! has been achieved in advertising. Introducing the "BK Super Seven Incher (It'll Blow Your Mind Away)"!

The Burger King corporation is truly disgusting and if any of you are capable of shame you should be steeped in it. I have rarely eaten their revolting products in the past, so letting them know that I will now never set foot in one of their establishments has little potential for effect. I would hope that they can perceive the depth of my loathing by letting them know I would rather eat at Arby's than support pornographic marketing of this nature.

Additionally I would like to add:

HAVE IT YOUR WAY® you nauseating, repellent, sleazy, reprehensible scumbags at Burger King!

The media in the United States dove right into the cesspool of sexualized culture. On NBC this week, (during a morning show from a Starbucks in South Beach Florida, no less) the male anchors are chuckling all about the "pearl necklace" they wore during high school. MSNBC takes the proverbial cake regarding disgusting sexual references disguised as news. While putting down American's right to assemble to protest what they perceive as "unfair taxation", David Schuster uses the terms "teabagging", "toothless", "going nuts", "full-throated", tongue-lashing", "licking" and such.

As if to achieve new lows, just this week an ad campaign that featured "Hot Threeway Action" in order to sell jeans was pulled, but not until it had achieved its desired effect. Everyone was talking about Calvin Klein's risque ad. Congratulations you old whore, Calvin!

I would never subject anyone to advertising of this nature, much less their children. Television has followed a decades-long path into degradation. Desperate Housewives has to compete with Sex and the City so they leak footage of a sex scene onto YouTube. Janet Jackson shows her tit to the largest TV audience of the year. Paris Hilton achieves insta-celebrity for homemade porn. We have gone beyond the boundaries of indecency. Sexual content and objectification are the norm now as little girls want to be sluts and sluts want to be little girls.

A television program about a innocent young boy trying to grow up in a small town could never interest America now unless his mom was having lesbian sex with a neighbor, boffing one of his school chums or secretly going to stripper classes after dropping the kids off at school.

Sadly, today you could still name the show Leave It To Beaver. (I feel like I know you well enough to share this little joke with you.) Some say the true measure of a society is the quality and nature of its art. I personally believe that the measure of society is the level of protection afforded its children. The truly inappropriate joke is the seriously advanced state of decay of our morality.

Let me 'splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

Sometimes you just have to give it up to those who can sum it all up in a few words. Well done. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Subsidizing Failure : Die GM!

Under the system formerly known as Capitalism, companies were allowed to go under when they failed to meet the needs of the marketplace. When GM and the other American automakers embarked upon the road of producing inferior products while allowing the powerful and politically connected unions to break their backs these companies should have been shed like so many dead cells.

An example of Capitalism I use to explain to my children is the humble granola bar factory. If a granola bar factory can produce a better tasting product for cheaper than their rival then why would anyone have use for an overpriced granola bar tasting of sawdust? Such a factory would surely shut down in a free market. Decades of mismanagement has lead GM and the other automakers down this road. The axiom of capitalism is "let the market decide". By propping up the American car makers who have squandered their market share, we encourage irresponsible corporate behavior. American car manufacturers have lost to their (largely Japanese and Korean) counterparts. The market has spoken. Instead of investing in quality products that the market wants, American automakers continued to crank out inferior inventory that is not moving.

The Obama administration has propped up General Motors and is glad to do so. Who else could pull off ousting the president of GM all the while blustering that the US government has "no interest in running GM"? Obama and his thugs could not wait to get their hands on GM and has graciously announced that the federal government is backing the warranties of GM products. This is fantastic. We are going to use tax dollars to guarantee the pieces of shit that the failed American automakers have produced in their dying years. Anyone else feel as if this is perhaps not the smartest investment? Ostensibly this is to give consumers confidence in GM product warranties so consumers will buy GM products. Hello? Consumers are confident about the Hondas and Toyotas they purchase. Government backing of a crappy American product with tax dollars will inspire no one.

I had some personal experience with this when my family was shopping for our first new automobile purchase four years ago. We very much wanted to buy American, and spent quite a bit of time researching the best minivan for our family. It became quickly apparent that there were no minivan products with a five-star safety rating in both front and side impact manufactured in America. Allow me to extend a personal thank you to GM for making me choose between my family's safety and our patriotism.

In the case of Chrysler, the US government has decided that a merger with Fiat is just the thing to bring around this failed automaker and has made this merger (or an alternate plan for viability) the condition for further government aid. This is the pattern of the Obama administration. The government gets more power and the taxpayer gets less of their paycheck to make it happen. In an interview with "Face the Nation", Obama expressed his administration's belief that the U.S. can have a successful auto industry. One that is going to emerge "much more lean, mean and competitive than it currently is" Does anyone else see a contrast between what is being said and what is happening? On what planet does the government who is nationalizing whole industries (i.e. banking and auto) increase competition?

In less than three months, the Obama administration has bloated the United States government's role almost beyond recognition. And the U.S. government is going to assist the automakers to become "lean and mean"? Really? Really? Bloated government agencies intervening in the manufacturing sector of our economy is going to result in a leaner and more competitive industry? How?

Already, the Obama administration has made it clear that they will use this opportunity to ensure that the automakers produce the cars that the government (not the market) wants them to produce while eliminating profitable automotive products that are not in line with the leftist agenda. Eleven of the twenty most profitable products GM sells are the "pickups and SUVs" which GM has publicly apologized for producing. The two best selling vehicles in the U.S. are the Ford F-Series and the Chevy Silverado.

Our federal lawmakers want to subsidize the Chevy Volt (ten years too late to market) with a $7500 tax rebate. To be fair, the government was handing out tax breaks for SUVs not too long ago, but the government has no business regulating the free market. Government has proven itself competent at waste, fraud and mismanagement of funds.

A significant portion of the blame for the mortgage meltdown was a direct result of the U.S. government telling the banks to loan money to unqualified applicants and then "guaranteeing" these crappy loans with tax dollars. As a final straw, the bankrupt automakers are now promising to make the auto payments of those individuals who lose their jobs "through no fault of their own". How are these bankrupt organizations going to make these auto payments? Ahh yes, by paying for people's new cars with tax dollars.

I am driving a 1998 compact with over one hundred thousand miles on it, but I am going to subsidize new car purchases for Americans that would otherwise be unable to purchase a new car. When their employers take advantage of the economic downturn to shed the "dead cells" from their workforce, these incompetent consumers will reach into my pocket to pay for their new cars that they never should have purchased. By preventing the free market from functioning the way it should, I can proudly subsidize their family's meals, transportation and housing all on the federal teat.

American automakers should go the way of American television manufacturers, American buggy whip manufacturers and the newspaper. But thanks for the apology.