Selfish Public "Servants"....

Our Selfish 'Public Servants'

From the White House to the schoolhouse to the George Washington Bridge.

By Peggy Noonan · Jan. 18, 2014

Sometimes the most obvious thing is the most unnoticed. I find myself thinking this week about the destructive force of selfishness in our political life. This common failing is the source of such woe! Politicians call themselves public servants, so they should be expected to be less selfish than the average Joe; their views and actions should be assumed to be more keenly directed toward the broad public good. But no one expects that of politicians anymore, and they know it and use the knowledge to justify being even worse than they'd normally be. “If I have the name, I might as well have the game.”

They are the locus of selfishness in the modern world.Chris Christie’s problem isn't that he's a bully, it's that he's selfish. Barack Obama isn't stupid and therefore the maker of mayhem, he's selfish.

There isn't a staffer on the Hill who won't tell you 90% of members are driven by their own needs, wants and interests, not America's. The former defense secretary, Bob Gates, has written a whole book about it, and the passages in which he speaks most plainly read like a cry from the heart. The chaplain of the Senate, Barry Black, made news a few months ago because he'd taken to praying that the character of our representatives be improved. “Save us from the madness,” he prayed one morning last October. “We acknowledge our transgressions, our shortcomings, our smugness, our selfishness.” The single most memorable thing I ever heard from a Wall Streeter was from one of its great men, who blandly explained to me one day why certain wealthy individuals were taking an action that was both greedy and personally inconvenient to them. “Everyone wants more,” he said, not in a castigating way but as one explains certain essentials to a child.

People in public life have become more grasping, and less embarrassed by it. But the odd thing, the destabilizing thing as you think about it, is that we're in a crisis. We've been in it since at least 2008 and the crash, and the wars. We are in unprecedented trouble. Citizens know this. It's why they buy guns. They see unfixable America around them, they think it's all going to fall apart. In Washington (and New York) they huff and puff their disapproval: Those Americans with their guns, they're causing a lot of trouble. But Americans think they're in trouble because their leaders are too selfish to face challenges that will do us in.

What's most striking is that in a crisis, you don't expect business as usual. You expect something better from leaders, you expect them to try to meet the moment.

Mr. Christie is a great talent, a political figure of real and natural gifts. What has jeopardized his position is not that he's gruff, in-your-face, insistent – a bully. It's that he's been selfish. In 2012 he was given a star role, keynote speaker at the GOP national convention. His speech was strong, funny and ran about 2,340 words. But it took around 2,000 of them before he got to a guy named Romney. Everything else was “The greatest lesson that mom ever taught me … When I came into office … I have an answer.” The GOP nominee needed a boost from blue-state man, but there wasn't much in it for blue-state man. He'd only get Republican cooties on him. So he played it like a vanity production and made a speech about himself.

That wasn't a major sin – it's only politics, not policy. But it fit in with his effusive embrace of Mr. Obama in the days before the 2012 election. Any governor would show strategic warmth for a president in charge of ladling out federal money after disaster. But Jersey was about to re-elect president Obama by nearly 18 points, and Mr. Christie wanted to win over Democrats when he ran the next year.

He was already going to win big. But he had to win bigger, had to have more.

Again, not much of a sin. But when Bridgegate came, it seemed to fit the pattern – he'll ding you when he doesn't have to, even if it makes local citizens cry, to gain an advantage, to get more. Whoever made the call, selfishness is at the heart of the scandal.

There's an increasing sense in our political life that in both parties politicians call themselves public servants but act like bosses who think the voters work for them. Physicians who routinely help the needy and the uninsured do not call themselves servants. They get to be called the 1%. Politicians who jerk around doctors, nurses and health systems call themselves servants, when of course they look more like little kings and queens instructing the grudging peasants in how to arrange their affairs.

Which gets us, inevitably, to the King of I, who unselfconsciously claims ownership of . . . everything. “My military,” “my White House,” “my cabinet,” “my secretary.” The president does first person singular more than Mr. Christie does. But his actions are so much more consequential, because they're national and because they play out in the area of policy.

The president's health-insurance reform had to be breathtaking, mind-bending, historic. It had to be a Democratic Party initiative only. It required a few major lies to gain passage, but what the heck.

It was political selfishness that blew up the American health-care system. And it's the public, in this and other messes, that's left holding the bag. But as government gets bigger the bag gets bigger, and people will get tired of carrying it. They're already tired.

