Posts
Alex Rodreguiz is a cheater and a liar. He used steroids, and he lied about it. He's not the only athlete who has done this, but because of his stature, he is the 'poster boy' for it. I think he's still lying about it. He says he quit trafficing in steroids (that's what it's called) five years ago. Five years, it just so happens, is the statute of limitations for trafficing in steriods. Conincidence or just another lie?
We used to say that sports builds character, but today more and more, we find that our sports heros lack not only character, but also courage and strength. We find that Superman can't really fly. He's not really bulletproof. The bullets were fake. And, he doesn't have xray vision, just a ton of money and pair of really cool Raybans. He's not really Superman, but he plays one on TV.
If our sports organizations were serious about putting an end to steroid use, they could do it. Simply put in the contracts a clause that forfits pay and imposes a life-time ban for steriod use. When steriod use turns one milllionaire professional athlete into a broke unemployable athlete, it's use will stop. The rule is simple, "If you cheat, you have to give it all back, and you don't get to play any more."
Enforce that rule, and the steroid problems go away. It worked for gambling, just ask Pete Rose. The truth is that sports organizations won't do it. The game isn't about the game anymore. It's not about the players. It's all about the money. Big stars mean big bucks.
So face it, Superman is juicing.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Rights and Wrongs
I have rights. They were given to my by my Creator. They were not bestowed on me by my government. They were not granted me by my government. My government recognizes that they are mine by virtue of a higher power. We are free men. We are governed, but never ruled.
I can speak my mind, and no one can stop me because it is my right. I do not fear for my liberty, my papers or my property because my government explicitly recognizes my personal sovorignty as my right. I have the right to defend myself and my family. These rights make me an independent and free man. Our independence is the essence of our freedom.
In this day and age when the economy seems to be the most important thing we think about, it's is interesting to note that not one of these rights can be bought with money. They were all paid for in the blood of our forefathers on battlefields at home and abroad. From cold huts at Valley Forge, to the Wheatfield at Gettysburg, our rights have been paid for. From the windswept beaches at Normandy and the sea wall at Inchon harbor to the dark and muddy waters of Bassic River, to Basra, and Kabul, the price of freedom has been paid time and again. Perhaps the truth is that freedom is never paid for in full, but has to be paid for by each generation.
Rights, it seems to me, are liberating things. Rights are what enable me to make choices. As our country slithers up on a more 'socialized' approach to things, and we find that we have a 'right' to health care, and a 'right' to own a home, and a 'right' to a job, we ought to think carefully about these rights. With each of these 'rights', comes a trade-off. Our 'right' to health care means we lose our control over our own health care decisions. Our 'right' to own a home has already undermined sound lending practices and has caused our mortagage crisis. A 'right' to a job has bad trade-offs too. There are too many of them to list here. If you're really interested, just ask someone who lived in the Soviet Union. The government guaranteed everyone a job there, too.
These new rights are not liberatingl. They are imprisoning. They don't set me free. The make me dependant. They take away my choices and give someone else dominion over me. They change me from a free man in a free land into a vassel in a subjecated land. Who is it that will exersize dominon over me? The neo-aristocracy, our governmental beaurocracy, that is who.
The elected bastards in the government who tempt you to surrender to them your independence will take from you your freedom. They would beg you to trade freedoms paid for in blood for 'entitlements' bought with sweat of others. They will whisper to you that you have a right to all things, but not the ability to attain them for yourself. As they softly tell you that it's all free, they slowly slip the velvet manacles of servatude on you. Governmental dependence is the is a prison from which few ever escape. It shackels the American Spirit to the dead weight of the public trough. It fosters poverty, hopelessness, incompetence, and complatency. The mirage of free services soon evaporates into the desert reality of broken promises, and shattered dreams.
