San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, November 22, 2013

Stop Sending My Money To The Philippines

I was watching John Stossel's show on Fox Business News last night.  He dedicated the hour long program to a discussion of charity.  In particular he contrasted private charity with what government calls charitable assistance.  As a Libertarian he believes that government should not be in the business of dolling out charity to various groups.  He believes that charitable activity should be entirely engaged in by private people and organizations.  He argued from a utilitarian perspective as he cited example after example of "international aid" that ended up in the pockets of despots and dictators, whereas private charity, administered by people on the ground floor of the different catastrophic events, found its way to the people who were really in need.  Although I do not disagree with his argument that government to government aid does not work, it seems to me that he missed the main point.  Government does not have the right to engage in charitable work.  It is immoral.
The nightly news last night showed video of SDA Air Force planes and personnel delivering large crates of goods and supplies to the Philippines over the last couple of days.  The talking head delivering the report mentioned that, although private charitable organizations and churches had "stepped up" and donated relief in the form of cash, goods and people to the typhoon ravaged Philippines, they could never do it as effectively and efficiently as the government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Private organizations, he told me, simply do not have planes that are large enough to carry as many relief supplies as the Air Force.  It is hard to disagree with his point.  Few church groups keep gigantic cargo planes on retainer.  But it seems to me that the reporter also missed the main point about charitable relief from the hands of the federal government.  It is immoral.
There are two issues that need to be resolved prior to ever sending a nickel of my money to someone in need of charitable relief.  The first issue has to do with where the money is coming from.  Earlier this year the folks who live in northeast Colorado suffered through a flood that did a tremendous amount of damage to their property.  I posted an article to this blog at that time in which I exhorted FEMA to stay out of Colorado.  You can find that article here.  My argument was a simple one.  Immediately after the flood waters subsided the Governor of Colorado was on the phone to King Obama demanding federal funds for the people who suffered damage to their property.  King Obama responded and sent millions of federal dollars to Colorado.  As I reported two days after my initial post, "The Denver Post reported today that 6,400 people prostrated themselves in worship before FEMA representatives yesterday to beg for a transfer of taxpayer money from the federal treasury to them because they suffered the consequences of a federally approved catastrophe.  FEMA representatives were happy to give away stolen money in exchange for votes for their handlers.  Almost one half million dollars of taxpayer money was given to the petitioners. Meanwhile, there was no newspaper report of any money being given to the man in south Denver who lost his home to fire last week.  Poor fellow.  If only he could have lost his home in the government approved fashion."
All money that is given to SDA citizens because they suffered financial losses in catastrophic events that are federally approved comes from one of two sources.  Either it is previously taken from the taxpayers or it is created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury.  The first situation is an example of theft and the second situation is an example of counterfeiting.  Both are immoral.  The federal government has no moral mandate to be in the business of taking from the top 49% of the income population, who pay all of the federal taxes in this land,  and giving that money to federally approved petitioners to pay for financial losses they have suffered.  If you believe that the government does have that moral mandate, please explain how to distinguish between the person who should receive those funds and the person who should not.  Why does the person who lost his home in the flood (and who made the conscious decision to not have flood insurance) be given some of my money and the person whose home burned down when his furnace blew up not be given some of my money?  Why does the person who was involved in the flood have a moral claim on my money and the person whose house burned down does not?  Quite clearly neither of those people has a moral claim on my money.  Quite clearly it is immoral for the government to take my money and give it to them.  It is theft.  The person receiving the stolen money should be prosecuted as a "fence."
In a similar fashion, when the federal government creates money out of thin air to give to people it approves of, it is creating inflation and stealing from every person in the land who owns dollars.  The government does not have the right to give away money it does not have.  The government does not have the right to counterfeit money to give away to favored people in exchange for a vote in the next election.  Everything about the situation is immoral.  It needs to stop.
