San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Militant Homosexuals Are Limp Wristed Sissies

Along with the rest of you I have been watching the media furor over the Duck Dynasty boys.  What can I write here today that will add to the debate?  I guess the answer to that question depends upon the presuppositions you bring to the discussion.  If you believe that homosexual behavior is morally good and proper and that anyone who disagrees with your belief is guilty of the felony of hate speech, then there is very little I can write that you will find palatable.  You have already established the rules of engagement and my opinion has been ruled out before the discussion even begins.  According to you I am not permitted to offer a defense for my position.  Indeed, it goes further than that.  I am not even allowed to state my position.  To do so is a crime.  To do so is a felony.  To do so is a sin of which you are the victim.  To do so will result in the untold deaths of millions of homosexuals as they take their own lives in acts of extreme despair.  To do so is hate speech that must be punished by the civil authorities.  What can I say about the issue under those terms and conditions?  Quite obviously, there is nothing I can write or say when those are the terms of engagement.  But, this is my blog and those are not the terms of engagement in this little piece of the blogosphere. 
As it turns out, I can say a lot about the sissified nature of the militant homosexuals in this land.  I reject their efforts to make my speech illegal, immoral and criminal simply because I do not parrot their opinion of themselves.  Since when is verbal disagreement a criminal offense?  What sort of person would seek the coercive power of the state to enforce a rule that forbids other people from merely disagreeing with him?  I think we all recognize that only a limp wristed sissy would run to the state for protection from an idea.  And that, my friends, is why militant homosexuals are limp wristed sissies. 
I have written about this previously.  Homosexuals demand that profit seeking businesses like Chick-Fil-A affirm their lifestyle or they cry like little girls and demand boycotts of the offending stores.  Homosexuals demand that parades be given in their honor.  Apparently they need the civic support derived from a parade to continue to feel good about themselves.  And let's all admit that feeling good about themselves is what this is all about.  The recent Duck Dynasty debate centers, although nobody seems willing to admit it, on the idea that homosexuals must always have positive feelings about their behavior.  Anyone that does not reinforce their good feelings about their behavior has committed a crime against them.  Homosexuals demand that bakers be forced to provide baked goods for their "wedding" receptions and then cry, whine, complain like little kids when they do not get their way.  They take Christian bakers to civil court to force them to bake cakes for them in order to prop up their amazingly weak and impotent self esteems.  What cowards!  What selfish, insecure little children they are.
On the other hand, homosexuals hatefully reject doctrines of the Christian church that have been promulgated for hundreds of years to millions of people.  They characterize anyone who believes the historic Christian doctrines as neanderthal-like barbarians who should be driven from civilized society. They use extremely vitriolic and acerbic phrases as they spew forth their hate comments about what the Bible teaches and Christians believe about homosexuality.  (By the way, I have never had my psyche harmed in the slightest by all of the things militant homosexuals have told me.  They have called me every name in the book and still done no harm.  What does that tell you?) Yet, their speech is not hate speech.  Why not?  Because they are homosexuals and incapable of hate speech.  Only those who disagree with the intellectual position of a homosexual is capable of the felony of hate speech.  It sure seems like the deck is stacked in favor of the little sissies to me.  I don't care whether you are pro or anti homosexual.  Nobody should tolerate the terms of engagement that have been established for all dialogue about the doctrine and behavior of homosexuality.  This is nothing but tyranny and those who are on the wrong side of the debate, Christians,  lose by government enforced default. Is there a manly homosexual out there who is willing to debate the issue on even ground?  Is there a powerful intellectual lesbian who will argue that homosexuality is morally good and proper without resorting to the "you hurt my feelings when you tell me I am wrong" argument?  I haven't met any. 
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, a reader sent me a link to a blog by a Christian youth pastor who says that we need to stop picking on homosexuals.  He has unknowingly succumbed to their argument that mere verbal disagreement with homosexuals is a horrific affront to their psyches that results in untold damage to their beings.  He agrees with the militant homosexual lobby that anything less than a strong endorsement of homosexual behavior is a sinful and criminal act that needs to stop.  You can find his argument here.  Here is some of what he had to say:
"The fact of the matter is, it doesn’t matter whether or not you think homosexuality is a sin. Let me say that again. It does not matter if you think homosexuality is a sin, or if you think it is simply another expression of human love. It doesn’t matter. Why doesn’t it matter? Because people are dying. Kids are literally killing themselves because they are so tired of being rejected and dehumanized that they feel their only option left is to end their life. As a Youth Pastor, this makes me physically ill. And as a human, it should make you feel the same way. So, I’m through with the debate....We are now faced with the reality that there are lives at stake. So whatever you believe about homosexuality, keep it to yourself."
Did you get that?  This youth pastor believes that my disagreement with a homosexual about the moral propriety of his behavior is an attack upon his person that directly results in his suicide.  He believes that I am now in sin and guilty of a felony for simply stating the historic Christian doctrine about the immorality of homosexual behavior.  He orders me to keep my opinion to myself.  Why?   Simply because I hold the intellectual view that homosexuality is morally wrong I am guilty of forcing a person to kill himself.  Has everyone gone mad?  Are homosexuals so thin skinned that they have to kill themselves simply because someone says they should not engage in homosexual behavior?  If homosexuals are the enlightened intellectuals they profess themselves to be, how can the ravings of a neanderthal like me possibly impact their powerful psyches?  Something does not compute in this scenario.