I close with the selfishness story of the week, the stunning New York Post expose on Public School 106 in Far Rockaway, a neighborhood in the borough of Queens. The grade school is a poster child for the indifference of those who are supposed to be helping the country. There are no gym or art classes, the Post's Susan Edelman reported. The library is a junk room; the nurse's office lacks essentials; there are no math or reading books for the Common Core curriculum. Kids are left to watch movies. Kindergartners are shunted off to dilapidated trailers. The principal, Marcella Sills, often doesn't show up for work, or swans in near the end of the day. School staff were afraid to speak up because they feared retribution from Ms. Sills or the teachers union.

When the Post broke the story, the city's Department of Education sent an inspector. The principal actually showed up early that day. The school took delivery of some books. Everyone was in high spin mode.

The union will look to the union's interests, Ms. Sills will no doubt see to hers, the new city administration will try to limit embarrassment, handle the fallout and change the subject. But you couldn't read the stories without thinking: Who's looking out for the kids? And what's happening to us?

Someday history will write of our era, and to history the biggest scandal will be the thing we all accepted in our leaders, chronic and endemic selfishness. History will be hard on us for that.

*Z:  Can any of you disagree with this?   What are your thoughts?

z

Olympic Highlights?? Newsworthy?

Here are examples of what the MEDIA thinks is important to report on regarding the Olympics:

150,000 condoms were passed to athletes by the Olympics committee.

Michael Phelps is a cold creep because he wouldn't talk to a female Olympian

The Queen had the temerity to look down and pick at her fingernails during the long opening ceremonies

Michelle Obama appearance outshined The Duchess of Cambridge (REALLY? :-) Are you kidding?

There's more...all negative, all gossipy, all sickening.

Thanks, Media........"Happy Olympics, happy dignity, happy athletics, happy times to you, too."  REAL CLASS, huh?

Whatever happened to DECENCY?

Z

Put HIM in charge!

"PUT ME IN CHARGE "  (NOT written by Z). 
. .
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of food stamp cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair.
Your " home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin your "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND while you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Lets put an end to this bullshit once and for all!  Damn it.
Signed,  The New King.

Z:  I don't know who wrote this, but aren't there parts you totally agree with?  Which ones?
z

Leftwing bad-wishers...why?

This video's nasty and quick;  I hope you watch it.  It's yet another leftwing nut saying he hopes the Lieutenant Governor who kept her job in the Recall nonsense in Wisconsin gets colon cancer and dies before he can do what he'd like to her, which is get her "the F out of the state".

I think every group has a nut here and there, but I guess that's the difference between a conservative like me and a leftwinger;   when a supposed Tea Party attendee held up ONE SIGN that was questionable in its content, we got comments here and in the media about how that person "represents them all."   Then when the OWS people started defecating and having sex in public, etc., the leftwing said "that's not the real group, that's just a couple of nuts" 
See, I think a couple of nuts can give a bad rap to a whole group;  but I see them as nuts, not the whole group.  For example, I know not all Democrats in Wisconsin want Kleefisch dead!  
I wonder if I'd be accorded the same decency and generosity  if the tables were turned and a Republican had said what the guy says in this video.  I think not.  The leftwingers are even Twittering DEATH THREATS to Walker now!  Do they think that's the American way?   I still mourn the fact that so many leftwingers rejoiced at Tony Snow's painful and untimely death and the Conservatives I know had blogs saying they disagreed with Ted Kennedy but wished his family the best.


There's a kind of mindset I think we need to fix in half of America........it's unkind, unhealthy, and a terrible example for our children.  But how?

Z

Trayvon and Tyrone......you draw your conclusions

So, we have another Black/White vicious murder, but this time the rape of an elderly White woman is involved.  HERE is the information.  A young Black man rapes and kills woman and badly beats her husband.  But does the media care? 

I'll just leave you here with the last two paragraphs from Doug Giles' article linked above:

I wonder if President Obama is going to lecture the nation on this despicable act and tell us something similar to what he said regarding Trayvon’s shooting, namely:
“It is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together—federal, state and local—to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. I think all of us have to do some soul searching to ask ourselves how does something like this happen? And that means that we examine the laws, the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.”
Will Spike Lee and the New Black Panther Party tweet Tyrone’s address and put out a bounty on the remaining pieces of crap who have yet to be arrested for killing Nancy and brutally beating Bob? Spike and his ilk are all about “justice,” correct? Or is it more about “just us”?