The second issue that needs to be resolved has to do with who is under the jurisdiction of the federal government.  Even if I could make the argument that the government should be in the business of administering charity with taxpayer dollars to SDA citizens, and I can't, I cannot justify sending charitable relief to people who are not citizens of the SDA.  The federal government of the SDA exists to serve the people of the SDA.  The federal government of the SDA does not exist to serve the people of other sovereign nations.  What happens in other sovereign nations is none of our business.  When people in foreign lands die and suffer hardship as a result of a natural catastrophe, it is none of our business.  To transfer money from the taxpayers of the SDA to citizens of another sovereign nation, like the Philippines, simply because they have suffered a natural disaster is immoral.  No matter how humanitarian and philanthropic the outcome may appear, the money that is being sent is stolen from the SDA taxpayers against their will.  It is blood money.  It should never be done.
The same problems encountered with the distribution of FEMA funds also occurs with the distribution of international aid.  Who determines who gets the money?  There is an infinite reservoir of human need found within sovereign nations outside the SDA.  Who decides who gets money and who does not?  Why does the Philippines get money and Nigeria does not?  Why do we send aid to Afghanistan and enforce immoral sanctions against Iran?  The entire milieu of international aid is a virtual cesspool of corruption and political intrigue.  None of it should be done.  It is immoral.  No citizen of a sovereign foreign country has any moral claim on my money.  Therefore no citizen of a sovereign foreign country should ever get a nickel of my money.  I do not consent to any of my money being sent to the Philippines.  It should stop.
Stossel was correct last night.  If you feel badly for the citizens of the Philippines and want to do something to help, contact a private charitable organization that is working there and do something.  Will you be able to deliver the goods as efficiently as a slew of Air Force cargo planes?  No, certainly not.  But what you will be doing will be moral.  It will be good.  To help your fellow men when they are in need is a good thing.  If you want to do it, do it.  Just don't steal any of my money and sent it to the Philippines.  If our political rulers want to make a statement about how compassionate they are, let them send their own money to the Philippines.  Let them make a big deal of it.  Let them stand upon the grandstand and deliver a gigantic over sized check, drawn on their own personal bank accounts, to the people suffering in the Philippines.  Let the public adore them for their kindness and generosity.  Let them be praised.  Just don't let them ever receive a word of praise for sending other people's money to the Philippines.  That is theft and it is wrong.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Kentucky Bureaucrats Decide Which Business Dies

I was watching an episode from the vast reservoir of John Stossel shows the other night.  John Stossel, if you do not know, is a man in the media who came, over time,  to understand that personal freedom is very important.  He eventually became a Libertarian.   In his early years he worked with Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters on the first version of  the television news magazine "20/20."  As he engaged in investigative reporting related to various business topics, he came to discover that government intervention was actually the enemy of free enterprise.  It didn't take long for him to bump heads with Downs and Walters.  He was fired.  He is now with Fox Business News and he has a weekly show that exposes the powerfully negative impact of government regulation upon our health and well being.  He continues to bump heads with the neo-conservatives at Fox.  Bill O'Reilly has him on every once in a while.  They usually end up in some sort of tense confrontation as John extols the virtues of freedom and Bill preaches the gospel of government protection and intervention.  If you haven't seen his show, you should watch it.  As I said, you can find it weekly on Fox Business News.
Last week John was taking on the branch of government regulations that work to stifle all new business development.  These are the regulations that are the direct result of a politician paying off a favor to a campaign contributor who happens to be in a particular business.  Once the politician is elected he crafts and passes a law that erects barriers to entry into the business of his wealthy benefactor.  It is all done in the name of "consumer protection" and "public safety" of course.  But we all know, or at least those of us who have been around the block a couple of times know, that the new rules and regulations have nothing to do with protecting the public or the consumer.  They are all about keeping competitors out of the protected business so the campaign donor businessman can make even more money and fund future reelection campaigns.  That is the way things work in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.
One of the examples John gave in this episode was particularly disturbing to me.  I was unable to get it out of my head as I replayed the story over and over.  Each time I thought about what had happened I became increasingly mad.  I barely slept that night and I awakened with a headache and a bellyache.  I had to go to the gym and do an extreme workout in order to get rid of the seething anger that I felt in my gut.  I finally calmed down and have decided to tell you about the omniscient bureaucrats within the   Kentucky state government.