What the thieving weasles in government won't tell you is that for the government to give something to you, it has to first take it away from someone else. The government has no authority to take from you what you have lawfully earned, and to give it to another in the name of 'fairness'. Our forefathers paid in blood for our freedom from this. With lies, half-truths, deceptions and manipulation, the scoundrals in government are subverting our independence and stealing our freedoms, and that of our children.
The Vandals are stealing our rights, and we are letting them do it.
That is wrong.
I can speak my mind, and no one can stop me because it is my right. I do not fear for my liberty, my papers or my property because my government explicitly recognizes my personal sovorignty as my right. I have the right to defend myself and my family. These rights make me an independent and free man. Our independence is the essence of our freedom.
In this day and age when the economy seems to be the most important thing we think about, it's is interesting to note that not one of these rights can be bought with money. They were all paid for in the blood of our forefathers on battlefields at home and abroad. From cold huts at Valley Forge, to the Wheatfield at Gettysburg, our rights have been paid for. From the windswept beaches at Normandy and the sea wall at Inchon harbor to the dark and muddy waters of Bassic River, to Basra, and Kabul, the price of freedom has been paid time and again. Perhaps the truth is that freedom is never paid for in full, but has to be paid for by each generation.
Rights, it seems to me, are liberating things. Rights are what enable me to make choices. As our country slithers up on a more 'socialized' approach to things, and we find that we have a 'right' to health care, and a 'right' to own a home, and a 'right' to a job, we ought to think carefully about these rights. With each of these 'rights', comes a trade-off. Our 'right' to health care means we lose our control over our own health care decisions. Our 'right' to own a home has already undermined sound lending practices and has caused our mortagage crisis. A 'right' to a job has bad trade-offs too. There are too many of them to list here. If you're really interested, just ask someone who lived in the Soviet Union. The government guaranteed everyone a job there, too.
These new rights are not liberatingl. They are imprisoning. They don't set me free. The make me dependant. They take away my choices and give someone else dominion over me. They change me from a free man in a free land into a vassel in a subjecated land. Who is it that will exersize dominon over me? The neo-aristocracy, our governmental beaurocracy, that is who.
The elected bastards in the government who tempt you to surrender to them your independence will take from you your freedom. They would beg you to trade freedoms paid for in blood for 'entitlements' bought with sweat of others. They will whisper to you that you have a right to all things, but not the ability to attain them for yourself. As they softly tell you that it's all free, they slowly slip the velvet manacles of servatude on you. Governmental dependence is the is a prison from which few ever escape. It shackels the American Spirit to the dead weight of the public trough. It fosters poverty, hopelessness, incompetence, and complatency. The mirage of free services soon evaporates into the desert reality of broken promises, and shattered dreams.
What the thieving weasles in government won't tell you is that for the government to give something to you, it has to first take it away from someone else. The government has no authority to take from you what you have lawfully earned, and to give it to another in the name of 'fairness'. Our forefathers paid in blood for our freedom from this. With lies, half-truths, deceptions and manipulation, the scoundrals in government are subverting our independence and stealing our freedoms, and that of our children.
The Vandals are stealing our rights, and we are letting them do it.
That is wrong.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Trust Me. I'm from the government, I'm here to help.
The first thing to realize about socialized medicine is that you have to trust the government. This would be the same government that runs Social Security. The same government that runs EPA. The same government that runs Veterans Affairs. This is the same federal government that controls our boarders. The same one that runs the Securities and Exchange Commission to guarantee legit operations in the stock market. The same one that runs the FDIC to guarnatee the soundness of our banks. The same one that runs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After all, if you can't trust your government, you kind of screwed, aren't you?
The second thing to realize about socialized medicine is that the government wants you healthy or dead. It doesn't particularly care which because both Healthy and Dead don't cost. Treatments cost, and to the government, it's all about costs and payback. Asprine is cheap, but triple by-pass surgery isn't, and the payback of doing a triple by-pass on a 65 year old retiree isn't what they are looking for.