I have mentioned this previously but it must be mentioned again.  Let me ask you some questions.  Would you be prone to kill yourself if I told you that giving $20 to the bum on the street corner was an immoral act?  Would you develop suicidal thoughts if I told you that I believe it is wrong for you to shovel the snow off your neighbor's sidewalk?  Would you be hanging the rope from the rafter in your house if I told you that I believe it is wrong and immoral for you to have sexual relations with your spouse?   I believe it is fair to say that in every example listed above it would be impossible for me to do any psychic harm to you simply because I disagree with your behavior.  Why?  Because you believe your behavior is morally right and proper and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong.  Homosexuals believe, with all their collective might, that homosexual behavior is morally right and proper.  Why, then, do they get so upset when someone disagrees with them?  Why do they not react the way every other human being does when he is accused of sinning when he does something he believes is morally good?  Why does the criticism of their behavior bother them at all?  Why, like spoiled children, do they run to the government for protection from the idea they find so terrifying, namely, that their behavior could be wrong?  I would suggest that there is one, and only one, reason why homosexuals become so intensely emotionally disturbed by a mere word of criticism, and that is because they know their behavior is immoral.
I wish the public debate would address what I have brought up here.  I have watched dozens of confrontations on the television news stations and they all go down the same way.  A militant homosexual accuses Christians of hate speech.  He appeals to how much harm is being done to the psyche of homosexuals.  Then the Christian responds by saying that the Bible teaches homosexuality is wrong.  He follows that up with the promise that he will treat homosexuals in a kindly fashion in an attempt to love them into the Kingdom.  Then they start yelling at each other and the discussion rapidly degenerates into an argument of no value.  If you have the chance to get involved in a discussion with a militant homosexual please do me a favor.  Focus the argument.  Ask him/her why you should be required to affirm his behavior in order to avoid being a felon.  Ask him why his psyche is so delicate that he suffers irrevocable harm when you merely state that you disagree with him.  Ask him why he needs civil government to protect him from the mere idea that his behavior is immoral.  Then, let him answer the questions.  Don't get side-tracked.  If he goes off on a tangent, bring the discussion back to those questions.  Of course, I believe you will never get an answer to those questions.  Those questions expose the weakness of his entire position so you are assured that an answer will never be forthcoming.  But at least it would enliven the debate.

Friday, December 20, 2013

Department Of Injustice Rapes Another Victim

I read an article in the Business section of the Denver Post last week that enraged me.  It was entitled, "JPMorgan Chase said to be near $2B accord."  The story went on to report that, "JPMorgan Chase & Company, the target of multiple U.S. Justice Department investigations, tentatively agreed to pay about $2 billion to resolve probes into whether it ignored warning signs about Bernard Madoff's crimes..."  I rubbed my eyes and read that sentence once again.  I could not believe what I was seeing.  Do you see what is happening here?  Do you see how unjust it is?
Bernie Madoff, if you are unaware of his story, is a con-man.  He swindled people out of millions of dollars.  I do not know the exact figures but his ponzi scheme was one of the richest in history.  His scam was a classic ponzi scheme.  He would pay new investors outrageous rates of return from the investments of his earlier investors.  This would bring in hoards of new investors and the pyramid would grow.  All along the way he was skimming his percentage off the top and maintaining two sets of books.  One set of books was for the government regulators and the other set of books was for himself.
It is inevitable that all ponzi schemes eventually self destruct.  It is impossible for them to go on since, as they grow larger, they eventually run out of funds to pay the new investors.  When this happens the entire fabrication collapses like the proverbial house of cards.  Those left holding the millions of IOUs are the losers.  They will never be paid back because there is nothing to pay them back with.  The money has been spent in previous payments to earlier investors and by the creators of the ponzi scheme.  Madoff blew through a tremendous amount of money prior to being caught.  But, like they always are, Bernie got caught.
Once his scheme unraveled the wolves, government regulators, politicians and lawyers,  quickly circled to see who could profit from the situation.  Under the terms of the judicial system found in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, somebody other than Madoff himself had to be blamed for what had happened.  The rather obvious fact that Bernie Madoff was the only person to blame was ignored because he did not have any money left.  At first agents from the federal government of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika went after all of Madoff's relatives.  The goal of the federal agents was to strip all of Madoff's relatives of their wealth, whether it was ill-gotten or honestly earned.  Those pockets, however, proved to be rather shallow.  The feds looked around for deeper pockets.  While searching the horizon for deep pockets their eyes landed upon the SDA's biggest bank, JPMorgan Chase.  That is when JPMorgan Chase's problems began.
Congress hates JPMorgan Chase.  The career politicians who prowl the halls of congress are well aware of the fact that they can receive a constant supply of votes if they pander to the envy of the citizens of this disgusting country by perpetuating a continual stream of hateful comments about the country's largest bank.  Bankers are evil.  Bankers caused the "financial crisis".  Bankers sold your baby to a dingo rancher in Australia.  You get the drift, if something bad happened it was the bankers that did it.  And since JPMorgan Chase is the biggest bank, it is the biggest devil.
The federales had already extorted tens of billions of dollars out of JPMorgan Chase in the grossly immoral prosecution of the company for culpability in the mortgage scandal.  For doing exactly what the government ordered the company to do, it was found guilty of illegal mortgage practices and a multibillion dollar settlement was extorted from the company by the Department of Injustice.  The Department of Injustice specializes in exactly these types of operations.  British Petroleum had run afoul of the department earlier and barely escaped with its balance sheet.  This branch of the federal bureaucracy exists exclusively to extort money from profit seeking businesses that have done no wrong in order to enrich itself and expand the federal bureaucracy.  It is very good at what it does.