About ten years ago a man decided he wanted to try and start a moving company business.  He purchased a moving van and hired some strong young men to do the labor.  He trained them to be polite, wear nice clothes and deodorant, not swear in the presence of the clients, not smoke in the clients homes, not drive the moving van like maniacs and generally just do things that would be appreciated by the customers.  His business was a success.  In fact, he was so successful he expanded.  He purchased a bevy of new moving vans and hired dozens of strong young men.  His primary advertising was word of mouth as satisfied customers told their friends, family and neighbors about his quality moving services.  Today, ten years later, he is the top rated moving company, according to Angie's List, in his town.  When his company received the Angie's List accolade his problems with the government began.
His higher priced competitors began to get wind of his success.  More importantly, his competitors began to lose business to him.  What do you think they did?  Did they retrain their employees to make them even more professional?  No, they didn't do that.  Did they get nicer moving vans and deliver on superior service to their customers?  No, they didn't do that.  Did they cut their prices in order to appeal to the thrifty customers in the area?  No, they didn't do that.  In fact, they didn't do anything to make themselves more competitive.  Instead, they appealed to the government to put this upstart company out of business. 
Kentucky has a law that says existing moving companies can appeal to the government to get their start-up competitors forced out of business if they can prove the new company is "unnecessary," whatever that means.  Clearly the fact that this new moving company was growing rapidly was sufficient proof that it was "necessary", whatever that means, but it did not stop the large established moving companies from running down to the local bureaucrats and informing them that the services the new company were providing were not "necessary", whatever that means, and saturating the market.  They requested that no additional moving companies be permitted to operate in their area.  The bureaucrat in charge examined the evidence presented by the competitors and agreed with their opinion.  He then announced that the new moving company would no longer be permitted to operate.  The new company was ordered to shut down.
It was at this point John Stossel showed up.  He obtained an interview with the bureaucrat who had issued the ruling shutting down the new moving company.  As Stossel expertly manipulated him before the watching eye of the television camera he actually got him to admit that his prime motivation for shutting down the new company was related to his bureaucratic fear that the new company would go bankrupt if he did not shut it down!  His reasoning went something like this:  1)  As an omniscient bureaucrat I know that there is no additional need for moving companies in my district, 2) As an omniscient bureaucrat I know that any attempt to start a new moving company will result in failure and bankruptcy, 3) As a compassionate omniscient bureaucrat I have ruled that this new company can no longer operate in order to spare them the shame, pain and embarrassment of their inevitable bankruptcy and, 4) If this bankruptcy happens on my watch it will make me look bad because I did not predict it. His prime motivation in shutting down the new company was to attempt to save face in front of his fellow bureaucrats in the event some moving company went bankrupt some day.   He made this argument despite the rather obvious fact that the company was growing rapidly and serving the needs of hundreds of local consumers. 
Stossel asked him how it was the company was making record profits and expanding throughout the area if, in fact, it was doomed to bankruptcy.  The bureaucrat did not have an answer to that question.  Stossel asked him why established moving companies should be permitted to have a government mandated monopoly on moving services in the area.  He did not have an answer to that question.  In fact, he had no answers to any of the questions Stossel asked.  He would just continually reiterate that he knew how many moving companies were required in his district and he was not going to allow another one to come along.  He stressed how he was doing this for the sake of the start up company.  He emphasized that he was only doing this to prevent financial harm to those not as wise and omniscient as himself. 
After the interview Stossel asked his viewing audience to think about what would happen if the Kentucky law about moving companies (no doubt created by a politician with a brother-in-law in the moving business) was applied to other businesses in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Think about coffee shops.  Pretend you are a bureaucrat.  Think back twenty or thirty years.  Does the SDA "need" more coffee shops.  I certainly do not see how the SDA would have been considered dangerously under served by coffee shops two or three decades ago and if I was a bureaucrat I would have banned Starbucks. 