The third thing to realize about socialized medicine is that if you think paying for health insurance for your family is expensive, just wait until you get the bill for paying for health insurance for everyone. Socialized medicine isn't free. Just like everyother government program, it costs twice or three times what it should, it won't work with a damn and it will be run by quota hires who can never be fired.
The fourth thing to realize about socialized medicine is that the govenment will use it's knowledge of your personal health information to meddle in your life. Smokers will find their treatment options restricted because they smoke. Those of us who are overweight will suffer the consequences of being bad risks by having our treatment options restricted. By restricting treatments for those with serious, expensive needs the government will be able to do more for those with less serious needs. It simply doesn't make good financial sense wasting treatment on those whose cardiac risk is high. Over fifty and got diabetes? You're probably not going to get cataract surgery no matter how bad your cataracts are.
The fifth thing to realize about socialized medicine is that non-medical beaurocrat will be making your treatment decisons for you based on financial numbers and not your well being. Your options will be determined based on a number of factors that do not directly relate to your condition. If you are an overweight, over 50, hypertensive male with a blown ACL, you can forget about getting it fixed because most overweight, over 50, hypertensive males do not do things that require an ACL. If by chance, you are an overweight, over 50, hypertensive male who enjoys coaching soccer and snow skiiing and you blow out your ACL, under socialized medicine, your soccer and skiing days are over.
Got Asthama, AIDS, Altizemers, Parkinsons, or diabetes? New treatments are expensive treatments. The treatment you have now is the best you can ever expect,...unless of course, your profile and history indicates that the treatment you're getting now does not have a sufficient return potential. In that case, you'll soon be getting a cheaper treatment.
Finally, the crack whore on the corner who get's pregnant turning tricks for her next score will be able to walk into a public funded abortion clinic and get an abortion on demand because that's her constitutional right.
Welcome to socialized medicine.
The second thing to realize about socialized medicine is that the government wants you healthy or dead. It doesn't particularly care which because both Healthy and Dead don't cost. Treatments cost, and to the government, it's all about costs and payback. Asprine is cheap, but triple by-pass surgery isn't, and the payback of doing a triple by-pass on a 65 year old retiree isn't what they are looking for.
The third thing to realize about socialized medicine is that if you think paying for health insurance for your family is expensive, just wait until you get the bill for paying for health insurance for everyone. Socialized medicine isn't free. Just like everyother government program, it costs twice or three times what it should, it won't work with a damn and it will be run by quota hires who can never be fired.
The fourth thing to realize about socialized medicine is that the govenment will use it's knowledge of your personal health information to meddle in your life. Smokers will find their treatment options restricted because they smoke. Those of us who are overweight will suffer the consequences of being bad risks by having our treatment options restricted. By restricting treatments for those with serious, expensive needs the government will be able to do more for those with less serious needs. It simply doesn't make good financial sense wasting treatment on those whose cardiac risk is high. Over fifty and got diabetes? You're probably not going to get cataract surgery no matter how bad your cataracts are.
The fifth thing to realize about socialized medicine is that non-medical beaurocrat will be making your treatment decisons for you based on financial numbers and not your well being. Your options will be determined based on a number of factors that do not directly relate to your condition. If you are an overweight, over 50, hypertensive male with a blown ACL, you can forget about getting it fixed because most overweight, over 50, hypertensive males do not do things that require an ACL. If by chance, you are an overweight, over 50, hypertensive male who enjoys coaching soccer and snow skiiing and you blow out your ACL, under socialized medicine, your soccer and skiing days are over.
Got Asthama, AIDS, Altizemers, Parkinsons, or diabetes? New treatments are expensive treatments. The treatment you have now is the best you can ever expect,...unless of course, your profile and history indicates that the treatment you're getting now does not have a sufficient return potential. In that case, you'll soon be getting a cheaper treatment.
Finally, the crack whore on the corner who get's pregnant turning tricks for her next score will be able to walk into a public funded abortion clinic and get an abortion on demand because that's her constitutional right.
