Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Spoiled Adults, Spoiled Elderly, Merciless Children

Herman Cain has proposed a 9-9-9 plan to fix the economy. I'm not going to addressed the possibility of that every seeing the light of day, but a lot of seniors are worried that such a plan would strain their already limited income.

Let me address my fellow Social Security recipients.

I am living on Social Security and disability insurance. Anything the politicians do to fix the problem will be a difficult burden on all of us simply because we didn't fix the problem when it could have been fixed (when we were young). We had our chance. Now we are at the mercy of the young and we are old enough to know how the young can be. Some are noble but once they realize that the only choice they are given is everything for us and nothing for them, they are going to rebel and you and I will get nothing at all... and they will be morally justified because you and I had our chance to fix it and we failed.

Now it is beyond fixing and it's their turn. The politicians simply don't want to tell you that because if they actually told you the truth you (and many like you) will get angry and vote them out of office. So this 9-9-9 plan is more fair. It spreads out the pain more evenly but you can't expect to experience no pain at all.

Most people on Social Security use up everything they put into it in about 4 years or so. After that we are "on the dole". We are depending on the charity of others. If those others can no longer pay in, it seems wrong to take out a loan simply to give us money when there is no prospect of paying back the loan.

So my advice to the retired senior is to calculate how much you put into the Social Security system while you were working and how much you've taken out so far. If you have already used it all up then measure your gratitude by how much you have received in this gift and mind those who must continue to pay until you die with no prospect of any retirement for themselves.

There are letters from the elderly that still exist. Nazi Germany had a retirement plan for the Aryan elderly. But with hyper inflation in Germany the government could no longer write the check. Letters when out to children from parents pleading to be taken back. "I can still work on the farm!" It did not good. Their adult children could barely feed themselves. And so the Nazis put to death the elderly. Their own. And the children let them.

That seems to be the plan. Obama says we've been living too high on the hog. "Take a pill!" So he wants us to take a pill instead of that hip surgery or replacing that painful joint deterioration with an artificial knee. He wants us to end our our lives in a morphine-induced haze with our children telling us that its all for the best.
It's not the best but maybe we deserve it. We failed them.

Vote however you'd like but whatever happens I guarantee you won't like it and you won't be able to do anything about it because they are going to take it out of our hide one way or the other. We can't escape it. They are already extracting a tax in inflation as our fixed income stays fixed but what we can buy with it shrinks and shrinks.

If it's all the same to you I'd rather face the problem like an adult rather than hide under the bed. Politicians (now long dead) made promises. They lied. We can dig up their graves and hang the liars from a lamppost but it doesn't solve the problem they created and we knew about long before. Will our children hang us from a lamppost? It is a real possibility.

The Brown Shirts have arrived and there is no mercy in their eyes.

Is Perry Dreaming?

I'm not a big supporter of Perry for President but I'm not seriously opposed to him either. I like to make my decision made based on the facts and I see a lot of rhetoric and opinion flying around the Internet and very few facts. One of the so-called "facts" is that somehow Rick Perry supports the Dream Act, a law granting in-state tuition to illegal aliens who came into the country as minors and remained for at least five year or had served in the military. The idea behind this is that a minor is not in control of the acts of his parents and therefore blameless. By the time they become college students they are of age and can make decisions themselves. Perry adds that such a potential student must apply for citizenship as well.
Here is a typical and popular response to Perry from past presidential candidate, Tom Tancredo, "Perry not a true Conservative".
I think it makes an error in saying that Perry supports open borders simply because he opposes a border fence. Perry's stand is that the border is very long along Texas. It would be very expensive to build a fence without the corresponding increase in border security because like any fence, it's easy to climb and if there is no policeman with a shotgun on the other side, it is sort of useless.
Perry favors "boots on the ground" over any fence. That makes sense. A fence is not necessary if you have people guarding the border. A border guard is more secure than a border fence. A border fence gives us the sense that we are doing something substantial because we can see it there but without people backing it up, it is simply construction worker full employment act. It is not border security.
What we need is a gate... like the Golden Gate or Ellis Island where Mexican immigrants can be processed and given papers to enter the USA legally and easily.... like within a day or two. Most Mexican people who wish to immigrate good people. The ones who are criminals will not use such a gateway. They will use other means and when they do we can assume they are bad people because only bad people would use such a crazy path as trekking across a desert with no water when simply walking through the gate legally is so easy. Police can assume an illegal purpose the same way they can assume something illegal when the policeman sees someone crawling through the back window of a store when the front door is open. Whatever that guy is doing, it can't be good and so the policeman draws his weapon. Naturally.
A legal gateway makes border security simple. You don't need a fence or not much of one. You would need a fence to funnel good people to the correct gate... not keep bad people out. That would reduce the work of the border patrol to only criminal activity instead of the uncertain act of rounding up people most of whom are simply looking for opportunity in a new country and who may or may not have armed and dangerous criminals amongst them.
Alex Shrugged

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Occupying the Middle


I was confronted with someone on a forum who suggested that Mexicans in California believe that California is occupied Mexico.