Only the market is able to determine what is needed and what is not.  By the "market", I mean the consumers.  Consumers are sovereign, or at least they should be.  What consumers want they will get.  When a business gives consumers what they want it is very easy to see because they will obtain profits.  When they do an outstanding job of giving consumers what they want they can frequently expand operations and serve even more consumers.  Conversely, when companies do not give consumers what they want they will suffer losses and, if they don't get things figured out, eventually go bankrupt.  Both profits and losses are good things.  Both expansion and bankruptcy are good things.  The economy grows and consumers get more of what they want for prices they are willing to pay when government stays out of business and allows the consumers to reign supreme.
Ah, therein lies the rub, does it not?  Petty government bureaucrats and career politicians cannot allow anything to be sovereign except themselves.  As usual, it is all about power over the people.  Profit seeking businesses want to serve the people.  Power seeking politicians want to rule the people.  Guess who wins?  Bureaucrats and politicians strut about pretending they know all.  They act as if they can merely wave their magic wands and the economy will bend to their sovereign wills.  Obamacare is the best example of this phenomena on the national level at this time.  But it goes on everywhere.  Everywhere politicians and bureaucrats are talking about their assessment of what the people "need" and how they are going to permit or allow this or that business to satisfy that need.  What a joke.  It is communism, in its purest form.  Having political officials determine which business will live and which business will die, based entirely upon the whim of the bureaucrat rendering the decision, is communism at its worst.  Why do we tolerate these destructions of our freedom?  Why do we allow these petty tyrants to destroy the lives of free men and women?  Answer:  because the majority of the citizens in the SDA worship the state.  Until that changes nothing will change.  I have seen the enemy and it is us.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Wal-Mart Is Evil For Paying Market Priced Wages

I was browsing the web yesterday in search of stupid things.  I didn't have to browse for long before coming across a truly stupid thing.  I forget the website where I found it.  It does not matter.  The article expresses a very common opinion about Wal-Mart.  The article was written by Henry Blodget of the Business Insider.  I think Henry considers himself to be a expert on business and economics.  In reality he is nothing more than an expert on envy, covetousness and socialism.  Here is what Mr. Blodget wrote about Wal-Mart:

"Monday, it was revealed that employees at a Cleveland Wal-Mart are holding a holiday food drive for other Wal-Mart employees.  This situation says everything about what's wrong with the U.S. economy right now.  Wal-Mart is one of the richest companies in the world. Wal-Mart has a market value of $260 billion and made $17 billion in profit last year.  But Wal-Mart does not pay its employees enough to buy food for the holidays.
America's corporations and investors have never had it better. The stock market is setting new highs, and corporate profits and profit margins are higher than they have ever been. Average Americans, meanwhile, have rarely had it worse. Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low, and fewer people are working as a percent of the population than at any time in the past 30 years.
In addition to violating just about every conceivable ideal of community fairness and decency, this state of affairs is hurting the economy. Average Americans account for most of the spending in the country. And thanks to the refusal of rich companies like Wal-Mart to share more of their wealth with the people who create it, average Americans are broke."

Let's talk about Hank's perspective for a while, shall we?  Wal-Mart has a profit margin of 3.6%.  Go here for the company's financials in support of the things I write in this critique.  Wal-Mart grossed $470 billion in the last year.  $352 billion, or 75% of total revenue,  was spent buying the goods that were sold.  Liberals constantly complain that Wal-Mart does not pay enough for the goods that they buy.  Wal-Mart haters spew propaganda that Wal-Mart buys goods from Chinese "sweatshops" at outrageously low prices.  Socialists filled with envy tell us that Wal-Mart should pay much more for their goods.  Well, what if they did?  How would they be able to pay their employees?  They are already spending 75% of their revenue on the goods that they sell.  Guess what would happen if they made the ridiculous decision to pay more than the market price for the goods that they buy?  They would have to raise prices.  Then all of the folks who shop there would have to spend less because everything would cost more.  According to Henry that would be bad for the economy because he believes the economy runs on consumer spending. 