Why is JPMorgan Chase being persecuted by the Department of Injustice in regards to the Bernie Madoff scandal?  There is no apparent connection between the two.  There is certainly no financial connection between the two.  JPMorgan Chase did not participate in the ponzi scheme.  Both sides agree to that fact.  So what did JPMorgan Chase do that is going to result in its coughing up $2 billion to the feds?  JPMorgan Chase allowed Bernie Madoff to open a bank account with them.  That is it!  That is all!  Madoff had an account with JPMorgan Chase so JPMorgan chase is now complicit in the Madoff ponzi scheme.  To make that charge go away the shareholders of JPMorgan Chase have to pay the Department of Injustice $2 billion in blood money.
The outlandish, outrageous and patently false charge being brought by the Department of Injustice is that the executives at JPMorgan Chase should have been aware that Bernie Madoff was running a ponzi scheme simply because he had an account at their bank.  Since they should have been aware of the scheme they also should have informed the federal government's bank regulators about what Madoff was doing.  Their refusal to inform the bank regulators about what they allegedly should have known is the basis for their enormous financial penalty.
Not mentioned in the article is what happened to the bank and securities regulators, all employed by the federal government, who were directly responsible for the financial oversight and regulation of Madoff's spurious empire.  Madoff, as an owner of a private securities firm, was examined on a regular basis by financial regulators from the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as various other state and federal regulators.  He was also examined by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.  Literally dozens of state and federal examiners, whose sole job is to ferret out fraud, examined Bernie Madoff and failed to discover his ponzi scheme.  What happened to those folks?
Nothing happened to those folks.  They work for the government and, although they are well paid and will eventually retire after twenty years of service on rich, taxpayer provided retirement pensions, they did not have deep enough pockets.  None of them were disciplined.  None of them were written up for failure to do their jobs.  None of them lost their jobs.  None of them were publicly castigated for their gross negligence and failure to perform their assigned duties.  In fact, none of the government employees who actually were responsible for the failure to detect Madoff's ponzi scheme had any negative consequences associated with their negligent behavior.  I don't know for sure but I would guess that every government employee who had contact with Madoff received a raise and a promotion for a job well done, despite the fact they did nothing to detect or stop the ponzi scheme.  On the other hand, the nation's largest bank, simply because it is the nation's largest bank that just happened to have an account owned by Bernie Madoff on the books, suddenly becomes responsible for Madoff's illegal actions.
All of these fines are being paid under the terms of the grossly immoral Bank Secrecy Act.  The Bank Secrecy Act is an immoral and unconstitutional set of laws that forces banks to spy upon the private financial activities of its customers and report their findings to the FBI.  It is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but because the 4th Amendment no longer applies in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, it is the law of the land. 
So there you have it.  The Department of Injustice just got richer at the expense of the shareholders of JPMorgan Chase.  The shareholders did nothing wrong or immoral yet they are being forced to pay billions of dollars to the federal government.  On the other hand, the government regulators, who themselves are behaving immorally just by reporting to work each day, are free from any culpability for their total failure to do even the smallest part of their jobs.  There is no justice in the legal system of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Shout that truth from the tops of the highest buildings.  You would be wise to do anything and everything you can to avoid any and all contact with what is called the judicial system in this sad land.  There is no justice.  You have no civil rights. The entire system is designed to enrich the state at the expense of the sheeple.  The system works very well.

Update:  January 7, 2014

The final decision on the JP Morgan case came down today.  The profit seeking bank had to cough up $1.7 billion to the federal regulators.  One part of the report about the final settlement caught my eye.  Here is what it said, "A statement of facts included in the agreement describes internal communications at JPMorgan expressing concerns about how Madoff was generating his purported returns. It says executives were disturbed by the fact that Madoff wouldn't let the bank examine his books."  So let me get this straight.....Madoff had no legal responsibility to open his "books" to the bank and the bank had no legal right to examine his books but the Department of Injustice still held JP Morgan responsible for what was on his books.  Conversely, the federal securities regulators had the legal responsibility to examine Madoff's books.  They failed to do so and they get off scot-free.  What a beautiful system we have.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Homosexuals, Ducks And The First Amendment

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."  Those words are not hard to understand.  Even a child can interpret them properly.  The First Amendment guaranteed that all citizens of the ancient land known as the United States of America were free to follow the dictates of their religious beliefs without interference from laws created by Congress. No US citizen could ever be arrested, fined, or otherwise punished or persecuted for holding or promulgating doctrines consistent with his religion.  Furthermore, those same religious people were allowed to speak freely about what they believed to be true without being arrested for violating the law.  It was not only religious speech that was to remain perpetually free, it was all speech.  Congress was forbidden from making laws that would criminalize particular ideas that certain special interest groups found offensive as well as attempting to criminalize the speech that conveyed those allegedly offensive ideas.  Fast forward a couple of hundred years to the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  My how things have changed.
I have apparently missed out on a major cultural phenomenon.  Until last night I had no idea who Duck Dynasty was.  Let me tell you what happened.  I got home late from a function and decided to watch a little television.  I tuned into a show on Fox News called the Kelly Files.  Kelly is the lady who hosts the show.  She was talking about the fact that some duck hunter who had a television show had been canned for saying that he believed homosexuality to be a sin.  At that point my wife walked into the room.  My wife is hip. She is up on cultural events.  She quickly filled me in on the Duck Dynasty sensation.  For those of you who are not aware, some good old boys invented a duck call that, when used properly, causes the ducks to fly into your shotgun blast and drop into your lap, field dressed and ready for the broiler.  They have made millions selling their duck call to frustrated duck hunters.  They became so popular they started their own television show and line of waterfowl products.  My wife informed me that a lady she knows owns a pillow sporting a photograph of the heavily bearded fellows.  I saw a picture of the group and I was amazed.  "They must be Welsh", I thought to myself as I gazed upon the magnificent visage of their beards.  I was an immediate fan.