I answer that there have always been a few who believed that California belonged to Mexico. I first heard of this in the 1970's and I've been hearing this tripe every since. It is promoted by a few knuckleheaded socialist/Marxist Mexican American citizens. This is the old Che Guevara crowd. Even the Mexican community find them odd and difficult. What is happening is that socialist/Marxists are wrapping their ideology in Mexican pride and romantic nostalgia for "the old country".

The Irish American citizens did the same thing hoisting a cold one for the revolutionaries in Ireland. The Irish are clannish you know. They stick together and they have infiltrated the FBI! The Irish have even forced us to celebrate their religious holidays! (St. Patrick's Day) The one thing they are NOT doing is they are not trying to wrap up nostalgia and romantic idealization for Ireland with socialism/Marxism. Thank G-d!

The Mexican American citizen community is burdened with socialist/Marxists the same as the all the countries south of us are. Thus you will see organizations in the Mexican American citizen community that reflect this socialism/Marxism. My advice is to NOT to mistake the nostalgia for a romantic Mexico as a desire to overturn the American government. That is what Marxists do and most Mexican American citizens are not Marxists.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Gentle Speech and those SOB's

I've been laughing at the reponses I've been getting on that Jewish email list I am on. I accused a Jewish politician who waved his penis in public of being of poor character and a Brown Shirt fascist. Clearly Rep. Anthony Weiner was foolish, but I could have forgiven him if he had sadly admitted his failure. But he didn't admit anything. In fact he accused others. He lied until he could lie no more and then he refused to go until he could refuse no more.

I called Rep. Anthony Weiner wicked and the voices of protest brayed. How very sad but I've seen it before from Democrats. Oh... not about Anthony Weiner. I've seen many such politicans of both parties go bad. That's not unsusal. I mean the reaction of his supporters. I would have abandoned Weiner if he was a Republican. Most Republicans would. I could feel the Democrats inching away from Weiner, but nothing like what Republicans would do. Yet, Weiner's supporters on the list are comical in their support of him... blaming the messenger (me) for being too sarcastic or not nice enough. They call me names. How very silly. I thought these were grown men yet they act as children.

I'd like to dwell on the issue of kinder rhetoric. I don't see it from Democrats very often but perhaps I am wrong. Should I take a lesson? What was it that President Obama said at the campaign rally that was supposed to be a memorial for the dead in Arizona and a prayer for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords as she lay in the hospital hanging on for life? What was it that President Obama said? Oh yes...

 "It's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds..." -- President Barack Hussein Obama, delivered in a speech at the Together We Thrive: Tucson and America memorial on January 12, 2011, held in the McKale Center on the University of Arizona campus.

So... let's figure out what that means. I want to learn. Perhaps calling me an "A-hole" is shorthand for something "healing". Perhaps I am being too "thin-skined". Let's look for some small example of these "healing words".

"Let's take these sons of bitches out!" -- Jimmy Hoffa calling on the "Obama Army" to take out the Tea Party. (See Slate's reaction/excuse.)

President Obama mounted the podium right after Hoffa praising him. Apparently I can call my opponent a "sons of a bitch" since Obama praised Hoffa. If Obama was going to repudiate Hoffa's violent rhetoric he should have done it there. At least he could have joked a little such as "Wow... take a valium there Jimmy," or the like. But he didn't. Obama said he was proud of Jimmy Hoffa... the thug.

So now I know.

"A-hole" is a word of healing.

"Sons-of-bitches" are words of healing.

"We are your army" are words of healing.

But I'm still confused. Wouldn't that make "Brown Shirt thugs" also words of healing? It seems so to me.

Here is a video of Purple Shirt thugs "healing" a black man so much they put him in the hospital all because he sold American flags.

Alex Shrugged

Bastrop County on Fire

Copyright 2011 Deanna Roy,

You can see here Austin the the foreground and the Bastrop fire in the background. My son studies climetology in college and he tells me that the weather sats can see the fire. That's how bad it is. This picture is from Deanna Roy's site.

At this point (2:46 PM, Tuesday, 2011-Sep-06) the Steiner Ranch fire is 45 percent contained. It is the closest large fire to us and it is a little scary. There is no chance it will come closer to us, but all around us in dry brush and prarie land. It can easily catch fire. A couple of miles away someone set a fire. They caught the guy and put out the fire but it was scary for awhile. it wouldn't take much for a wildfire to catch around here. It is so dry.

Alex Shrugged.

Monday, September 5, 2011

Testing ScribeFire

I'm testing the ScribeFire publisher to see if I can post remotely.

