Weekend Closing Post

One of the neat things about having kids is they can introduce you to new music, even old music you didn't know existed. My daughter introduced me to the following Cold War gem, Crawl Out Through the Fallout by Sheldon Allman in 1960:




The song was featured in the video game Fallout 4, where my daughter discovered it.

If the name "Sheldon Allman" doesn't sound familiar to you, he also wrote the lyrics to this tv theme:



Anyway, that is all for me this week. I will return Monday with my humor battery fully charged. Enjoy your weekend!

Bigger Government = More Evil Politicians

@PoliticalLaughs Where do you think evil will go when you have a big powerful government? Just look at our potential presidents...

— Ed McGonigal (@1EMcGon1) April 29, 2016

After I saw Griswold's comment above, I had to comment. (By the way, I am not picking on Griswold. He is one of the more thoughtful and humorous tweeters.)

But after I did, I got to thinking, is it a coincidence that after 8 years of Obama increasing the size of government (and 8 years of Bush before that), we get the worst group of presidential candidates that I can ever recall?

It's like this: You can draw flies with a pile of crap, but you can draw even more with a bigger pile!

"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."--Will Rogers

Sadly, we are...and more.

It's the stupid economy!

Remember the old line from James Carville, which was used during Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign in 1992: "It's the economy, stupid!" This was used to remind the campaign that the most important issue was the economy, and everything else was secondary.

Fast forward to 2008. When Barack Obama ran, his messages were the insipid "Hope and Change" and "Change you can believe in". We should have been suspicious then.

From Gateway Pundit:

Obama’s just like Reagan… Except when he isn’t.

The rate of real economic growth is the single greatest determinate of both America’s strength as a nation and the well-being of the American people.

On Thursday the Commerce Department announced that the US economy expanded at the slowest pace in two years. GDP growth rose at an anemic 0.5% rate after a paltry 1.4% fourth quarter advance.

Ronald Reagan brought forth an annual real GDP growth of 3.5%.
Barack Obama will be lucky to average a 1.55% GDP growth rate.

This ranks Obama as the fourth worst presidency on record.

Barack Obama will be the only U.S. president in history who did not deliver a single year of 3.0%+ economic growth.

According to Louis Woodhill, if the economy continues to perform below 2.67% GDP growth rate this year, President Barack Obama will leave office with the fourth worst economic record in US history.

This would rank him ahead of Herbert Hoover, Andrew Johnson, and Teddy Roosevelt.

(hat tip to eBaum's World for the pic)

The first step to fixing a problem is admitting you have it. In this election year, let's admit we have a problem in the White House, ok?

Political Correctness from Hell

You have to get a chuckle from all the areas where political correctness can originate: blacks, women, Jews, Hispanics, Muslims, Satanists...Wait, Satanists?

And another party is heard from, via Raw Story:

 On Wednesday night, former House Speaker John Boehner bluntly called GOP candidate Ted Cruz “Lucifer in the flesh.” 

When asked for his opinion about the Texas senator, Boehner said, “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.” 

It turns out that the Satanic Temple agrees with Boehner’s sentiments — but they said there’s no way Cruz is the living incarnate of Satan. 

When asked by the Friendly Atheist, Satanic Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves bashed Cruz. 

“Cruz’s failures of reason, compassion, decency, and humanity are products of his Christian pandering, if not an actual Christian faith,” Greaves responded. “It grows tedious when pedophile priests and loathsome politicians are conveniently dismissed as Satanic, even as they spew biblical verse and prostrate themselves before the cross, recruiting the Christian faithful. Satanists will have nothing to do with any of them.”

Poor John Boehner. First, he was the most ineffective speaker of the House ever. Now, only the Satanists will stop to spit on him. It must be hell for him...

Tweet of the Day

From 2014 Georgia Libertarian Senate candidate Amanda Swafford:

@1EMcGon1 An informed electorate doesn't just read news from The Party or any one source. Every candidate, party & race should be studied.

— Amanda Swafford (@The_Swaff) April 28, 2016

Amanda, you need to run for another statewide office soon. Just pick one. I will vote for you, promise!

Sanders Discovers Capitalism

According to this CNN article, Bernie "Stalin" Sanders has discovered capitalism, specifically that capitalistic institution known as the "lay-off":

Bernie Sanders' campaign is laying off more than 200 workers, campaign manager Jeff Weaver said Wednesday. 

The campaign is downsizing from its current 550-member team to between 325 to 350 workers, said Weaver, who added that at one point the Sanders' staff numbered more than 1,000. 

The decision follows a bad night for Sanders, in which he lost four out of five East Coast states that voted on Tuesday. 

"The calendar is coming closer to the end and there are not that many states going forward ... it's the natural evolution of every campaign," Weaver told CNN.

Yeah Weaver, just like this cat:

 (hat tip to Lifehack for the GIF)

This is how a socialist campaign works: Contort your position into a logically impossible position (which is still adorably cute), and then run with it until you fall off the counter. This is why socialism doesn't work in Democracies. Would you vote for this cat?

Billionaires and Their Income Inequality

I was reading "The Man Card: An American Tradition Of Presidents Using Their Gender To Get Ahead" at the Huffington Post, which was a pretty decent editorial by Amanda Terkel, until it got to the very last paragraph:

Although [Donald] Trump thinks [Hillary] Clinton owes her success to her gender, perhaps a better question is where he would be if he weren’t a man. For starters, he’d probably be far less wealthy, since women still make only 79 cents for every dollar a man earns.

Really? We want to compare billionaires to what the average woman makes?

If you look at a list of the world's billionaires, there are women on it. Admittedly, it is dominated by men. But consider these billionaire women from the Forbes list:

#11 Liliane Bettencourt: $36.1 B
#16 Alice Walton: $32.3 B
#21 Beate Heister (with her brother Karl Albrecht Jr.): $25.9 B
#27 Jacqueline Mars: $23.4 B
#30 Maria Franca Fissolo: $22.1 B
#38 Susanne Klatten: $18.5 B
#44 Laurene Powell Jobs: $16.7 B

I even went all the way to the top 200, and did not see a single self-made woman. There were a couple of women who acquired their wealth in joint ventures with their husbands, and some of them inherited wealth and made it larger, but the overwhelming majority of female billionaires at the top of the wealth ladder inherited their money.

If you want to complain about income inequality between men and women, let's forget about the bottom and the middle tiers, and go straight to the top. The only way to create opportunity for women is to smash the glass ceiling.  

Returning to the Huffington Post article, actually "Donna" Trump would likely be every bit as wealthy as "Donald" is now, since that is how wealthy women get their money: They inherit it, just like Donald did.

Greatest Story Ever Told (over a beer)

This article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel speaks for itself:

The big screen at Bernie's Tap Room in Waukesha flickers with a baseball game between Texas Christian University and Dallas Baptist. The players are nearly life-size. 

But the action on-screen is lost to the 15 people seated at two long tables in front of the game. They are deep in conversation about Jesus, church and life, stopping occasionally for a sip from the pint glass at hand. 