Z reader;  What do you think of this?

By the way.  HERE is the page that opens when I Googled the name TYRONE WOODFORK (the guy who did this crime).   Anything from the NY Times on this?  No, of course not.  But it's covered by plenty of Conservative Black and White blogs who think this is horrible and both the crime and the media and Obama hypocrisy should be addressed.
In comparison,  I Googled the name TRAYVON MARTIN and got THIS result.   Sure...NY Times, ABC.News, USATODAY, Washington Post...ALL the big ones, you know the drill.  OUTRAGE that a "White" Hispanic (remember how the NYTimes played it till they had to retract that description?) might have killed an innocent Black kid, but zip on a nice old couple like this:

-The Straits just celebrated their 65^th wedding anniversary.

-Bob served in the 101st Airborne Division in WWII.

-Bob loved woodworking, and Nancy loved quilting.

-The couple used to sit on their porch and play the guitar and sing together during the warm summer evenings.

Happy anniversary, Bob...we're so sorry you lost your beloved wife in such a brutal manner and we hope you live through your injuries.  Your family matters to most good Americans, too.  God bless you and your family, who is probably grieving at least as much as the Martins are.   Just sayin'. 

z

Democrat smears

Report: Former Obama Campaign Staffer Arrested for Identity Theft in Alleged Scam to Frame Iowa’s Republican Secretary Of State

By Andrew C. McCarthy

 

From the Iowa Republican:Barack Obama’s 2008 Iowa New Media Director was arrested Friday for attempting to use the identities of Secretary of State Matt Schultz [a Republican], and/or his brother Thomas, with the intent to falsely implicate the Secretary Schultz in illegal or unethical behavior. Zach Edwards, 29, of Des Moines, currently works for Link Strategies, a Democrat-affiliated organization with ties to Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. Edwards is the Director of New Media for Link Strategies.

The Secretary of State’s office discovered the alleged crime and reported it to authorities. Edwards turned himself in to the Iowa DCI agents Friday afternoon. He was charged with identity theft, a misdemeanor, and booked into the Polk County jail. Edwards posted $2,000 bail and was released later on Friday. He faces up to two years in prison.

The report goes on to explain that the Democratic party in Iowa has targeted Secretary Schultz since his election in November, attempting to portray him as unethical. The Iowa Department of Public Safety press release (with a link to the criminal complaint against the defendant Zach Edwards) is here.

 

Z:  The only thing that surprises me is the tie to Tom Harkin...I think he's a stand up guy though I don't agree with him on much.   I guess it's "let the fun begin...no, continue".......isn't it amazing that the Democrats are being nailed? Stealing identity is pretty low behavior in any situation, but stealing identity to make things up about unethical behavior stinks BIG TIME.  Let's see how far this story goes........if the networks'll cover it, CNN, etc.   Keep your eyes peeled.

 

(thanks for the tip, AOW)