Welcome to socialized medicine.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
No Nutts
Not too long ago, a friend of mine took her dog to the vet to get him'fixed'. The dog wasn't really broken. He just still had his nutts. To my way of thinking, he was 'working' properly. To her way of thinking, he needed to be fixed. Right in front of the dog, she spoke openly about the procedure. She discussed the procedure with the vet, again, right in front of the dog and the dog just sat there licking his butt, not paying any attention. The vet gave the dog a shot, and the dog fell asleep. A couple of hours later, the dog woke up and made a discovery: no nutts. The dog is pissed. You can't really blame the dog for being pissed. Event though he was licking his butt, he doesn't really speak much English.
A funny thing happend last year: the country got a shot. All year long, we heard politicians trying to outdo each other about closing Gitmo, about stopping the military tribunals where terrorists are held accountable for their actions, about off-shore drilling, and about ending corruption in government and business. Some spoke at length about economic fairness, and about how our constitution was incomplete because the founding fathers didn't address it. Were you listening, or were you licking your butt?
Now, the election is over. Our new president is closing Gitmo, though he doesn't know where to put the prisioners. Here's a hint. The wheels are in motion to use 'rendition'. That's a Clinton Era invention where we give them to another country. In most cases, this means a country where they will be summarily shot, or routinely tortured. By the term 'torture', I don't mean being forced to listen to Britney Spears 24x7. I mean being beat daily with rubber hoses and having your gonads lit up with tasers. We find sleep deprivation to be torture, but are ok with beatings, beheadings and firing squads as long as it's done by others.
The Economic Stimulus bill our new president is pushing is no such thing. It a 'cover name' for a bill to pay back all the special intrest groups that elected the democrats. Job Creation by the government? The only way the government can create a job is for it to take money away from someone who did something productive and give it to someone to do something that is not productive.
Going beyond stopping the military tribunals, this president is setting in motion events that will eventually render unto the terrorists the complete protection of the United States Constitution. This means that you and I will foot the bill for endless legal proceedings while the terrorists contest their imprisonment on constitutional grounds. 'I wasn't Marandized!' won't be heard many times before the prisioner take begins to decline. In the heat of battle, it will become impossible to legally take a prisioner, so there will be no quarter given. Don't be surprised when this administration prosecutes some soldier for shooting an enemy dead whom someone else judges to be trying to surrender. Our soldiers will be prosecuted under the U.S. Code of Military justice in a Military Court, but the terrorists get a civilian trial by jury. Quite a differenet standard, if I do say so. This kind of makes you wonder who the government percieves to be the enemy.
Mark my words, it won't be long before the president and the congress change their minds and reinstitute the ban on off-shore drilling. Already, he has pledged to break the coal industry. He is against nuclear energy, and during the campaign he advocated raising taxes on gasoline. So, with no new energy sources, how are we going to meet our energy needs? We'll do it like every other third world country. The government will manage it. We'll pay insane prices and suffer chronic shortages. In the name of 'greening America', we will become accustomed to suffering blackouts.
Democratic Senators are starting to mumble about 'balance' on radio. This is code for forcing voices they disagree with off the air under a resurected 'fairness doctorine'. That my friends, is the first step toward suppressing dissent. Supressing dissent in America! Some change.
And just when you thought it couldn't get worse, apparently there aren't enough democrats paying taxes to fill out the president's Cabinent.
What is Economic Fairness? It is the use of the awesum power of government to redistribute wealth from those who earn it to those who do not. Economic Crisis? We apparenly have lost the right to read the bill when we elected Mr. Obama, who has implored Congress to pass it saying "Don't read the bill, just pass it". How about Health Care reform? You and I are about to pay for free medical care for everyone who can swim the Rio Grand.
A funny thing happend last year: the country got a shot. All year long, we heard politicians trying to outdo each other about closing Gitmo, about stopping the military tribunals where terrorists are held accountable for their actions, about off-shore drilling, and about ending corruption in government and business. Some spoke at length about economic fairness, and about how our constitution was incomplete because the founding fathers didn't address it. Were you listening, or were you licking your butt?