Jesus + Beer is in session. 

In and near Milwaukee, some people are getting a little faith with their froth. 

Assemblages like Jesus + Beer are part of a national trend of groups combining Bible study with elbow-bending. Sometimes, it's just easier to talk religion over a beer, one pastor said. It's also an idea that goes back to Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. 

Brandon Brown, pastor at Collective MKE church, said he started Jesus + Beer because "people have left traditional church structures but still want to talk about Jesus."
And he liked the selection of brews at Bernie's, 351 W. Main St. 

"That's the trajectory of my life," said Brown, whose Bay View version of the monthly Jesus + Beer sessions meets May 17 at Tonic Tavern, 2335 S. Kinnickinnic Ave. "Beer's actually a late addition. Jesus' love was there from the beginning."

Amen brother!

Seriously, this makes perfect sense to me. Some of the most philosophical discussions I have ever had were in a bar. The setting lends itself to what religion is about. Consider this:

Drinking beer and talking religion played a role in the Protestant Reformation, said Steve Jerbi, pastor at All Peoples Lutheran Church... 

The Reformation was funded by brew that Martin Luther's wife made, said Jerbi, who hosts a monthly meeting at the Riverwest Public House...where people of all faiths — and, as often as not, no faith — drink beer and talk religion. 

"This week, we had a Reconstructionist Jew, a secular Muslim, a candidate for the ministry in the Baptist church, a lesbian and a middle-aged mom," Jerbi said. 

There are other positive aspects of this:

1. Low church overhead. For the price of a few beers a week, you have a church!
2. Support for the local economy. You're giving a bar business on a Sunday. Win-win!
3. Spreading the word to people you might not otherwise reach. "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15) Notice Christ didn't exclude bars from this?
4. It shows you aren't a stick in the mud Christian. Too often, churches just seem like temples for country club Christians. Go TO the people, don't wait for them to come to you!

For you non-drinking preachers out there, you can still kick back at a table with a Coke, while you share the Gospel with a receptive audience. To paraphrase the old saying, if you can't being the bar to Jesus, bring Jesus to the bar!

(hat tip to LOLSnaps for the pic)

How much money is enough?

"I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." - Barack Obama

It is easy to look at billionaires and say those guys have made enough. How about millionaires? Nowadays, you better have $1 million if you plan on retiring. With health care costs rising, and healthcare insurance, including Medicare, covering less and less, or coming with higher deductibles, retiring with less than $1 million is risky. If you get some kind of bad medical condition, death might be your only option.

There is also the Federal Reserve to consider. Our economy is built on a foundation of rising sand, where inflation is built into how the Federal Reserve operates. During times of economic distress, the Fed prints obscene amounts of money. The only saving grace is the too-big-to-fail banks and the ultra wealthy suck up most of this money like Hoovers. We are so lucky to have the rich to save us from hyperinflation! Unfortunately, one of these days, the wealthy may decide to buy stuff. We're screwed then!

Anyone who has been on this Earth long enough will have a story to tell you about how they used to pay 0.XX cents for something, that now costs $X. This is the slow economic death by a thousand cuts, that makes retirement planning difficult. If it costs you $20,000 a year to live today, that same price could be $25,000 in 5-10 years with roughly 5% inflation. I mean REAL inflation, not the fake numbers the government puts out so they don't have to pay people more money in Social Security, which is another aspect that makes retirement planning difficult.

Speaking of inflation, I can remember a time when being a millionaire meant something, and there were only a handful of billionaires. Nowadays, you have to reach the billions to be "significant".

So it is probably safe to say that somewhere between millionaire and billionaire is the "made enough money" point. Unless we have hyperinflation, in which case all bets (aka "investments") are off.

This is where it gets tricky. As long as our economy is built on the "shifting sands of inflation" model, otherwise known as "Keynesian", there is no way to know when you have made enough money...until you die. Then you have made enough.

tedCarly

There are days when the news just makes me laugh. Take this story from Fox News:

Ted Cruz plans Wednesday to announce former Republican primary rival Carly Fiorina as his choice for running mate should he win the GOP presidential nomination, two sources confirmed to Fox News.  

Looking for a shake-up, Cruz is set to make the announcement during a 4 p.m. rally in Indianapolis, a day after he was swept by front-runner Donald Trump in five primary contests. The pairing would, theoretically, represent a diverse ticket -- offering the possibility of electing the first Hispanic president and first female vice president.

But since Cruz has just been mathematically eliminated from winning the Republican nomination, why would he bother naming a VP candidate? The better question is why would Fiorina even agree to it?

Which is worse: The sunk ship, or the person who tries to jump onto it? 

Tuesday's Primary Results: Say goodnight Ted

America moved one step closer to "Insanity 2016", as Donald Trump swept all 5 of yesterday's Republican primaries, and Hillary Clinton won 4 of 5 Democratic primaries (Bernie Sanders won Rhode Island, yawn...).

Here are the delegate totals won yesterday in the Communist Party...err, I mean the Democratic Party:

1. Hildabeast: 194
2. Bernie Stalin: 129 

And the results from the GOP side:

1. The Trumpinator: 105
2. John "Duke" Kasich: 5
3. Ted "Bubba" Cruz: 1 

Speaking of Ted Cruz, he was mathematically eliminated with yesterday's results. This means that even though Trump may not have enough to declare victory, there is nobody else who can possibly win. So Kasich and Cruz are blindly hoping to win a contested convention. Turn out the lights boys, this party is over over for you!

Kasich and Cruz with their bandwagon.

Wednesday Wisdom

"I think I am, therefore I am. I think."--George Carlin

More Hashtagging Fun: #MakeAMovieSick

Another fun hashtagging game on Twitter. This time, it is #MakeAMovieSick. Here are my entries:

"The Fast and the Feverous"
"She Wore a Yellow Fever"
"Dengue Day Afternoon"
"Monty Python: The Meaning of Lice"

Star Wars was rich with ideas:

"Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Meningitis"
"Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clots"
"Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the SIDS"
"Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Herpes"
"Star Wars: Episode V - The Emphysema Strikes Back"
"Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jet Lag"
"Star Wars: Episode VII - The Fungus Awakens"

For some reason, Paul Newman was also a source of inspiration:

"Abscess of Malice"
"Butch Cassidy and the Sunburned Kid"
"The Color of Mucus"
"The Bee Sting"
"Fort Apache the Bronchitis"
"Cool Hand Lupus"

How would I vote now?

I voted in the Georgia primary back on March 1st, but I had more choices back then. I voted for Ben Carson, who probably saw my vote and realized his campaign was doomed then.

But given the present choices, who would I vote for now? There are 5 primaries happening today.

First, I wouldn't be voting for any of the Democrats. While I agree with their socially liberal policies, their fiscally liberal spending (along with their "hand over your wallet and nobody gets hurt" taxation) has been a major turn-off for me since Walter Mondale. Occasionally, they produce a decent moderate like Bill Clinton, but that's the exception, not the rule. Hillary might turn out to be another Bill, but it's hard to trust a woman who plays fast and loose with email server rules. If she'd lie about something stupid like that, what would she do with, say, Benghazi? Oh wait, we already know that answer...