x

Muslims we could use aren't being used

If you don't want to get too upset, don't read the article below........Mr Z and I went to see Zuhdi Jasser speak(I covered that lecture HERE) and thought a lot of him and I'd have thought this kind of Muslim is just the type we need for the position the White House is trying to fill........That he's been taken off the short list stuns me.  Read at your own risk: October 16, 2011 by  R. James Woolsey and Seth Leibsohn Zuhdi Jasser’s Counter-Jihad The administration refuses to utilize a strong opponent of radical Islam. Shortly after 9/11, many thought it was imperative to teach about and promote the heroes of that deadly day. One such hero whose life and example we can never learn enough about was Rick Rescorla. Originally from England, he came to America and distinguished himself as an Army infantry officer in Vietnam. Later he became head of security at Morgan Stanley, and, after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, he knew the terrorists would go after the Twin Towers again. He warned the authorities continually; moreover, he led regular evacuation drills between 1993 and 2001. On 9/11, he successfully led almost every Morgan Stanley employee out to safety. He himself did not make it. His last known words were, “As soon as I make sure everyone else is out.” He said those words to another Morgan Stanley employee who had yelled to him that he had to get out too. Rick Rescorla’s remains were never found. Rick’s life was not wasted; he saved a lot of people. But if the government had listened to him before 9/11, he would have saved even more. Rick was somebody who should have been posted at the top of our intelligence community, but he wasn’t. Today, we are still not listening to the most creative and prophetic thinkers among us. One of them is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum on Democracy. He is the intellectual Rick Rescorla of our day. Dr. Jasser, a practicing Muslim, is a physician and former lieutenant commander in the Navy — someone who, like Rick Rescorla, served his country with distinction, and continues to do so both in his medical practice and in his public warnings and teachings about the dangers from radical Islam. One of his efforts has been to confront members of Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), who continually denigrate America. Jasser’s view is that we should promote the virtues of American freedom and tolerance, which American Muslims enjoy, and should also publicize the way our efforts abroad have given freedom to Muslims in other countries. Indeed, while most so-called mainstream Muslim and Arab groups in America feed hysteria and spread conspiracy theories, Dr. Jasser despises the grievance narrative; he loves America. Now more than ever, he is the kind of man our government should listen to — and, more important, he is the kind of man our government should use. But, although Dr. Jasser has offered to serve his country again, this administration has ignored this unique opportunity. Last year, recognizing the need for a shift in our thus-far-ineffective public-diplomacy program, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and others nominated Dr. Jasser to serve on the State Department’s U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (Z: I believe this was started by Karen Hughes, remember?). The commission is charged with “Appraising U.S. Government activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics.” There could be nobody better suited to serve in this role. Here is some of what Dr. Jasser said when testifying — extemporaneously — before the House Committee on Homeland Security earlier this year: Until we have an ideological offense into the Muslim communities domestically and globally to teach liberty, to teach the separation of mosque and state, you are not going to solve this problem. . . . . . . Our organization has . . . created a Muslim liberty project that looks at inoculating Muslims with the ideals of liberty, giving them the empowerment to counter imams, to feel that they can represent their own faith. . . . This is our homeland. And we want to begin, if you will, a counter-jihad, an offense to counter these ideas. That, I think, is the best way to use our resources as a nation, and remember that the freedoms that we have don’t come with a cheap price, and we need to give back. This is, simply, Dr. Jasser’s life’s work. This is the kind of thought and talk we need more of, not less. This is the intellectual Rescorlaesque effort we should be promoting and the government should be availing itself of. Upon his nomination, Dr. Jasser submitted reams of information about himself to the State Department and the White House Office of Personnel Management. He spent hours upon hours in interviews. He passed every clearance with flying colors, including receiving confirmation of a top-secret clearance. This is a man, after all, who gave eleven years of service to the U.S. Navy, including some very sensitive assignments. And, now, after 15 months of vetting, he has learned that his nomination has been “removed from consideration,” with no explanation.What explanation could there be? Unlike some commission members, Dr. Jasser was not a donor to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. But something else must have been at work as well. That something might have ranged from a lack of understanding of the dangerousness of jihadism and Islamism to a lack of respect for the muscular advocacy of the ideas of freedom and liberty. And, probably, one other thing was at work too: a political decision based on Dr. Jasser’s open criticism of the administration for its lack of clarity in the war of ideas and its inability to identify the ideology we are fighting. It should be noted, however, that Dr. Jasser is an equal-opportunity critic: He has spoken out against both the Bush and the Obama administrations when he believes they have faltered. Clarity in the war of ideas, the ability to identify the ideology we are fighting, and expertise in the religion of Islam are precisely what we need. It’s ten years late, but not too late. It is a shame we will not soon be availing ourselves officially of Dr. Jasser’s work. It is work that we sorely need. Indeed, it is intellectual and rhetorical courage and heroism. We ignore and spurn it at our continued peril. — R. James Woolsey is the chairman of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and was the director of central intelligence from 1993 to 1995. Seth Leibsohn is a radio host and co-author of Fight of our Lives. Z: This man would have been on our side.........but he won't be. z

$105 billion appropriated for Health Care.....and who knew?

Maybe this is why Pelosi wanted the bill passed before people were aware what was in it?  REMEMBER? 


Thanks, Mustang........it should be an American media which exposes this but we must rely on Conservative friends and bloggers, don't we.
geeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ

Democrat Media COMPLEX? Fakery? (you bet)

HERE is an excellent article about the Democrat Media Complex........if you're as interested as I am in the lies and distortions and even faking the news by the Leftwing media, please read this really good piece by Joe Newby of the Spokane Conservative Examiner.

A note to my leftwing commenters:  Check the information out before dismissing this.   HERE is only one link proving that the points are correct.  I did the homework.  Enjoy. 
By the way...this post dovetails with the one below........take a look;  pretty amazing media fakery there, too.