Wal-Mart paid its employees $89 billion last year.  That was 19% of gross income.  That is a lot of money to pay in wages.  I wonder how many people are paying out $89 billion dollars per year in wages?  I bet Mr. Blodget does not pay that much to his chauffer, housekeeper and dog sitter.  The problem is that after subtracting for the cost of goods sold and employee wages there isn't much money left.  Wal-Mart also paid an additional $8 billion in taxes.  That leaves a grand total of $17 billion, or 3.6% in net profit.
Wal-Mart did not just sit on that profit.  It wasn't used to buy jets for the chief executives.  It wasn't used to lobby politicians in Washington for legislation favorable to the store.  In fact, a good chunk of that net profit was paid to the shareholders. Many of those shareholders are people like you and me who need those dividends to get a decent return on our investments and provide for our persent or future retirement.  I wonder if Hank would be willing to pay me some of his personal profits in order to provide for my future retirement?  Wal-Mart does.  Why won't he?  Wal-Mart has 3.3 billion shares of stock outstanding.  Last year the company paid $1.59/share in dividends.  That is a total $5.2 billion dollars, or about one third of the total profits.  Wal-Mart has less than $12 billion left after meeting all of its obligations.  Just where is Wal-Mart expected to come up with the money to pay more than the market price for labor in its stores?
As a result of the envy filled propaganda distributed by men like Blodget, people believe they can steal from Wal-Mart at will.  I guess it is sort of a Robin Hood thing.  Since Wal-Mart is evil, it is a good thing to steal from them.  Wal-Mart averages about $3 billion per year in theft losses.  $3 billion per year.  Wal-Mart suffers from more theft than just about any other store in the Socialist Democracy of America.  It is open season on Wal-Mart.  Thanks, Hank, for convincing people it is a good thing to rob the rich in order to give it to the poor (themselves, of course).  Just imagine how many extra wages could be paid to their employees if people did not rip them off on a regular basis.
Henry makes a big deal out of how corporate profits are higher than they have ever been.  It is really hard to say if that is true.  Corporate profits are not adjusted for inflation.  I can't find anyone who makes that adjustment to them.  As a result, they are constantly setting record highs.  Are they really higher than some point in the past?  I don't know.  What I do know is that stating that gross corporate profits are at record highs does not tell us the entire story.  In an economy that is growing larger over time we should expect to see gross corporate profits increase over time.  That is to be expected.  Here is the entire story.
Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP are higher than they have ever been but that is largely due to the fact that a good share of those profits are from international sales and globalization. When large multinational corporations make profits in countries with tax rates lower than the SDA, those companies will often make the prudent business decision to leave those profits in those foreign lands.  As reported, "A Wall Street Journal analysis of 60 big U.S. companies found that, together, they parked a total of $166 billion offshore last year. That shielded more than 40% of their annual profits from U.S. taxes, though it left the money off-limits for paying dividends, buying back shares or making investments in the U.S. The 60 companies were chosen for the analysis because each of them had held at least $5 billion offshore in 2011....These are not profits being made in the US economy, but they are profits that accrue to American companies. So it’s not really correct to think of this as being an increase in the profits being made out of the US economy."  As usual, the devil is in the details.  Want more money for wages for SDA workers?  Lobby Congress to reduce the 35% federal corporate tax rate.  Then some of that money could come home.  Until then, don't blame Wal-Mart.  Blame the politicians.
Henry believes that the consumers who shop at Wal-Mart are valiant warriors who cause the economy to grow by their spending.  What Henry has not thought through is what happens when those valiant warriors spend more and more money.  Guess what happens?  When consumers spend more, corporate profits rise.  But I thought corporate profits were evil!  Yes, consumer spending is good but corporate profits are evil.  Mr. Blodget's world is rife with economic contradictions.  What he really wants is for all profit seeking corporations to become charitable organizations that give all their profits to their employees in higher than market price wages.  That is called socialism, or communism, and it is immoral. It destroys the economy.  Without the incentive of realizing a profit nobody in his right mind would ever invest.  The capital markets would dry up overnight.  But Hank thinks that is OK, just as long as those Wal-Mart employees get paid more than they are worth in the open market.  Hanks is pretty ignorant of economics and he does not hesitate to put his ignorance on public display.