Now, the election is over. Our new president is closing Gitmo, though he doesn't know where to put the prisioners. Here's a hint. The wheels are in motion to use 'rendition'. That's a Clinton Era invention where we give them to another country. In most cases, this means a country where they will be summarily shot, or routinely tortured. By the term 'torture', I don't mean being forced to listen to Britney Spears 24x7. I mean being beat daily with rubber hoses and having your gonads lit up with tasers. We find sleep deprivation to be torture, but are ok with beatings, beheadings and firing squads as long as it's done by others.
The Economic Stimulus bill our new president is pushing is no such thing. It a 'cover name' for a bill to pay back all the special intrest groups that elected the democrats. Job Creation by the government? The only way the government can create a job is for it to take money away from someone who did something productive and give it to someone to do something that is not productive.
Going beyond stopping the military tribunals, this president is setting in motion events that will eventually render unto the terrorists the complete protection of the United States Constitution. This means that you and I will foot the bill for endless legal proceedings while the terrorists contest their imprisonment on constitutional grounds. 'I wasn't Marandized!' won't be heard many times before the prisioner take begins to decline. In the heat of battle, it will become impossible to legally take a prisioner, so there will be no quarter given. Don't be surprised when this administration prosecutes some soldier for shooting an enemy dead whom someone else judges to be trying to surrender. Our soldiers will be prosecuted under the U.S. Code of Military justice in a Military Court, but the terrorists get a civilian trial by jury. Quite a differenet standard, if I do say so. This kind of makes you wonder who the government percieves to be the enemy.
Mark my words, it won't be long before the president and the congress change their minds and reinstitute the ban on off-shore drilling. Already, he has pledged to break the coal industry. He is against nuclear energy, and during the campaign he advocated raising taxes on gasoline. So, with no new energy sources, how are we going to meet our energy needs? We'll do it like every other third world country. The government will manage it. We'll pay insane prices and suffer chronic shortages. In the name of 'greening America', we will become accustomed to suffering blackouts.
Democratic Senators are starting to mumble about 'balance' on radio. This is code for forcing voices they disagree with off the air under a resurected 'fairness doctorine'. That my friends, is the first step toward suppressing dissent. Supressing dissent in America! Some change.
And just when you thought it couldn't get worse, apparently there aren't enough democrats paying taxes to fill out the president's Cabinent.
What is Economic Fairness? It is the use of the awesum power of government to redistribute wealth from those who earn it to those who do not. Economic Crisis? We apparenly have lost the right to read the bill when we elected Mr. Obama, who has implored Congress to pass it saying "Don't read the bill, just pass it". How about Health Care reform? You and I are about to pay for free medical care for everyone who can swim the Rio Grand.
Now, people are waking up. Some are starting to realize that we are socializing the economy of this country, freeing the terrorists who have attacked us, and discussing how to censor free speach on the radio. We are going to prosecute the soldiers who defend us, stiffle our energy business, build a national para-military force and nationalize the automotive industry. You can not be shocked. He told us what he was going to do. He said so openly, and often. Those of us who weren't licking our asses knew this was coming.
The dog has a right to be pissed about his nutts. The dog doesn't speak English. The dog woke up, licked his ass and realized his nutts were gone.
How long will it take America to wake up and realize our freedom, economic and political, is gone.
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Great Masquerade
As we watch the national Episcopal Church implode, I sometimes have to supress a smile. You really can't make this up. At the local and diocesian levels, it is as if a comic tragedy is being played out. If someone had described this senario to me five years ago, I would have said that person was nuts because priests are men of integrity and bishops are titans of virtue. The reality is that as the money gets tight, funny things start to happen.