Alex Shrugged


Sunday, September 4, 2011

The Risks of Responding

08 May 2001 --- Exploding head --- Image by © John Lund/CORBIS
I am the Moderator of a Jewish email list that sometimes gets into political discussions for which most of the members are not prepared to handle objectively. In a sense, their heads explode before they can evaluate whether what I am saying it true or not. They are simply too emotional. Political discussions are also beyond the mission of the Jewish list so I'm going to use this blog to respond here and then give them a link to this blog. That seems like the best way to handle this issue.

Alex Shrugged

Friday, February 18, 2011

Open Carry Response

My friend at Gort Nation has published a personal opinion generally in disfavor of gun ownership. It has generated some discussion and one of the people to whom I wanted to respond was Oblio, who also expressed some anti-gun opinions. I don't want to beat up on these folks I simply want to explain and since the comments on Gort Nation do not allow a long enough response,l I decided to respond on my blog here.

Here we go.

Respondent Oblio apparently does not like open carry in Arizona because some guy in a Blackwater tee-shirt is scary. I don't doubt it but here is my response to Oblio...

I welcome open carry because nothing is gained by concealed carry other than "ignorance is bliss" (Read George Orwell's 1984). Some people think that bad guys go away by covering their eyes. This is obviously foolish and you don't seem like a fool. Therefore, logically speaking, you are suggesting that all guns must be removed from Arizona. This is impossible without violating the 2nd Amendment (whatever your position on what it means) and it is logistically impossible because then you would have to go door-to-door and search every home for a gun. Failing that, you would have to ask people to turn in their guns. Well... the only people who would do that are the good, responsible, law-abiding citizens of Arizona. the Bad, irresponsible, scary citizens of Arizona would laugh and keep their guns. Thus only the scary people will dare to keep a gun illegally... the people you have very good reason to fear. And those for whom you have no reason to fear (but fear nevertheless) are the ones who might protect you... yet you disarm them and keep the bad people armed.

I listen to the Handgun Podcast that originates in Arizona. Eric Shelton is a young military man... one of those guys who (no matter how you interpret the 2nd Amendment) has every right to own and carry a firearm. He speaks out AGAINST those open carry guys wearing "Blackwater" tee shirts. He says that anyone deciding to open carry should be wearing a tie and nice clothes because when you open carry you are representing all gun owners to the public and you have a responsibility. However... he understands the impulse to scare the living pee-waddles out of the nervous-nancies who tell us all how to walk, talk and wipe our backsides at every opportunity.

So... free speech is a natural right. Government does not grant me this right. It is my right by virtue of being born. Free speech is difficult at times and we may not like it. We might even fear it, but unless it is a direct threat, we do not limit it

Freedom is not absolute. My right to swing my arms ends at the tip of your nose, but my  freedom must be accommodated unless I forfeit that right due to my bad behavior or in some obvious way that makes sense. Regarding gun carry .. one should not carry a weapon into a courtroom or a town hall meeting. Leave your weapon at the door. (Accommodating that makes sense like having a coat-check person at the door.) On the other hand disarming me on the off chance that a judge or a congress woman might show up at a random grocery store is not reasonable.

I thought it was reasonable when President Obama came to Arizona and open carry individuals were prevented from coming near the President. One guy I saw on TV who was carrying openly thought it was reasonable. He was a black man in a shirt and tie slinging what looked like an AR-15 on his back. Here is a link to a picture of the man from behind...

The picture is set at an angle and cropped so that you cannot see that he is a black man. No mention of his race was made at MSNBC who showed a video of the man (very difficult to do and not show that he was a black man) while the news people commented on white rednecks carrying guns.... giving the impression that the man with the gun was white.

Do you know WHY and WHEN gun regulation was instituted? It was started in the South during the Reconstruction Era in order to make sure the ... uh... people of the black persuasion would not get weapons... and thus protect themselves from the KKK. For some odd reason the KKK didn't like it when black people protected themselves effectively so regulations were passed to limit gun ownership to friends of the Sheriff and everyone can trust the friends of the Sheriff. Right? Not always.

An unarmed citizenry is more easily controlled and terrorized. As long as those in control are trustworthy and good, then no problem, but leadership changes over time. Doesn't it? Although I am sure we all trust President Bush and President Obama to look carefully after our rights and we need never fear anything they might do, some day someone less trustworthy will take their place and start rounding up the Japanese or the Jews or the Mexicans and then what will we do?

You say it can't happen? President Woodrow Wilson rounded up foreigners and anti-war Americans (mostly of German and Irish ancestry). FDR rounded up the Japanese "for their own protection". President Truman gave the order to drop two atomic bombs on men, women and children (all foreigners of course). Yet... all of these Presidents are seen as good men. Great monuments and institutions have been established to honor them. They were all Democrats... the "good" Party.

There is no good Party. There are only good individuals and bad ones. Guns are not bad. There are only bad people and good ones. Don't disarm the good ones.