The duck fellows have been in hot water in the past.  They are Christians.  As Christians they will pray on occasion.  When they sit down to consume one of their delicious roasted Daffys they will take time to offer a prayer of thanks to the God of the Bible.  This is all recorded on their television show.  When people who hate Christians saw them praying on the public airwaves they cried out for their immediate execution.  Well, maybe not their execution.  But the God haters certainly wanted them to be punished for having the audacity to pray on their television show.  Nobody is upset when, over on MTV, naked young people have clandestine sex on television.  But if you have the guts to pray to the God of the Bible on television, you had better watch out.  There are limits to what will be tolerated you know. 
The latest problem began when one of the mallard molesters granted an interview to GQ.  In the course of the interview, and for reasons known only to the interviewer, he was asked what he thought about homosexuality.  Consistent with his Christian beliefs he replied that he believes homosexuality to be a sin, although he tries his best to love the homosexuals who enter his duck blind.  As you might expect, the militant homosexual lobby hit the roof of the blind when his comments became known.  Immediate calls for his execution.....well, maybe not his execution....filled the airwaves.  In response, the A & E network immediately fired him from his own show, simultaneously issuing a statement about how the good folks at the A & E network deplore all hate speech and anti-homosexual comments made by men who shoot ducks for a living.
Now that you have the background, let's get back to the Kelly report.  She had a distinguished panel of three experts sitting across the desk from her when she asked them for their opinion about the alleged foul up by the hunter of web-footed, broad-billed swimming birds.  The first man said that the First Amendment protects his speech and he should be able to profess his Christian beliefs without being fired.  The second person was a blond bimbo of the type we are accustomed to seeing on Fox News.  She also said that the duck man should be able to say whatever he wanted.  The third man was a militant homosexual.  I have to quote a portion of what he said exactly so you can get the full impact of his argument.  He said, "No person should ever be allowed to use his religion as an excuse to spew out hate speech that causes one group of people to feel bad about themselves."  Wow!  Now that is a loaded comment if I ever heard one.  Let's talk about it for a minute.
Quite obviously this homosexual does not believe in the First Amendment.  That does not make him unique.  All law enforcement personnel, almost all government employees and a great deal of the public in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika also do not believe in the First Amendment.  He was just expressing the majority opinion as it presently exists in this sad land.  What I found more interesting was his characterizing of all religious doctrinal statements as "hate speech".  Hate speech, of course, is illegal.  Hate speech is a hate crime and in most states in the SDA you can be arrested, prosecuted and punished for using hate speech, whatever it is.  So this militant homosexual man believes that publicly declaring a historic Christian doctrine to be true is an example of a criminal act.  That is the logically necessary conclusion that must be drawn from what he said.  The doctrine of the sinfulness of homosexuality has been in the Christian Church for two thousand years.  Before that it existed in the Old Testament for four thousand years.  I believe it is fair to say that most people throughout most of human history have believed that homosexual behavior is sinful.  The duck man is in good company when he asserts the historic Christian doctrine about the innate sinfulness of homosexual behavior.  But that does not matter in the SDA today.
The tide has turned.  The majority of the citizens of the SDA are either homosexual themselves or supporters of the homosexual agenda.  Since the majority wins, the Christian doctrine, and those who profess it, lose.  That is life in the SDA.  Everything is determined by politics and the legislative branch of government.  When you control the legislative branch you can declare historic Christian doctrines to be illegal and punish anyone who holds to those doctrines.  Just ask the duck man.  He lost his job for believing what most people throughout history have believed.  He is unemployed because he answered a question consistently with what the Bible teaches about homosexuality.  He is being persecuted because he shares God's opinion on the issue.  What a strange world we live in.  But it gets worse.
The part of the homosexual man's comment that enraged me the most was his conclusion.  According to this militant homosexual, when a person says something that makes another person, or group of people, feel bad about themselves, that first person is guilty of hate speech and should be punished by the state.  What have we become?  We have seen this agenda before.  Homosexuals are unique in that they believe everyone else in the universe must issue public statements affirming their lifestyle or be guilty of a hate crime.  No other special interest group does this.  Why are homosexuals the biggest bunch of sissies to ever exist?  Why must everyone constantly build up their self esteem?  Why are they so amazingly sensitive that merely having a person disagree with them causes them to run to their psychiatrists for emergency self-esteem enhancement sessions?   Why do they flee to the government for protection from people who think they are wrong?  Does anyone else besides me think this is crazy?
The only way I can answer the above question is by asserting that homosexuals really do know that what they are doing is morally wrong.  Nobody who believes that he is doing something morally right gets upset when someone else disagrees with him.  If you say that I was wrong to help a little old lady across the street yesterday I do not cry out for your employer to fire you and for you to be arrested for hate speech.  I know what I did was right and your comments strike me as odd, and somewhat stupid, but not as criminal.  Homosexuals believe that anyone who does not support their lifestyle is guilty of a criminal act because they know that what they are doing is wrong.  If they truly believed that what they are doing is right they would not call for the persecution of those who disagree with them.  It is that simple.
If the militant homosexual, and amazing sissy, who sat on the panel last night gets his way, Christians in this land are in big trouble.  Let me tell you why.  Another historic Christian doctrine that is generally unpopular these days is the doctrine of sin, both actual and original.  According to orthodox Christianity, all men are guilty of sin.  In fact, men are so sinful they can be described as being totally depraved.  Nothing we do is good in the eyes of God.  If you disagree with me or want more information, read Romans 3. 