Suppose a priest angered so many of his parishioners that they left by the hundreds. So many turned their backs on his manipulations and lies that the once thriving parish began to fail. A parish with no debt suddenly could not support itself. The parish began to draw on it's reserve fund to pay the priest's salary. Even though the number of parishioners falls every year, this priest demands and gets his 3% raise every year.
Suppose a bishop cared more about being a bishop than about ministering to the diocese. What if the diocese had many parishes that were failing. So many that the diocese was failing. Would it make sense for the bishop to be interested in saving the failing parishes? Would it make sense for the bishop to try to figure out what can be done to save the diocese? Seems logical to me that healthy parishs make for a healthy diocese.
Imagine parishioners at that poor, old, dying parish struggling mightly to remove an unmotivated, complacent priest only to find that the parish can't remove the rector. Only the bishop can remove him. Their appeals to their bishop go unanswered. More parishioners walk away, further weakening the tiny parish. Why would the bishop not help? The bishop is familiar with this parish, the parishioners, the beautiful church grounds, park, and residence. Why would the bishop refuse help this wonderful old parish in it's struggle to survive?
In the Episcopal Church, the diocese holds title to all parish properties. The diocese holds the deeds in 'trust' for the parishioners.
Money is as tight at the diocese as it is at the tiny, dying parish. Only a new priest at the tiny, struggeling parish can save it from extinction.
What if the bishop refuses to remove the failing old priest at the dying parish? What if the old priest hangs on, depletes the reserve fund, alienates a few more parishioners and makes it to retirement. With few parishioners, no reserve funds, and no prospects for hiring a new rector, the parish fails. When the parish fails, the diocese sells the parish property. This beautiful old church and its' property will easily fetch more than a million dollars. This influx of cash replentishes the diocese funds and allows diocese to survive, and the bishop continues to being a bishop for a little while longer.
How would it make you feel if you realized that scoundrals masquerading as priests and bishops had looted your church, then sold it.
I suppose this is what happens when priests lose their faith, but not their jobs.
Suppose a priest angered so many of his parishioners that they left by the hundreds. So many turned their backs on his manipulations and lies that the once thriving parish began to fail. A parish with no debt suddenly could not support itself. The parish began to draw on it's reserve fund to pay the priest's salary. Even though the number of parishioners falls every year, this priest demands and gets his 3% raise every year.
Suppose a bishop cared more about being a bishop than about ministering to the diocese. What if the diocese had many parishes that were failing. So many that the diocese was failing. Would it make sense for the bishop to be interested in saving the failing parishes? Would it make sense for the bishop to try to figure out what can be done to save the diocese? Seems logical to me that healthy parishs make for a healthy diocese.
Imagine parishioners at that poor, old, dying parish struggling mightly to remove an unmotivated, complacent priest only to find that the parish can't remove the rector. Only the bishop can remove him. Their appeals to their bishop go unanswered. More parishioners walk away, further weakening the tiny parish. Why would the bishop not help? The bishop is familiar with this parish, the parishioners, the beautiful church grounds, park, and residence. Why would the bishop refuse help this wonderful old parish in it's struggle to survive?
In the Episcopal Church, the diocese holds title to all parish properties. The diocese holds the deeds in 'trust' for the parishioners.
Money is as tight at the diocese as it is at the tiny, dying parish. Only a new priest at the tiny, struggeling parish can save it from extinction.
What if the bishop refuses to remove the failing old priest at the dying parish? What if the old priest hangs on, depletes the reserve fund, alienates a few more parishioners and makes it to retirement. With few parishioners, no reserve funds, and no prospects for hiring a new rector, the parish fails. When the parish fails, the diocese sells the parish property. This beautiful old church and its' property will easily fetch more than a million dollars. This influx of cash replentishes the diocese funds and allows diocese to survive, and the bishop continues to being a bishop for a little while longer.
How would it make you feel if you realized that scoundrals masquerading as priests and bishops had looted your church, then sold it.
I suppose this is what happens when priests lose their faith, but not their jobs.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)