And don't even suggest my daughter's choice, Bernie "Stalin" Sanders. Socialism, really? How many times does that have to fail before we realize it's just a shortcut to dictatorship? I loved my daughter's answer to my complaints about him: "But it's democratic socialism". I tried to explain the old "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner", but I don't think she got it. Combining democracy with socialism is like painting flames on a Pinto: It may make it look better in a way that is ironically appropriate, yet still leaves you driving a dud.

(hat tip to M3post for the pic)

On to the Republican side, John Kasich and Ted Cruz remind me of the two guys in the picture below: Not going anywhere fast.

(hat tip to They Jacked My Wheels for the pic)

Even if Donald Trump were to stumble worse than he already has, Duke Kasich and Bubba Cruz would have a hard time taking advantage of it. 

That leaves:

Basically, if there were a primary for me to vote in today, I would be doing what I am doing anyway: Laundry. My clothes, and my conscience, will be cleaner for it.

When News is DOA

I opened up Fox News this morning, only to see this non-story: "Kasich tells Indiana voters to support him, despite pledge not to campaign".

I should care about this why? I can find more reasons not to care:

1. It's Indiana. Not exactly a delegate powerhouse, nor do I care what happens in Indiana in general. No offense, Hoosiers. For what it's worth, I enjoyed Parks and Recreation.
2. It's John Kasich. The fact he is still in the race at all is insane.
3. Trump is up by 5% in the polls. If Kasich could somehow send 6% of his voters to Cruz, Cruz might win Indiana. Or they might just vote for Trump instead. I can't see voters saying, "I'll vote for Cruz just because John Kasich told me to." Yeah, not happening.

Regardless, I feel safe saying Kasich has no chance in Indiana, so what he does there doesn't matter.

Since Fox News decided to be dull, I decided to move a little leftward on the political spectrum, and try CNN. Sadly, their lead story was, "Racist texts sent by San Francisco police officer, documents show".

While racism is a bad thing, there are millions, maybe even billions, of racists across the planet. Many of them use text messaging, I am sure. Many of them are police officers, I am sure. Many of them are in the U.S., even in blue states. This isn't a news story. This is lifting a rock and being surprised to see a bug.

After that failure, I knew there was only one place left to go: MSNBC. If you want some entertaining news, you can always rely on the leftist moonbats at MSNBC!

At first, they disappointed me with their lead story, "Trump adopts Cruz playbook in delegate hunt". Yawn...

But wait! Leave it to MSNBC writer Jane C. Timm to give me something! Three paragraphs in (bold red by me):

But in Pennsylvania, where 54 unbound delegates are elected directly by district and free to vote as they wish, Trump is employing the same hunting playbook Cruz has used for weeks. Hate the player, not the game?

To quote Dan Akroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut!"



Seriously, there is no place for that kind of commentary in a news story. Unless you happen to work for a radical leftist website like MSNBC, in which case they overlook derogatory commentary, especially when it's against Republicans. Mind you, I have nothing against derogatory commentary against Republicans, having done some myself on this website. But I don't promote myself as a news site either.

But thank you Jane Timm, for reminding me why I don't turn to MSNBC for my news, because you folks are to journalism what Donald Trump has been to politics.

When Moonbats Attack

(hat tip to The Colossus of Rhodey for the pic)

If you ever for a minute doubt there are crazier people on the Left than Hillary Clinton, I invite you to watch MSNBC, 

According to the Weekly Standard, poor Hillary got moonbat mugged by Rachel Maddow:

During MSNBC's town hall with Hillary Clinton, Rachel Maddow made the mistake of suggesting Clinton could ever in the future be behind Bernie Sanders in the delegate count. 

"That was June 7, 2008 when you got out of the race and endorsed President Obama. June 7, 2016 will be the California primary, this year. Is that when—if you're ahead in the vote, if you're ahead in pledged delegates—" 

Clinton interrupted. "I am ahead in the vote Rachel! I am way ahead in the vote! I mean... Now wait a minute. I have the greatest respect for Senator Sanders. But really, what he and his supporters are now saying just doesn't add up. I have 2.7 million more votes than he has. I have more than 250 more pledged delegates. I'm very proud of the campaign that we have run and the support we have gotten and of course we're gonna work together. I, as I said, I share a lot of the same goals. We are going to work together. But I am ahead and let's start from that premise when we talk about what happens next, OK?"

Sorry Rachel, but your communist utopia will have to wait for reality to catch up. Hillary owns this process. Maybe next election...

Happy Birthday Ella Fitzgerald!

If Ella Fitzgerald were alive today (she died in 1996), she would be 99 years old. Here are a few of her best songs:

Trump's Vice Presidents

It looks like Donald "Joe Millionaire" Trump is taking off in the latest state polls:

Pennsylvania leading by 26% 

Connecticut leading by 34% 

Rhode Island leading by 38%

Among other recent polls:

Indiana leading by 5% 

California leading by 27%

New Jersey leading by 28%

Maryland leading by 14%

California is the biggie, mainly because it is a winner-takes-all state, with the most delegates at stake of any state (172). However, it looks like Trump has safe leads in most of the winner-take-all states, so the proportional states should give him enough to get him very close to the 1,237 delegates he needs, if not over the top.

Since it looks like Trump has this one locked up, here are the top 5 candidates for Trump's vice president:

5. Chris Christie, just because this video was so much darned fun to watch:


4. Ben Carson, because Trump needs a brain surgeon desperately!

3. Tim Allen, because who would be better at building walls?

2. Joe Biden, since he is the best excuse ever for not assassinating a president.

1. Chris Evans, so Trump can say he "picked the guy who made Captain America great again!"

(hat tip to the Marvel Movies Wikia for the pic)

Clinton Goes Better with Koch?

My buddy Sam sent me this Politico article, "Charles Koch: 'It's possible' Clinton is preferable to a Republican for president". His email was titled "Kiss of death?".

Sam, it's not that bad!

For example:

[ABC News’ Jonathan] Karl [asked] whether Koch could see himself supporting Hillary Clinton. 

Koch hesitated before giving an answer that didn’t rule out the possibility. 

“We would have to believe her actions would have to be quite different than her rhetoric, let me put it that way,” he said.

On the other hand:

Billionaire businessman Charles Koch said Sunday that “it’s possible” another Clinton in the White House could be better than having a Republican president. 

...The comment came after Karl asked about Bill Clinton’s presidency. Koch said Clinton was “in some ways” better than George W. Bush. 

“As far as the growth of government, the increase in spending, it was 2½ times under Bush that it was under Clinton,” he said.

Sam, personally I think you have nothing about which to worry. If Hillary is anything like Bill, Koch could be right.

(hat tip to Funnystack for the pic)

Ok, so Koch is smoking crack...