As you might expect, telling men that they are totally depraved is not something they like to hear.  You might even say that telling a man he is totally depraved is an example of using your religion to spew forth hate speech that will cause that man to feel bad about himself.  Indeed, the goal of telling a man he is sinful is to get him to feel bad about himself.  All of Christian missions, and the starting point of the gospel, is predicated upon the doctrine that men are unable to do anything good or anything to earn the favor of God.  The first goal of a gospel presentation is to get a man to despair of his condition and seek God for relief from it.  No man will ever confess his sins and come to God unless he first despairs of his own sinfulness.  See the problem?  If speech designed to convince men they are sinful is hate speech and hate speech is criminal, then proclaiming the gospel is a criminal act.  That, my friends, is where we are headed.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

The Top 1% Are Better Than Us

I went to the Broncos game last Thursday night.  Maybe you saw it on the NFL network.  It was in Denver, at Sports Authority Field at Mile High.  That is the new official name for the stadium but we all continue to call it Mile High stadium.  I used to go to a fair number of Broncos games.  That was way back in the early 1980s when the Broncos were not very good.  That was just prior to the John Elway era.  I would hang outside old Mile High Stadium and wait for the kick-off.  I knew enough about economics to know that when the game started the price of a ticket would drop dramatically.  I don't think I ever paid face value for a ticket and I got to sit in some pretty nice seats on occasion.  Of course the Broncos were not very good and would usually end up losing.  But it was still fun to go to the games.  I never felt in danger, even though I went alone and skulked along dark streets to where I had parked my car after the game.  My how things have changed.
Like I said, I attended the game last Thursday.  The Broncos were playing the San Diego Chargers.  I had never been to the new stadium and I was looking forward to seeing it and the game.  I never could have afforded the ticket to the game were it not for the generosity of others.  Ticket prices have risen a lot from the old days and the team is pretty good.  Getting a sweet deal from a scalper after the game started was not going to happen. On a janitor's salary I most certainly would never have sat where I did.  Due to the amazing and overwhelming generosity of a benefactor who will remain unnamed, my wife and I were treated to two tickets to the game in one of the Broncos luxury booths.  What an experience that turned out to be.
Getting to the game was an interesting adventure.  There were hoards of "tailgaters" scattered all around the stadium.  They were loud and obnoxious.  Most of them were drinking heavily.  There were sidewalk salesman selling various types of Broncos paraphernalia.  I like that.  It is free enterprise at its best.  I did have a problem with some of the items being sold however.  One very popular item, sold by several vendors, was an orange T-shirt sporting a picture of Peyton Manning and saying "Payton F***ing Manning".  The folks selling these shirts were yelling the quotation from the shirt out loud, repeatedly.   Fans walking by took up the chant.  I was highly offended that I should be subjected to such obscenity while walking to the football game but they were all drunk and much bigger than I am.  I let it pass.
We picked up our tickets at Will Call and headed to our seats. The first obstacle was stadium security.  Things were a bit different than I remembered.  Even though we were carrying no items and wearing nothing but the clothes on our backs, we were forced to go through a pat down and a "wanding".  I set off the wand alarm.  Apparently the wand interpreted my ring of keys (janitors always have large key rings) as a weapon.  I had to prove that it was not.   I was highly offended by that.  I do not consent to being searched and I do not agree to give up my Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful searches.  But if I was going to watch the game from the luxury booth I would have to suffer that indignity. I let it pass.
Once inside the stadium we began to negotiate the maze of escalators that would take us to our booth.  At each landing we had to show our pass to gain access to the next, higher landing.  As we rose in the bowels of the stadium, the number of people dwindled dramatically.  We were climbing the socio-economic scale with each new level we passed through.  We finally exited an escalator that led us to a narrow hallway that appeared to circle the stadium.  We were met by a friendly host and hostess who showed us to our booth.  We opened the door and went in.  We were now on the level of the millionaires and the billionaires.  We were the first to arrive so we made ourselves comfortable.
The booth, complete with three big screen television sets, was perched above the north goal line and provided a birds-eye view of the playing field.  The punters warming up below would kick the ball about up to our eye level as they engaged in their practice kicks.  Inside the booth there were more adult beverages than I could drink in a year.  Fine single malt scotches as well as red and white wines with names that I could never pronounce in a thousand years covered a table in the corner.  Even my unsophisticated palate could discern that we were drinking some very expensive and high quality wines.  The was an equal plethora of food to choose from.  I particularly enjoyed a shrimp posole served with jalapeno corn bread muffins. Delicious.
People began to arrive as we were drinking our wine.  They were all nicely dressed and smelled good.  They had friendly demeanors about them and were quick to introduce themselves.  They asked us questions about ourselves and appeared to be genuinely interested in our answers.  They didn't cut us off while we were talking and actually listened to what we had to say.  They made eye contact and made us feel completely at ease.  I didn't hear a single swear word the entire time we were in the booth.  Aside from the occasional cheer, nobody in the booth was running around screaming at the top of his lungs.  Imagine this, I thought to myself, a lowly janitor rubbing elbows with multimillionaires. And imagine this....these folks are really nice.  One of them, finding out that we play golf on occasion, invited us to join him on his home course in Windsor.  Nice fellow.
During dinner I noticed that the booth two sections down from ours was filled with Charger fans.  The hostess explained that that was the booth for the visiting team's owner and it was filled with the family of Alex Spanos, owner of the Chargers, as well as the team's managing partners.  They had an enjoyable evening.  They were jumping up and down frequently as the Chargers put an old fashioned whuppin on the Broncos.