I have a "conceivable idea of community fairness and decency" that differs from what Hank considers fair and decent.   It is called don't steal from your neighbor and don't use politicians and bureaucrats to make laws and rules designed to take money from those who make more than you and transfer it to you, less 20% for handling. Here is another good idea....mind your own business and stop coveting your neighbor's goods.  While I am at it, here is another.  Get a job, live beneath your means, save your money and stop looking to government for your salvation.  Here is still one more, if you want to create a company that gives all of its profits to its employees as a bonus at the end of the year, go ahead and do so.  But don't criticize the shareholders of Wal-Mart for wanting some return on their investment.  That is truly none of your business.
Blodget concludes by saying that "this state of affairs is hurting the economy."  Which state of affairs?  The fact that Wal-Mart has to pay a 35% corporate income tax?  The fact that Wal-Mart only has a 3.6% profit margin?  I suspect he means the state of affairs in which Wal-Mart pays the market rate for labor when he wants the company to either raise prices in order to pay more or give away all of its profits, thus giving investors no reason to own the company.  How raising prices on the goods that it sells will help the economy is not explained.  In fact, how paying the market rate for labor is hurting the economy is not explained either.  How turning profit seeking corporations into not-for-profit companies helps the economy is not elucidated.  By golly, nothing economic is explained.  The entire article is nothing more than socialist propaganda.  Imagine that!

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

A Random Selection Of Daily Injustices In The SDA

After almost two years of writing posts to this blog I experienced something very strange this morning.  I did not have something in my mind that was making me so mad I could barely see straight.  On a normal day I will have several items bouncing around my noggin, all of which send me to the edge of a homicidal rage.  Today, as I was reading my morning Denver Post, I was subject only to the normal, garden variety, type of anger as I saw a couple of items that thoroughly disgusted me.  As I pondered my psyche and considered what to write about today it occurred to me that I could write two short posts rather than one long one. Neither of these two topics rises to the level of a full post.  But they each indicate something that is seriously wrong with our sad and immoral country.  So, without any more introduction and for your reading pleasure, I present a random selection of daily injustices in the SDA.
A report in the Business section of the newspaper caught my eye.  I have written about similar cases in the past here and here and here.  Here is what the brief article said, "The Justice Department and JP Morgan Chase & Company have reached agreement on all issues in a $13 billion settlement of a civil inquiry into the company's sales of low-quality mortgage-backed securities that collapsed in value in the financial crisis."  The Department of Justice (DOJ) specializes in extortion.  Right around this time last year the DOJ extorted $4.5 billion from British Petroleum in a case that should never have been allowed.  But this is what the DOJ does.  It is one of the most profitable branches within the mighty profit-seeking bureaucracy of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.
So let me put what just happened into layman's terms.  The DOJ extorted $13 billion from a profit seeking company because that profit seeking company packaged and sold investments that the government ordered it to package and sell.  You may recall it was the Clinton administration that ordered the mortgage companies in this land to grant mortgages to sub-standard borrowers.  JP Morgan complied with that government demand.
Once the low quality mortgage backed securities were created and sold, the government ratings agencies gave them ratings that stated, without equivocation, that they were of the highest quality.  Although the folks at JP Morgan did not agree with that rating, who were they to tell the government ratings agencies their ratings were not accurate?  People quite naturally began to buy and sell these securities with the belief that they were backed by the "full faith and confidence of the United States government."
Then the financial collapse occurred.  In an amazingly unconstitutional action, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve conspired together to take over the mortgage backed securities market.  Money was produced out of thin air and the government purchased all of the allegedly "toxic" mortgage backed bonds.  We were told that the extreme measures they were taking were necessary to save the economies of the world.  A economic luminary no less than Nancy Pelosi told us that if the Fed and Treasury had not done what they did, we "would have no economy tomorrow." 