When should we worry about Muslims?

I was reading this story about Muslim protesters in Germany chanting "Adolf Hitler" and "Allahu Akbar", and I was wondering when we should take off the rose-colored, multicultural glasses, and start looking at this as the threat it is intended to be?

It also makes an interesting comparison to the racist protests at Stone Mountain over the weekend. I love how we are more than happy to abuse white racists, but it's hands-off to racism of any other color.

Of course, if we were minding our own business, and not getting involved in Mideastern business, we might not have millions of refugees trying to enter our country. Did I mention they hate us? This makes allowing them in equivalent to inviting a fox into the henhouse.

We wouldn't have to worry about Middle East refugees, if we just followed a simple plan:

1. Get energy independent. This requires a "get energy from any source outside the Middle East". Oil, coal, solar, nuclear, whatever.
2. Get our military out of the Middle East. ISIL barely existed on 9/11/2001. It took many years of U.S. military involvement for them to get enough members to create the trouble they have. And still, we haven't figured it out. WE are the cause.

See? This is not impossible, or even difficult.

One of the flaws with our multiculturalist view towards Islam is the fact that Islam is NOT just a religion. It is very much a political philosophy as well. Sharia Law isn't just a "10 commandments" kind of deal. It is a legal code.

The great irony is that everything progressives say about Republicans is actually true about Islam: They are racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-abortion. But let's invite them into the U.S.!

(hat tip to TargetOfOpportunity.com for the pic)

Weekend Review: Modern Day Thoughtcrimes

"A thoughtcrime is an occurrence or instance of controversial or socially unacceptable thoughts...

The term was popularized in the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell, wherein thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects. To entertain unacceptable thoughts is known as crimethink in Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party."--Wikipedia

The idea of "thoughtcrime" came to me when I saw the news about a protest at Stone Mountain in Georgia on Saturday. Here is the story from CNN:

One "pro-white" demonstrator and eight counter-demonstrators were arrested Saturday during a rally at a suburban Atlanta landmark that pays tribute to Confederate leaders. 

The eight counter-demonstrators were among a crowd that appeared to outnumber by nearly 10 to 1 those wearing "White Lives Matter" shirts and waving Confederate flags. 

The ninth arrested person was from the pro-white group that staged the rally at Stone Mountain Park; he apparently threw a smoke bomb at law enforcement officers, said John Bankhead, spokesman for the park's Department of Public Safety. 

Police in riot gear appeared to outnumber everyone, maintaining a sprawling presence around separate areas containing the different groups. Tensions appeared to level off after the arrests, with the opposing groups keeping to designated areas of a parking lot at the base of Stone Mountain. 

What amazed me were the comments from many on Twitter, who were themselves surprised that police would protect the racists, like this moron:

WOW. The police & SWAT are protecting the KKK at Stone Mountain.

— ashley katchadourian (@rodionovasavage) April 23, 2016

So I called him out on it:

Yes, because even stupid racists deserve protection from self-righteous anti-racists. https://t.co/TH0esIg1Af

— Ed McGonigal (@1EMcGon1) April 23, 2016

Needless to say, Ashley wasn't going to change his mind:

@1EMcGon1 protection from what? The KKK literally kill people. Your stance makes no sense.

— ashley katchadourian (@rodionovasavage) April 23, 2016

The conversation went downhill from there, as reasoning with a hate-filled zealot is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

Basically, the logic goes like this: Because the KKK have killed people in the past, anyone who associates with them gives up their right to free speech and police protection, even if they have never committed a crime. And if an angry mob shows up, the police should just step aside.

To me, racism is like abortion: It's a bad thing that should be discouraged in every way possible, EXCEPT through force of law. Ashley doesn't understand that because he sees the world in black and white, right and wrong. To Ashley, anything wrong should be fought with whatever means are available, such as a police force, or even an angry mob if a police force won't do it.

Bad ideas like racism should be fought with reason, not lynch mobs. Treating bad ideas like thoughtcrimes sets a bad precedent, allowing the government to control speech too. But I won't be able to convince idiots like Ashley of the folly of their ways, as they fight racism with the zealotry of a Spanish Inquisitor.

"Men will always be mad, and those who think they can cure them are the maddest of all."--Voltaire

Weekend Closing Post

I will be closing up shop early today, because I have to attend a funeral.

But don't be sad, because I left you a Star Wars parody. Enjoy, and have a great weekend!

Hashtagging Failure

I was looking through some tweets under the hashtag, "#ThingsIFindIrresistible", and came across the following:

#ThingsIFindIrresistible cute children who destroy Nazi flags pic.twitter.com/NWfjXUdO5s

— Jenna Abrams (@Jenn_Abrams) April 22, 2016

I get what Jenna is trying to say, but I take the opposite view: Children destroying anything to make a political statement is NOT "irresistable". In fact, it can be dangerous because we set a bad precedent by saying it is ok to destroy something just because you disagree with it. If that is our standard for allowing destructive behavior, will you still consider it cute when the kids burn an American flag, or rip up a Bible, or toss dollar bills at Hillary Clinton. Ok, maybe the last one was funny...

Elizabeth Warren: The Democrats' Indian Brave

There is a glowing article about Elizabeth Warren over at The Nation. In case you aren't aware of The Nation's bias, it is in their subheader: "Instigating Progress Daily". So it should be no surprise the title of this article is, "The Most Focused and Effective Democratic Messenger We Have Is Elizabeth Warren". To quote the old joke, "Who 'we', kimosabe?"

Long story short:

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is busy shredding the candidacy of Ted Cruz and inviting everyone to recognize the absurdity of a Republican race in which conservative elites keep trying to position the hapless Texan as an alternative to the noxious prospect of Donald Trump.

So Ted Cruz was whining in an email about how hard it is running for president, and Warren took him down a few notches:

She did not just note the Republican contender’s bellyaching. She put it in perspective. 

“Are you kidding me? We’re supposed to pity him because trying to be the leader of the free world is hard?!” Warren wrote on Facebook and Twitter. “I’ve got two words for you, Ted: Boo hoo.” 

Then she let rip: 

"Know whose health is limited? Workers with no paid leave who can’t stay at home when they fall ill or have to care for sick kids. Know whose sleep is limited? Working parents who do everything they can to save money but stay up at night worrying about how do get their kids through college without getting crushed by debt. Know who gets no personal time? People who work two minimum wage jobs to support their families. Know who gets no family time? Moms with unfair schedules who drop their kids off at daycare and drive halfway across town only to find their work hours have been cancelled.

"And Ted Cruz? He opposes mandatory paid family and medical leave and calls it “free stuff.” He voted against student loan refinancing. He’s says the minimum wage is “bad policy” and he’s done nothing to try and help workers struggling with unfair work schedules.” "

Liz was doing so well, until she brought politics into it. While Ted deserved a smackdown for his whine (Hey Ted, want some cheese with that?), her insinuation that because some people out there have it tougher than Ted Cruz (hard to believe, right?), this calls for government intervention!