Meanwhile, in our booth, the guests all arrived and selected their seats for the game.  The window was opened so we could experience the crowd noise and see the field unimpeded by the glass barrier.  When the Broncos were on the defensive side of the ball the noise was so loud it was impossible to speak to one another in the booth.  Even though we were separated from the rest of the fans, it felt like we were a part of them when the window was open.
Easy conversation and friendly banter, as well as several pointed criticisms about the play of the Broncos, characterized the evening.  It was a thoroughly enjoyable time.  When the game was over the guests slowly exited the booth and we were left alone with the owner of the booth.  The folks who left all expressed their appreciation to the owner for their invitations to the booth that evening.  We did as well.  He was gracious in his acceptance of our thank yous.  Earlier, before he had arrived, the hostess informed us that she liked this particular owner better than all of the others that she serves because of his unpretentious style and kindly manner.  We had to agree.
We made our way back down the maze of escalators and onto the main level of the stadium.  There were lots of people milling about.  They were very loud.  Most of them were quite drunk.  Our goal was to get to the parking lot where our car was parked and out of their way without any altercations.  Several inebriated Chargers fans were running around wildly, screaming at the top of their lungs, and bouncing off people as they exulted in their team's victory.  I narrowly avoided a collision with one of them only due to my fancy footwork and a sharp execution of one of my favorite dance moves.  We made it to the car and managed to get home without incident.
The next morning I was reading the paper and discovered that a fight had erupted in the parking lot we were parked in just minutes after we left.  I assumed it was between drunk Chargers and drunk Broncos fans.  It wasn't.  Although I am sure drunkenness had a lot to do with it, the fight, which resulted in four people being stabbed, broke out between two people arguing over a parking space.  Low class.
As I ponder my experience that evening I have come to several conclusions.  My first conclusion is this:  the rank and file of humanity, or at least that portion of humanity that goes to NFL games,  is made up of drunken, crude, obscene, profane, ignorant fools.  I despised them all.  My second conclusion is this:  the top 1% is made up of some pretty nice folks.  I liked them all.  My overall conclusion is that the top1% really are better than us.  And that includes me.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Live Longer: Avoid Doctors And Start Smoking

Can we be honest with each other?  Can we admit that all societies have their pariah class and our society is no different?  Can we admit that whoever happens to be in that pariah class is treated as a second class citizen and subject to the verbal, financial and emotional abuse of all those outside the class?  Let's agree that we have not made sufficient moral progress (indeed, we have not made any moral progress) to eliminate the abusive treatment of those we do not like.  Hitler had the Jews, southern whites had slaves, practically every society has had the Welsh and today citizens in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have smokers to hate. 
Admit it.  You hate smokers.  You hate their smell.  You hate their appearance.  You hate their arrogance.  You hate their selfishness.  You hate everything about them.  They are evil, vile, disgusting and barely worthy of recognition as fellow human beings.  They are stupid, self-destructive and dangerous to others.  If you had your way they would all be lined up and shot at dawn.  Then you would never have to deal with them again.  But you can't have your way, at least, not yet.  You are reduced to lobbying for legislation and rules that segregate them from the rest of civilized society.  You are pleased that they cannot practice their offensive vice in your presence and that they have been banned to the far corners of all property where they are forced to practice their filthy habit in the cold, wind and rain.  Meanwhile, you continue to call for higher taxes on tobacco, more government regulation of tobacco products and, if possible, an outright ban on tobacco.  You would like to see tobacco classified as a controlled substance and regulated like heroin, morphine and cocaine.  And, most importantly, you are doing all of this for the good of society,  especially the children.  After all, all children deserve to grow up in smoke free zones don't they?
I have written about the plight of smokers previously.  They have had their civil rights taken away.   They have been verbally abused by members of the judicial class in the SDA.  King Obama has declared them to be sub-human.  There seems to be near universal agreement that they can be abused at will.  There is also universal agreement that they are all incredibly stupid for practicing a behavior that has absolutely no benefits for their health and well-being.  Right?  Still, have you ever considered their side of the argument?  Are you even aware that there is another side to the argument?  Can you conceive of the possibility that smoking might actually have some positive benefits for the health and welfare of those who practice it?  Or have you been so brainwashed by the SDA anti-smoking propaganda machine that you cannot even bring yourself to consider the possibility that smoking might have some positive attributes?  OK, maybe you can't do any of those things.  But, can you meet smokers half-way?  Can you admit to the possibility that smoking might not be the horrible, stupid and dangerous behavior you think it is?  In today's posting to this blog I would like to help you along the pathway of tobacco enlightenment.
I came across an article on the internet the other day that listed countries in which the citizens of those countries live the longest.  The list was for the top five longest lived countries.  I know the grammar in that last sentence might not be quite right but I think you know what I mean.  Can you guess which countries might make up the top five?  I will tell you in a moment.  As I pondered the nature of longevity and the five countries in which people live the longest it occurred to me that there might be a correlation between living a long time and smoking.  Of course the correlation would be inverse.  We all know how each cigarette smoked takes one minutes from the life span of idiotic smoker.  We have heard that truesim repeated so often it is memorized by the grade school children among us.  I fully expected to find an inverse correlation between cigarette consumption and longevity.
I also wondered how all of our trips to the doctor aid us in our longevity.  We are told on a daily basis that we should be visiting our doctor regularly for a whole host of preventative tests and procedures.  When we feel the slightest illness we should scurry to the doctor for a diagnosis and cure.  Everyone is expected to have a doctor.  If you cannot name your doctor you are walking a dangerous path with your health that will inevitably end up in cancer or a stroke and certain early death.  Clearly the more we spend on health care the longer we should live.  Modern medicine is a miracle.  Modern doctors are heroes.  I wondered how much money the top five longest lived countries spent on health care.