What ended up happening next?  As it turned out the securities were not as "worthless" as the government told us.  The Fed held on to the securities for a couple of years and then resold them back to the groups they had been originally confiscated from for a huge profit!  So much for their toxicity.
Now, in what will hopefully be the last shakedown of a profit seeking business related to the government created "financial crisis", JP Morgan has to cough up a couple more billion dollars to allow officials at the DOJ to buy bigger houses and larger swimming pools.  Just another daily injustice in the SDA.
A second article, involving much less money, caught my eye.  It was entitled, "Two arrested after dog placed in freezer bag."  The headline was no doubt written to capture the eyes of readers.  Who would not be interested in a short story about some horrible person who would put his dog in a freezer bag and then watched how long it would take for the poor dog to freeze to death?  Of course, that is not what happened.
Here is what really happened.  A lady by the name of Mary Snell thought that her adorable little dog was very small.  She wanted to show her friends around the country just how small her dog was so she took it and put it into a small freezer bag.  The bag was not sealed.  The dog was not harmed by being placed into an unsealed freezer bag and photographed.  After taking the photograph the dog was released and, I suspect, running merrily around the house where Mary lives.
Mary, being a modern woman, made the mistake of putting the picture on Facebook.  Shortly after posting the photograph the article reported that, "a citizen contacted deputies after seeing a photograph on the social media site of a tiny white dog inside a freezer bag."  Bernalillo county (Albuquerque, NM) sheriff''s deputies responded to the report and tirelessly worked to track down the person who had posted the photograph.  Mary Snell was arrested shortly thereafter and booked on felony animal cruelty charges.  I looked around to see what the punishment would be for a conviction.  I could not find the specific punishment in New Mexico but most statutes seemed to be somewhere in the $5000 fine and up to 10 years in prison range.
So there you have it.  A lady takes a picture of her dog and some no-good, busy-body, bleeding-heart, animal rights activist sees it on Facebook.  Being a bleeding-heart liberal who believes that all dogs should never be placed into a bag of any sort without their prior written permission, she calls the authorities.  Rather than laughing in her face, as they should have done, they go out and arrest the non-offending dog owner and that innocent, fun-loving, animal loving person is now looking at up to 10 years in prison for her actions.  At the very least she is going to spend tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of dollars to pay blood-sucking lawyers to defend her from this unjust charge.  Just another daily injustice in the SDA.

Monday, November 18, 2013

NFL Players Are Sissies

Sunday's Denver Post had a front page feature detailing the internal workings of the Denver Broncos locker room.  The story was motivated by the recent blowup about the verbal jousting between two Miami Dolphins players, Jonathan Martin and Richie Incognito.  Maybe you know the story.  Incognito is one of those seriously insecure individuals who has to constantly be picking on the people around him in order to feel good about himself.  Martin is an easy target so Incognito tore into him.  It became so bad Martin pierced the NFL wall of silence and left the team, complaining publicly that he was being hazed mercilessly by the bully Incognito. 
Reaction to the news by other NFL players was entirely predictable.  They invoked the absurdly childish and unwritten NFL code of player honor and declared Martin to be a wimp and Incognito to be a hero.  They talked about how Martin needed to "toughen up" and how they would be honored to "go to war" with Incognito.  It seemed to be utterly lost on these idiots that verbal abuse does not toughen anyone up.  They seemed completely unaware of the fact that one does not get paid millions of dollars a year, along with the adulation of throngs of fans and your choice of women every night, to go to war.  They said they would refuse to allow Martin into their locker rooms but Incognito would be an honored guest at any time.  In other words, the players in the NFL are proud of the fact that they behave like Neanderthals and they do not want anyone coming around and telling them they are nothing more than a big bunch of insecure, childish sissies. Sorry fellas.  I am here to do just that.