More paid family and medical leave! Although this will be paid by employers with no government support. Kind of like how we have to fill out our own tax forms without any government support...

More student loan refinancing! Because much like the housing finance debacle that crashed the economy, this has proven to be another badly expensive idea, since we have too many underpaid or unemployed young people with heavy debt burdens.

Higher minimum wages! Because we have no clue what the minimum wage should be, or if we should even have one, but we'll pimp it anyway...

More fair work schedules! This is a new whine from the Democrats. Hey Liz, want some cheese with this? I know this is an issue, but looking for government to solve it is like asking the government to solve your problem with the barking dog in the neighborhood, when we all know this is easily solved by a little arsenic in peanut butter. Ok, maybe that won't do the trick for work schedules...

Seriously, the Democrats need to get over this "making life fair" kick. Bad news: Life isn't fair, and no amount of government spending or regulating will make it fair. Government can go after people who infringe on the rights of others, but a work schedule is only "bad" if it makes you quit your job. A work schedule is a voluntary arrangement between an employer and employee. If an employer abuses this arrangement, an employee is free to walk. This is called "freedom". Welcome to America!

Speaking of Native Americans, how is that working out for you Liz?

(headdress tip to Kappit for this and the next pic)

It seems Miss Warren used to like to claim she was part Native American. She used this claim until she got tenure as a professor, then she miraculously became white. Maybe she should have claimed her race as "shapeshifter"? Anyway, it was a neat trick, until the Media called her out on it, and then some Cherokee genealogists stepped up and said, "Nope, this squaw ain't one of ours!"

Personally, I hope Hillary Clinton names Warren as her vice presidential candidate. Before and possibly after the election, with these two, the fact-checkers' heads will spin...

Evidence Withheld, Media Silent

If a Republican administration had done this, the Media would be screaming so loud you wouldn't be able to sleep at night. Good thing a Democrat did it, so we can all sleep better...

From the Washington Free Beacon article, "State Department Office Removed Benghazi Files After Congressional Subpoena":

State Department officials removed files from the secretary’s office related to the Benghazi attack in Libya and transferred them to another department after receiving a congressional subpoena last spring, delaying the release of the records to Congress for over a year. 

Attorneys for the State Department said the electronic folders, which contain hundreds of documents related to the Benghazi attack and Libya, were belatedly rediscovered at the end of last year.

...The delay has had consequences. The Benghazi Committee had already completed the majority of its interviews with diplomats and government officials regarding the Benghazi attack before it received the latest tranche of documents. 

Let's look at the timeline on this:

1. February, 2013: Hillary Clinton left her post as secretary of state.
2. March, 2015: "The House Benghazi Committee requested documents from the secretary’s office in a subpoena..."
3. April, 2015: The files were "retired" to the Bureau of Administration, Office of Information Programs and Services (that is a long name, so let's just call it "BOPS").  

Admittedly, it is possible this was done as a CYA move by former aides to Hillary. Or it could have been ordered by President Obama. But I doubt we will ever know, since journalists are too stupid to know even when Trumpsters are pranking them...

Baltimore Reporter Falls for the Oldest Prank

I can't believe Baltimore Sun reporter Ian Duncan fell for this. Heck, even his editor missed it.

In a story titled, "Crowds gather to support, protest Donald Trump on Eastern Shore", it starts off talking about some Donald Trump supporters:

Jack Mehoff, 19, praised Trump as a "hardworking, smart individual that wants the best for all people in this country that are allowed to be here."

Jack Mehoff? If you still don't get it, say the name out loud. (preferably not in a public place)

More Hashtagging Fun: #SportsEquipmentMusic

Now the deal is to change song names by adding or changing a word into the name of sports equipment. Here it comes Twitter!

"Baby Got Backboard"
"Stair Stepper to Heaven"
"Glove Is All You Knee Pad"
"All Along the Stop-watchtower"

And in honor of Prince:

"Netting Compares 2 U" 

Prince Dead

(hat tip to U Mean Competitor for the pic)

The rock star known as Prince, or formerly known as Prince (if you accept the symbol above as his name), was found dead at his home this morning. He was 57 years old.

When I think of Prince, I imagine he was what Jimi Hendrix could have been. His style was very similar to Hendrix's, yet taken a step further.

Prince's song portfolio is rich, but I would argue the best song he ever wrote was given true meaning by Sinead O'Connor, and seems rather fitting on the day of Prince's death:

Tweet of the Day

If Trump wins the election it'll be the first time in history that a billionaire moved into public housing vacated by a black family!

— Dividend Master (@DividendMaster) April 21, 2016

The Filtered Life

Megan McArdle nails one of the reasons this election is so weird:

I’m wondering about an odd phenomenon that I’ve noticed: the number of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders supporters, and to a lesser extent, the supporters of Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton, who seem to genuinely believe that there is a silent majority of folks out there who agree with them. Over and over I have asked these folks what they think will happen in the general election, given their candidate’s significant handicaps: Trump’s vulgarity and sky-high unfavorables, Sanders’s huge-government agenda, Clinton’s scandals and well-at-least-they’re-better-than-Trump favorability ratings, Cruz’s unappealing style and reputation as the hardest of ideological hardliners. 

The responses I get range from surprised blinking, to an explanation that my bubble is keeping me from understanding what “real people” think, to babble about the weaknesses of the other candidates. I have been variously assured, with complete confidence, that “no one” will vote for: 

Donald Trump, because he’s a bigot 

Ted Cruz, because he’s a religious nut

Hillary Clinton, because of the Benghazi and e-mail scandals 

Bernie Sanders, because he’s a socialist 

We are apparently facing four years of the “none of the above” administration.

Fortunately, she goes on to offer an explanation:

These people are not exactly wrong about the weaknesses of their opponents. But in all cases, they vastly overestimate the strength of these objections. They seem to believe that their own personal revulsion is natural instincts, shared by all but a tiny, mad slice of the voting public...  

What creates this utter certainty among a broader and broader slice of the electorate? It's not just geographic sorting. That's been going on for a while. It certainly affects congressional districts and the red-blue divide, but it does not explain the illusion that the rest of the country agrees with you. 

The Internet creates that sense of universality, even as it is curated into an increasing personal uniqueness. You don’t see the algorithms that fill your social media feed and your search results with tidbits you will find congenial, and so it’s easy to think that your bubble is more representative of the world than it actually is.  

As more and more of our lives move onto the internet, we will get to see less and less of the world as it actually is. This is how we get four vastly different candidates, whose followers are clueless as to why anyone would support the other three.

While we careen towards the inevitable train wreck in November, just remember that we have our own preferences to blame. We don't want to read/hear/see any form of different view. As the youngsters would say, that might expose us to a "microaggression", which might upset our worldview. We limit our voting preferences to Republicrats or Democans, because we don't want to "waste our vote".