After all of this wondering I decided to actually do something about it.  The information below tabulates my findings.  I list the name of the country with the longest life span, in order from first to fifth, along with the amount spent ($US) per capita/per year on health care. Then, to make things interesting, I include the total number of packs of cigarettes smoked for every adult in that country, per capita/per year.  Got it?  Here is what I found:
  1. Switzerland:    $5643/person on Health Care and 86 Packs of Cigarettes/Year/Person
  2. Italy:  $3012/person on Health Care and 74 Packs of Cigarettes/Year/Person
  3. Japan:  $3212/person on Heath Care and 92 Packs of Cigarettes/Year/Person
  4. Iceland:  $3305/person on Health Care and 24 Packs of Cigarettes/Year/Person
  5. Spain:  $3,072/person on Health Care and 88 Packs of Cigarettes/Year/Person
   26.  USA:  $8233/person on Health Care and 21 Packs of Cigarettes/Year/Person

Notice anything about the above table?  I have included the relevant information for the Socialist Democracy of Amerika for your reading pleasure.  Although the citizens of the SDA think we have it pretty good, we are only the 26th longest lived people in the world.  We spend more money per capita than any other country in the world on health care, by far.  We also smoke far less than the great majority of the citizens in the world's other countries.  Per capita we smoke only .4 packs of cigarettes per week.  Good for us.  But despite all of the money we spend on doctors, pills and hospitals, and despite how successful we have been in stamping out cigarette smoking, we are still only ranked 26th in longevity.  What is going on here?  Have you looked at the longest lived people in the world?  Something interesting shows up.  What are they doing to live so long?
Four of the top five longest lived countries in the world spend less than half of what we spend on health care.  How can they live so long when they go to the doctor so infrequently?  How can they live so long without annual checkups and a host of health screening tests?  Is it possible that there is not a direct correlation between how often a man visits the doctor and how long he lives?  Is it possible that how much a person spends on health care does not correspond to how long he lives?  It sure looks like it to me. Even scarier, is it possible that there is a correlation between going to the doctor and dying young?  I don't know, but it gets worse.  Brace yourselves you haters of smokers.  I have something to tell you that will rattle your gilded cage.
Four out of five of the longest lived countries in the world are filled with adult citizens who smoke an average of 1.6 packs of cigarettes per week.  That works out to every adult in those countries having a cigarette about every three hours of his day.  That rate of cigarette smoking is four times the rate seen in the SDA.  The longest lived people in the world smoke, on average, 83 packs of cigarettes per person per year.  How can this be?  Japan has the 17th highest rate of smoking but the 3rd longest life span in the world. Spain has the 18th highest rate of smoking but the 5th longest life span in the world.  Switzerland has the 20th highest rate of smoking but the longest life span of all the peoples of the world!  And the citizens in these lands hardly spend any money on health care when compared to the citizens of the SDA.
I am forced to come to a conclusion that flies in the face of the popular sentiment.  After objectively examining the data I must conclude that visiting doctors can be hazardous to your health.  Conversely, I am also driven to the conclusion that if you want to live for a long time it would be prudent for you to take up cigarette smoking, at least at the rate of 1.6 packs per week.  So I will see you at the tobacco store and, later, in the frozen wasteland where we are permitted to engage in our life-extending practice.  Happy smoking.

Monday, December 16, 2013

What Part Of The Second Amendment Don't You Get?

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (the country that preceded the Socialist Democracy of Amerika) states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  People act as if the previous sentence is difficult to understand.  For those who believe that to be the case I have one simple question for you.  What part of that statement do you not understand?
A "militia" is "a military force that is raised from the civilian population."  Why would a well regulated militia be necessary for the security of a "free state"?  The only possible answer to that question would be that some other group of people would be seeking to enslave the members of that free state and the members of the free state might possibly need to organize themselves into a civilian army to defend themselves from the depredations of that invasive group.  Who or what might that offending group be?  In the eyes of the founding fathers that offending group was usually some form of government.  In their particular case, it was the government under which they were living.  In  other words, they clearly wanted the citizens of a free country to be able to organize themselves into an army to defend themselves from a government that is oppressing them.  They make no distinction between an oppressive government that attacks them from across a geo-political boundary and an oppressive government that attacks free men from within their own geo-political boundary.  The attacking army could have come from King George or Georgia.  It did not matter.  Any group that would endeavor to enslave them would be deemed an enemy and a militia would be raised to fight it.  So far there is nothing hard to understand in the words of the Second Amendment.
The people who lived in the historic United States of America had rights.  All of their rights pertained, in one way or another, to their three fundamental rights of life, freedom and personal property.  In this particular case the Constitution asserted that the citizens of the USA had a right to defend their lives, freedom and property by keeping weapons by which they could defend themselves from any enemy that was seeking to enslave them by taking away their lives, freedom and personal property.  This is not hard to understand.  There is nothing difficult here.