The Post article began with a story about how three rookie players, one of whom was only on the practice squad, were forced to pay the restaurant bill for a group of immoral veterans who ran up the bill purposefully to make things financially difficult on the rookies.  The veterans forced the rookies to go to local steakhouse where they "ordered steaks for fun" and "ordered wine to take home to their wives".  When the bill was tallied it came to $26,000.  The three rookie players were forced to split the bill.  As the player on the practice squad said, "I had to fork over my share, which was a significant chunk of what I made, probably two weeks of pay for me."  Still, we were assured, it was all in good fun.  Oh, how I would have loved to have seen the rookies refuse to pay for more than their share of the bill.  Oh, how I would have loved to see the police called to the restaurant to force the veterans to pay for what they had ordered.  Oh, how I would have loved to see the veteran's trophy wives cursing and swearing at them when they got home because they wasted money on steak that could have been spent on jewelry.  Oh, how I would have loved to read the story in the paper the next day about how the police were called to a football player's home because he was, once again, beating up on his woman.  How predictable these little boys are.
The article went on to tell another story about a conflict between former Broncos Trevor Price and Alfred Williams.  Williams and some of his fellow veteran thugs decided to pull the same restaurant routine on Price during his rookie year.  Price got wind of what was going to happen and refused to attend the dinner. It turns out that Williams had himself been caught in the trap during his rookie year and forced to cough up $10,000 from his signing bonus.  Now that he was a veteran it was time for him to turn around and financially abuse the young Price.  "Vengeance is mine," I imagine Williams thought to himself.  When Price failed to show Williams said that Pryce's refusal to attend the dinner was "a slap in the face that he would never forget."   So let me get this straight.  A rookie is unwilling to have $10,000 of his money stolen from him by a veteran player and the veteran player accuses the rookie of slapping him in his pretty little face? Then, to top it off, the big, strong, mature and secure veteran player sulks in the corner of the locker room the rest of his career telling everyone who will listen that he will never forgive the rookie player for not allowing himself to be robbed?  What is wrong with this picture?
To a man, the players interviewed in the article towed the company line that physical, mental and financial terror tactics are good things to do to rookie players because they need to be "toughed up to play in the NFL."  Hogwash!  These guys are idiots.  They are crying little babies. They are self-absorbed sissies.  When it comes to mental toughness they are weaker than little girls.  If I ever had the misfortune of getting into a fight with the smallest of the NFL's players I would be knocked unconscious in less than a second or two I am sure.  There is no disputing the fact that these players are big and strong.  Their is no denying the fact that they can do things physically that I can't even dream of.  But there is also no disputing the fact that they have the mental and emotional maturity of 5 year olds, at best. 
These children in men's bodies never had to grow up.  They have been coddled from the day they scored their first touchdowns.  They have been told they are great.  As they grew physically older they were told that they were better than the other members of society because they could play football.  They came to be worshiped by men and women alike.  Indeed, women would throw themselves before them in physical adoration.  Coaches told them they were great.  Media told them they were great.  It does not take long for the average sinful man to get to the point where he comes to believe that the things he is being told are true.  Before long the association of these players come to believe they are living in an alternate universe that revolves around them.  So I can understand how they have all become emotionally, relationally, intellectually and developmentally retarded.
The fact that we can understand why these grown men behave like children does not justify the fact that they do.  They need to grow up.  They need to stop behaving like the fools and idiots that they are.  I have a proposal.  I will offer my services to any NFL team that wants me.  I will work for the minimum salary for a coach.  My job will be to really bring mental toughness to the players.  And I will do it without punching, kicking, yelling, or forcing players into indentured servitude to me.  I will do nothing more than talk to them, in a calm voice, about their enormous personal insecurities.  And I will start with the biggest bullies on the team.  I would be willing to bet good money that I could reduce the "toughest" player on the team to a pile of quivering female emotions in less than a week.  All I will do is point out how much of a sissy he is.  I will do it constantly, unrelentingly, and endlessly.  Every time he turns around I will be standing there showing him how what he just did was selfish, stupid and motivated by his own personal insecurities.  We will find out who the real tough guys are.  In the end I expect that my conclusion will be the same as it is now.  NFL players are nothing more than highly paid sissies.