What exactly is a "wasted vote"? As far as I can tell, it means you vote for a candidate and that candidate loses. Maybe this hasn't occurred to any of you folks, but whether you vote for an R or a D, one of them will lose. If you voted for the loser, even if you agreed with their views, you will have wasted your vote.

Call me nuts, but I would rather waste my vote on a candidate with whom I agree, rather than vote for someone with whom I disagree, just so I can vote for a "winner". Returning to the "blindered voter" theory, maybe this is a good thing? Maybe we will finally vote for candidates we agree with, rather than the ones hand-picked by major party establishments?

Even more importantly, maybe some or most people will finally realize they are actually Libertarians? Think of Libertarians this way: All the social liberty ideals of the Democrats without the nanny state-isms, and all the fiscal conservative ideals of the Republicans without all the spending.

Maybe these internet filters could be good after all?

(hat tip to imgfave for the pic)

Hamilton Speaks

I was pleased to hear about the U.S. government replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman. While there is much talk about it, and certainly Tubman is deserving, nobody is talking about how Alexander Hamilton remains on the $10 bill, especially since he was originally the target to be replaced by a woman.

Fortunately, I managed to catch up with Mr. Hamilton for an interview.

TRUTH: Thank you for agreeing to this interview, Mr. Hamilton.

HAMILTON: 'Twas not possible for me to disagree to it! Been dead for over 200 years now. Exactly where was I to go?

TRUTH: Anyway, so what did you think about Andrew Jackson being removed from the $20 bill?

HAMILTON: When I first heard they were going to remove me for a woman, I was quite upset. With my Constitution getting all ripped up by you fools, the sawbuck was about my only legacy. I guess I dodged a bullet with that one, aye?

TRUTH: Yes you did, sir. In other news, it was reported the Treasury will be replacing the Treasury Building on the back of the $10 bill with pictures of the women's suffrage movement (Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and Lucretia Mott). Any thoughts on this?

HAMILTON: It is all a bit of silliness. If you look back on the original Constitution, there was no "right to vote". Now you blokes have turned around and given away the keys to the house. You even have 18 year olds voting. You have not even stopped to ask yourself if it was a good idea? Letting a bunch of people vote whom you will not even let imbibe alcohol? Rather daft if you ask me.

TRUTH: Yes, but what about women's suffrage?

HAMILTON: You should ask what I think about suffrage in the entirety. When you start handing out suffrage like candy to children, you end up with a government of grifters who have fooled the people into voting for them. Voting rights should not be about age or sex or even skin color. They should be for the landed gentry. 

TRUTH: So only land owners should be allowed to vote?

HAMILTON: Did you learn nothing from the last economic collapse? What happened when you tried to allow the poorest among you to own land? Do you often collapse your economy this way? As one of your simpleton philosophers said, "Stupid is as stupid does." They are not poor because they are responsible. 

TRUTH: But what about people who are only poor because of being born into poor circumstances?

HAMILTON: Then they will rise from it and acquire land, and the ability to vote too. Do you modern folk always assume the world is static? Have you not watched Game of Thrones?

TRUTH: You watched Game of Thrones?

HAMILTON: Naturally. It is one of the perks of the afterlife: Free HBO.

TRUTH: Back to the topic, why should only land owners be allowed to vote?

HAMILTON: I chose land ownership because it was the standard for responsible behavior of my time. Pick what you like: net worth, iPhone owners, et cetera. Poll taxes were another good idea until some racists got a hold of them. In summary, my point is that voting should be a privilege, not a right, and only for those who have demonstrated intelligence or some other skill beneficial to the country.

TRUTH: Like athletes?

HAMILTON: Of course. I still have my Bulls #23 shirt.

TRUTH: You're a basketball fan?

HAMILTON: Naturally. I invented the sport. Do you know how much paper I consumed for the Constitution? Every time I made a mistake, it was "Hamilton shoots...HE SCORES! And the crowd goes wild!"

TRUTH: But they didn't have organized basketball in your time? There couldn't have been crowds!

HAMILTON: Are you calling me a liar? You sound just like Burr!

At this point, Hamilton walked out on the interview. Apparently, they had prima donnas back then, too. 

Hitler/Columbine/Ludlow/Trump Day

I won't say "Happy birthday, Hitler", although today is his birthday. It is also the anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre (1999). In fact, Columbine wasn't the only bad thing on this day in Colorado: In 1914, 66 men, women, and children were killed when the state sent the militia to break up a worker's strike in Ludlow, Colorado.

Basically, history sucks today.

Back to Hitler. He is credited with saying, "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." You might think all American politicians graduated from Hitler University.

There is a description of Hitler from the old OSS (Office of Strategic Services) which incorporates that saying:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

Is it just me, or does that sound like a perfect description of Donald Trump? Of course, I would NEVER compare Trump to Hitler...

How did that get into my post? I am truly sorry, and I sincerely apologize to any Trump supporters out there. 

As for the rest of you, wink wink nudge nudge.

Tawana Brawley Syndrome

Remember Tawana Brawley? Here's a brief review from Wikipedia:

Tawana Glenda Brawley (born 1972) is an African-American woman from Wappingers Falls, New York, who gained notoriety in 1987–88 for accusing six white men of having raped her. 

The charges received widespread national attention because of her age (15), the persons accused (including police officers and a prosecuting attorney), and the shocking state in which Brawley was found after the alleged rape (in a trash bag, with racial slurs written on her body and covered in feces). Brawley's accusations were given widespread media attention in part from the involvement of her advisers, including the Reverend Al Sharpton... 

Yes folks, we have Miss Brawley to thank for giving us Al Sharpton.

Continuing...

After hearing evidence, a grand jury concluded in October 1988 that Brawley had not been the victim of a forcible sexual assault and that she herself may have created the appearance of such an attack. The New York prosecutor whom Brawley had accused as one of her alleged assailants successfully sued Brawley and her three advisers for defamation.

Long story short, she faked it. I won't discuss the motives she had for doing this, of which there are some potentially good ones. The facts are clear that she did fake it.

Now we have another sufferer of Tawana Brawley Syndrome (TBS). From the Washington Post:

...one visitor to the Austin [Whole Foods] location says he was not so enthusiastic about a recent trip. An openly gay pastor in the city where Whole Foods was founded has filed a lawsuit against the chain, claiming it sold him a cake that read “Love Wins F-g.”

But commenters on social media wondered why the pastor didn’t immediately notice the slur and accused him of altering the cake, as did Whole Foods, which countersued, claiming that the pastor made “fraudulent” accusations.

The alleged cake.

What I want to know is: Has anyone eaten this cake yet? Nowhere in the story is it mentioned what the cake tasted like, or if it was even edible? What if it isn't a cake, but rather some plastic cake toy that squeaks when you squeeze it? I swear, the quality of reporting at the Washington Post has really gone down since the Woodward and Bernstein days...

But I digress...

In a video posted last week, Jordan Brown of Austin’s Church of Open Doors said he ordered a cake from Whole Foods meant to read “Love Wins” — a slogan associated with the movement to legalize same-sex marriage. But when he picked up the cake on April 14, it had a quite different message. 