To "infringe" upon a right is to "actively break the terms of an agreement" in regards to that right.  When the Second Amendment says that the right of a citizen to "keep and bear arms" is not to be "infringed"  it necessarily follows that no citizen of the USA shall be subjected to any breaking of the terms of that original agreement.  What were the terms of that original agreement?  There were none.  Read the second amendment for yourself.  Do you see any terms there?  Does it say "the right to keep weapons shall not be infringed except when Congress decides to break the terms of the agreement?"  Does it say, "the right to keep and bear arms shall include the right for local police to take away your arms if they deem you to be a threat to their security?"  Does it say, "the right to keep and bear arms shall be limited by how arms are defined by Congress or the local government?"  You will note that there are no terms in the Second Amendment.  There are no restrictions upon the type and number of weapons a person may own. There are no restrictions on the size of the magazine or the type of scope that can be used.  It is very simple to understand.  The right of a citizen of the USA to "keep and bear" weapons shall not be modified, changed or broken in any way, shape or fashion.  Any rules or regulations bearing upon the simple right of weapons ownership are infringements and, by definition, unconstitutional.  There are no exceptions to this easy to understand principle.
What does it mean to "keep and bear"?  That does not seem difficult to understand either.  To "keep" a weapon means to buy and own one.  To "bear" a weapon means to carry and use it.  So the right to buy, hold, keep and use a weapon is guaranteed to each citizen of the USA by the Constitution of the USA.  The Second Amendment does not say that the right to keep and bear a weapon shall be regulated by rules that determine who may purchase a weapon, when the weapon may be purchased and which type of weapon may be bought.  In fact, it says just the opposite.  There shall be no infringement, no modification of the terms of the original agreement (of which there were none) on the right of all citizens to buy, own, carry and use any weapon they please.  So, again I ask, what is hard to understand about the Second Amendment?
I will answer my own question.  There is nothing hard to understand about the Second Amendment.  The clear, obvious, irrefutable meaning of the Second Amendment is that every citizen of the United States of America had the right to purchase, own, carry and use any weapon at any time and for any reason.  In particular it was understood that this right existed to allow the citizens of the land to defend themselves from any group or government that would have sought to take away each citizen's right to his life, freedom and personal property.  That amendment was very simple, very clear and very easy to understand.  That is, until the lawyers, judges and career politicians became involved.
I will not bore you by reciting all of the items on the long list of rather obvious violations of the Second Amendment seen in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika today.  A few will be sufficient.  You are not free to purchase a gun without being subject to immoral regulations.  You are not free to own a gun without being subject to immoral regulations.  You are not free to carry a gun without being subject to immoral violations.  You are not free to use a gun without being subject to immoral regulations.   And you most certainly will never be allowed to raise a gun against an agent from the government without being subject to a hail of gunfire and the death penalty, if you survive the onslaught, which you probably will given the horrendous aim evidenced by government agents who carry guns.  Just pity the dozens of by-standers who will be gunned down as the government agents try to gun you down.  In other words, the Second Amendment no longer exists.  Despite what the NRA might say, you have no Second Amendment right in this country.  Everything originally intended by the Second Amendment has been taken away from you.  In the SDA the Second Amendment does not exist.  It is impossible to reconstruct the Second Amendment and say that anything like it exists in the land today.  The original terms of the Second Amendment disallowed all infringements upon the right to own and use weapons whereas today we live under hundreds of rules and regulations in regard to weapons ownership. 
As evidence for my assertion let me present something that happened this past week.  An article was buried in the back pages of the Denver Post last week about gun control.  The title of the article was, "Congress votes to extend ban on undetectable guns."  Maybe you read about it.  It received very little fanfare in the new media.  The article informed me that "by a voice vote, the Senate gave final approval to a 10-year extension on the prohibition against guns that can slip past metal detectors and X-ray machines."  The new law is designed to make all plastic guns illegal.  The government of the SDA is terrified of plastic guns.  They know that there is no way to control and regulate plastic guns because anyone with a computer and a 3D printer can construct one in the privacy of his home.  Career politicians claim that the ban on plastic guns is designed to protect us at airports and other government buildings where they can pass through scanners undetected.  We know enough about the government to know that they really want to protect themselves from the freedoms of the Second Amendment.  If we have guns they are unaware of, they are terrified.  So they make a law prohibiting guns of which they might be unaware and which might someday be used against them.
Where in the Second Amendment does it say that plastic guns are illegal?  You are right!  It does not say that.  Where in the Second Amendment does it say that "undetectable" guns are illegal?  Your are right!  It does not say that either.  The law against plastic guns is a clear "infringement" upon your right to keep and bear arms.  Where in the Second Amendment does it say that the government has the right to restrain your movements and force you to pass through a gun detector prior to moving onward to your destination?  Your are right!  It does not say that.  In fact, it says just the opposite.  You should never be searched without a warrant.  But that is another issue.  According to the news story, the NRA "did not express opposition to renewing the law."  Why not?  The outright ban on plastic guns is a clear violation of the Second Amendment.  We must acknowledge that all talk about gun control is mere theater.  The matter is already decided.  The Second Amendment was abolished years ago.
Congressional Republicans who want to be known as Second Amendment advocates were put in a tough spot by the gun abolition bill.  They want to tell their constituents that they oppose gun control but, at the same time, they are government agents who want to control guns.  They took the cowardly way out.  They passed the bill via a "voice vote".  That way nobody back home will ever know if they voted for or against the bill.  When queried they can all say they voted against the bill but were outvoted.  How convenient.
One historically ignorant and constitutionally challenged Senator (Chuck Schumer, D-NY) tried to make the voice vote palatable to the citizens of this land by asking the rhetorical question, "Who in God's name wants to let plastic guns pass through metal detectors at airports or stadiums?"  I don't pretend to go around speaking for God.  My opinion on this matter is my own.  I will speak in my own name and in my own name I want to allow all the citizens of the SDA to buy, own, carry and use weapons anywhere they want.  I believe the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was a good idea.  Too bad nobody agrees with me today.