“When I got into my vehicle, I looked inside and saw they had wrote ‘Love Wins F-g’ on it,” Brown said, holding a receipt he said was from the cake. “You can see it nice and clear. Also, it is still in a sealed box. As you see, I have not opened up this box yet.”

You haven't opened it YET?! Wait much longer, and you can change that saying to "Mold Wins"...

Brown said he contacted Whole Foods to complain, and that an employee was at first “extremely apologetic.” However, the employee later called to say “his employee did not do this.” Brown was confused — and angry. 

“My question is: Who could have done this?” Brown said. “It’s still inside of a sealed box.” He added: “This is discrimination.”

This is where the story continues for a few more paragraphs, telling us how scandalized Pastor Brown is, how bad he feels, etc. 

Finally, we get to the other side of the story...

Whole Foods, founded in Austin in 1980, first denied writing the message. 

“The team member wrote ‘Love Wins’ at the top of the cake as requested by the guest and that’s exactly how the cake was packaged and sold at the store,” the company said in a statement. “Our team members do not accept or design bakery orders that include language or images that are offensive. Whole Foods Market has a zero tolerance policy for discrimination. We stand behind our bakery team member, who is part of the LGBTQ community, and the additional team members from the store, who confirmed the cake was decorated with only the message ‘Love Wins.’”

So the person who made the cake was homosexual? Ok, there is one hole in the story, on top of the fact the employee would have lost their job over this if it was true. (Not that Pastor Brown is concerned with this fact.)

“After a deeper investigation of Mr. Brown’s claim, we believe his accusations are fraudulent and we intend to take legal action against both Mr. Brown and his attorney,” the company wrote in a statement that laid out its case as follows: 

--Our bakery team member wrote “Love Wins” at the top of the cake, which was visible to Mr. Brown through the clear portion of the packaging. That’s exactly how the cake was packaged and sold at the store. Whole Foods Market has a strict policy that prohibits team members from accepting or designing bakery orders that include language or images that are offensive.
--Mr. Brown admits that he was in sole possession and control of the cake until he posted his video, which showed the UPC label on the bottom and side of the box.
--After reviewing our security footage of Mr. Brown, it’s clear that the UPC label was in fact on top of the cake box, not on the side of the package. This is evident as the cashier scans the UPC code on top of the box.

Get Arlen Specter on this! We have a "magic UPC code"! Oh wait, Specter is dead...and so is Pastor Brown's story.

Brownback to the Drawing Board

From CBS News:

After he became Kansas governor in 2011, Sam Brownback slashed personal income taxes on the promise that the deep cuts would trigger a furious wave of hiring and expansion by businesses. 

But the "shot of adrenaline" hasn't worked as envisioned, and the state budget has been in crisis ever since. Now many of the same Republicans who helped pass Brownback's plan are in open revolt, refusing to help the governor cut spending so he can avoid rolling back any of his signature tax measures. 

If Brownback won't reconsider any of the tax cuts, they say, he will have to figure out for himself how to balance the budget in the face of disappointing revenue. 

"Let him own it," Republican Rep. Mark Hutton said. "It's his policy that put us there."

Next time you hear Republicans talking about being the party of lower taxes, remember to ignore them. They are only for lower taxes until you ask them to cut spending.

The predicted job growth from business expansions hasn't happened, leaving the state persistently short of money. Since November, tax collections have fallen about $81 million, or 1.9 percent below the current forecast's predictions.

"We're growing weary," said Senate President Susan Wagle, a conservative Republican from Wichita. While GOP legislators still support low income taxes, "we'd prefer to see some real solutions coming from the governor's office," she said.

WHAT?! 1.9% below projections, and the GOP is running scared? I have lost more than that on stock investments before, and worried a whole lot less than these fools.

Last month, Brownback ordered $17 million in immediate reductions to universities and earlier this month delayed $93 million in contributions to pensions for school teachers and community college employees. The state has also siphoned off more than $750 million from highway projects to other parts of the budget over the past two years.

Ok, so what is the right amount the state needs to spend on these items? In the entire article, I never see that question asked.

It is time for the TRUTH Math Lesson! When viewing journalistic articles, remember these basic math formulas, and you will understand why certain questions never get asked:

Maximum Government spending =  ∞ 

Maximum Government taxation = ∞ 

Maximum Government taxation for people in the Media = {0 to 1%}

Maximum Government Spending Growth > 0

Based on this math lesson, the missing questions from the above quoted paragraph are:

1. What should the correct amount of funding be for state universities?
2. What should the correct amount of funding be for teacher pensions?
3. What should the correct amount of funding be for highway projects?

Mind you, I am not saying Kansas is funding at the proper levels, or above or below them. I am only saying we don't know what those levels should be since nobody ever asks. What I am also saying is that the Media always assumes funding levels are too low if they have been cut.

You have to feel sorry for the people in Kansas, since they will never know whether they could have less government. We knew the Democrats would never agree to less government, and now we know the Republicans won't either. Maybe next time, they will "waste their vote" on a Libertarian?

More Hashtagging Fun: #MakeTVShowsEvil

I woke up this morning to yet another fun hashtagging game on Twitter, this one being #MakeTVShowsEvil. Here are my ideas:

"I Loathe Lucy"
"Charlie's Devils"
"Star Trek: Deep-six 7 of 9"
"The Jung and the Restless" (an "insanely" good soap opera)
"The Bugs on Bunnies Show"
"Shears" (where everybody knows your hair?)
"Axi" (the story of a serial-killing cab driver)
"Stepford and Son"

Classic game shows:

"Truth or Concentration Camp"
"The Newlydead Game"
"This Is Your Death"
"Who Wants to Bury a Millionaire?"
"Wheel of Misfortune"

And for you Britcom fans:

"The Victims of Dibley"
"Absolutely Cadaverous"
"Fawlty Terrors"
"Are You Being Severed?"

The Jack Nicholson Election

Call it the "fuhgettaboutit" primary: Yesterday's New York primary wasn't even close.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton soundly won with 58% of the vote, to Bernie Sanders' 42%. She walks away with 135 of 239 delegates.

However, the Republican race was a blowout:

Donald Trump 61%
John Kasich 25%
Ted Cruz 15% 

Trump almost turned New York into a "winner take all" state with his dominating performance. He gets 89 delegates, Kasich gets 3, and Cruz gets the goose egg.

As Trump and Clinton move closer to their nominations, Libertarians everywhere just sit back and laugh...

Let's be semi-serious for a moment. These two people have no business anywhere near the White House. I think back on all the people who ran for president in my lifetime, and lost because they did something stupid or because they weren't "serious" candidates, and I would take any of them over the two lunkheads above. 

Consider Trump for a moment. his campaign has been the equivalent of this scene from The Shining:

Continuing with the Jack Nicholson theme, Clinton reminds me of Nurse Ratched demanding we take our medicine:




Like most political solutions from progressives, Clinton won't talk about what's in her little pills that she is offering us. But I feel certain President Ratched will find a way for us to take our medicine, whether we like it or not.

As we hand our country over to a scary character from a Jack Nicholson film, just remember to not waste your vote on a third party candidate. Think of all the fun you'd miss by doing that?

Hashtagging Fun: #MakeABookEmotional

Today's fun hashtag game on Twitter is "#MakeABookEmotional". Here are my contributions:

"Breaking Stuff at Tiffany's"
"The Canterbury Wails"
"Sense and Sensitivity"

A Few Thoughts on New York

With the New York primary today, I thought a few quotes on the city/state would be appropriate. Enjoy:

"In New York, most people don't have cars, so if you want to kill a person, you have to take the subway to their house. And sometimes on the way, the train is delayed and you get impatient, so you have to kill someone on the subway. That's why there are so many subway murders; no one has a car."--George Carlin

"I used to love to call L.A. when I lived in New York. "What're y'all doin'? Talkin' to TV producers, huh? Bummer. Me? I'm readin' a book! Yeah, we're thinkin' back East! Yeah, we're evolving. Is that "The Big One" I hear in the background? Bye, you lizard scum, bye!"--Bill Hicks

"New York is appalling, fantastically charmless and elaborately dire."--Henry James

"Traffic signals in New York are just rough guidelines."--David Letterman 

"When its 100 degrees in New York, its 78 in Los Angeles. When its 10 degrees in New York, its 78 in Los Angeles. There are two million interesting people in New York. There are 78 in Los Angeles."--Neil Simon 

"The true New Yorker secretly believes that people living anywhere else have to be, in some sense, kidding."--John Updike

Here is a little extra something to get you in the "New York state of mind", my personal favorite song about New York:

Health Insurance without the Health Insurance Company

I was reading this Associated Press story, "UNITEDHEALTH TO TRIM ACA EXCHANGES TO 'HANDFUL' OF STATES":

UnitedHealth, the nation's biggest health insurer, will cut its participation in public health insurance exchanges to only a handful of states next year after expanding to nearly three dozen for this year. 

CEO Stephen Hemsley said Tuesday that the company expects losses from its exchange business to total more than $1 billion for this year and last. He added that the company cannot continue to broadly serve the market created by the Affordable Care Act's coverage expansion due partly to the higher risk that comes with its customers. 

The state-based exchanges are a key element behind the Affordable Care Act's push to expand insurance coverage. But insurers have struggled with higher than expected claims from that business. 

UnitedHealth Group Inc. said it now expects to lose $650 million this year on its exchange business, up from its previous projection for $525 million. The insurer lost $475 million in 2015, a spokesman said.

Then a thought occurred to me: What happens if they have the ACA websites, and no insurance companies show up for it?

If that does happen, there is one thing I know for sure: It will take them at least 20 years to get rid of the websites.

Deadpool versus the Mormons

Back when Mitt Romney first ran for president in 2008, I suggested he shouldn't be elected because he's a Mormon. Needless to say, I took much abuse because of that, but hear me out.

I have nothing against Mormons in general. I consider them some of the hardest working people I have ever known, and I even count some of them as my friends.

However, remember when Ben Carson said the U.S. shouldn't elect Muslims to the presidency? That is how I feel about Mormons, and it comes down to the simple fact that neither group (as well as most religious fundamentalists) can differentiate between their personal beliefs and their political beliefs. This leads to bad laws which tend to limit personal freedoms, even as they threaten the lives of those who don't share the personal beliefs of said groups.

I offer exhibit A for your consideration, from Fox News, "Utah threatens liquor permit of theater showing 'Deadpool'":

Utah alcohol bosses have filed a complaint and will consider revoking the liquor license of a movie theater it says violated a state obscenity law by serving drinks while screening "Deadpool," which features simulated sex scenes.

Huh? Did I mention that Utah is 62% Mormon? But I digress...

Utah's Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control filed the complaint against Brewvies after three undercover state officers attended a screening of "Deadpool" in February. 

Investigators cited a state obscenity law that is generally used to regulate alcohol and nudity at strip clubs, which are required to have dancers wearing G-strings and pasties if the club serves liquor.

Good idea, since we all know how crazy people can get at the sight of the naughty bits. Best to keep them covered at all times!

Seriously, I didn't see anything in Deadpool that would prevent me from watching it again, or with alcohol. In fact, it might even be funnier with alcohol. Utah needs to get a life.

The Death of Science

For fans of science and true scientists alike, there is a must-read article by William A. Wilson over at First Things, called, "Scientific Regress". To summarize it, science has become like baseball: The balls are juiced, and so are the players.

As the article points out, the amount of scientific progress far outweighs the actual possibility for it:

First articulated by John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, this argument proceeds by a simple application of Bayesian statistics. Suppose that there are a hundred and one stones in a certain field. One of them has a diamond inside it, and, luckily, you have a diamond-detecting device that advertises 99 percent accuracy. After an hour or so of moving the device around, examining each stone in turn, suddenly alarms flash and sirens wail while the device is pointed at a promising-looking stone. What is the probability that the stone contains a diamond? 

Most would say that if the device advertises 99 percent accuracy, then there is a 99 percent chance that the device is correctly discerning a diamond, and a 1 percent chance that it has given a false positive reading. But consider: Of the one hundred and one stones in the field, only one is truly a diamond. Granted, our machine has a very high probability of correctly declaring it to be a diamond. But there are many more diamond-free stones, and while the machine only has a 1 percent chance of falsely declaring each of them to be a diamond, there are a hundred of them. So if we were to wave the detector over every stone in the field, it would, on average, sound twice—once for the real diamond, and once when a false reading was triggered by a stone. If we know only that the alarm has sounded, these two possibilities are roughly equally probable, giving us an approximately 50 percent chance that the stone really contains a diamond. 

This is a simplified version of the argument that Ioannidis applies to the process of science itself. The stones in the field are the set of all possible testable hypotheses, the diamond is a hypothesized connection or effect that happens to be true, and the diamond-detecting device is the scientific method. A tremendous amount depends on the proportion of possible hypotheses which turn out to be true, and on the accuracy with which an experiment can discern truth from falsehood. Ioannidis shows that for a wide variety of scientific settings and fields, the values of these two parameters are not at all favorable. 

For instance, consider a team of molecular biologists investigating whether a mutation in one of the countless thousands of human genes is linked to an increased risk of Alzheimer’s. The probability of a randomly selected mutation in a randomly selected gene having precisely that effect is quite low, so just as with the stones in the field, a positive finding is more likely than not to be spurious—unless the experiment is unbelievably successful at sorting the wheat from the chaff. Indeed, Ioannidis finds that in many cases, approaching even 50 percent true positives requires unimaginable accuracy. Hence the eye-catching title of his paper: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”

Statistical error is just one example of how scientists get their studies wrong. Read the entire article for other examples.

It has to make you wonder, if the science is "settled" on man-made global warming, how come the side of the Earth facing the sun is always warmer than the other side?