(thanks, Imp)
z

OBAMA: absolutely NOTHING HAPPENED......

This is long but EXCELLENT;
What Happened to Obama? 
Absolutely Nothing.
He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president.

By NORMAN PODHORETZ   
WSJ August 13, 2011

It's open season on President Obama. Which is to say that the usual suspects on the right (among whom I include myself) are increasingly being joined in attacking him by erstwhile worshipers on the left. Even before the S&P downgrade, there were reports of Democrats lamenting that Hillary Clinton had lost to him in 2008. Some were comparing him not, as most of them originally had, to Lincoln and Roosevelt but to the hapless Jimmy Carter. There was even talk of finding a candidate to stage a primary run against him. But since the downgrade, more and more liberal pundits have been deserting what they clearly fear is a sinking ship.

Here, for example, from the Washington Post, is Richard Cohen: "He is the very personification of cognitive dissonance—the gap between what we (especially liberals) expected of the first serious African American presidential candidate and the man he in fact is." More amazingly yet Mr. Cohen goes on to say of Mr. Obama, who not long ago was almost universally hailed as the greatest orator since Pericles, that he lacks even "the rhetorical qualities of the old-time black politicians." And to compound the amazement, Mr. Cohen tells us that he cannot even "recall a soaring passage from a speech."

Overseas it is the same refrain. Everywhere in the world, we read in Germany's Der Spiegel, not only are the hopes ignited by Mr. Obama being dashed, but his "weakness is a problem for the entire global economy."
In short, the spell that Mr. Obama once cast—a spell so powerful that instead of ridiculing him when he boasted that he would cause "the oceans to stop rising and the planet to heal," all of liberaldom fell into a delirious swoon—has now been broken by its traumatic realization that he is neither the "god" Newsweek in all seriousness declared him to be nor even a messianic deliverer.

Hence the question on every lip is—as the title of a much quoted article in the New York Times by Drew Westen of Emory University puts it— "What Happened to Obama?" Attacking from the left, Mr. Westin charges that President Obama has been conciliatory when he should have been aggressively pounding away at all the evildoers on the right.
Of course, unlike Mr. Westen, we villainous conservatives do not see Mr. Obama as conciliatory or as "a president who either does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election." On the contrary, we see him as a president who knows all too well what he believes. Furthermore, what Mr. Westen regards as an opportunistic appeal to the center we interpret as a tactic calculated to obfuscate his unshakable strategic objective, which is to turn this country into a European-style social democracy while diminishing the leading role it has played in the world since the end of World War II. The Democrats have persistently denied that these are Mr. Obama's goals, but they have only been able to do so by ignoring or dismissing what Mr. Obama himself, in a rare moment of candor, promised at the tail end of his run for the presidency: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

This statement, coming on top of his association with radicals like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Rashid Khalidi, definitively revealed to all who were not wilfully blinding themselves that Mr. Obama was a genuine product of the political culture that had its birth among a marginal group of leftists in the early 1960s and that by the end of the decade had spread metastatically to the universities, the mainstream media, the mainline churches, and the entertainment industry. Like their communist ancestors of the 1930s, the leftist radicals of the '60s were convinced that the United States was so rotten that only a revolution could save it.
But whereas the communists had in their delusional vision of the Soviet Union a model of the kind of society that would replace the one they were bent on destroying, the new leftists only knew what they were against: America, or Amerika as they spelled it to suggest its kinship to Nazi Germany. Thanks, however, to the unmasking of the Soviet Union as a totalitarian nightmare, they did not know what they were for. Yet once they had pulled off the incredible feat of taking over the Democratic Party behind the presidential candidacy of George McGovern in 1972, they dropped the vain hope of a revolution, and in the social-democratic system most fully developed in Sweden they found an alternative to American capitalism that had a realistic possibility of being achieved through gradual political reform.
Despite Mr. McGovern's defeat by Richard Nixon in a landslide, the leftists remained a powerful force within the Democratic Party, but for the next three decades the electoral exigencies within which they had chosen to operate prevented them from getting their own man nominated. Thus, not one of the six Democratic presidential candidates who followed Mr. McGovern came out of the party's left wing, and when Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (the only two of the six who won) tried each in his own way to govern in its spirit, their policies were rejected by the American immune system. It was only with the advent of Barack Obama that the leftists at long last succeeded in nominating one of their own.

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

And so it came about that a faithful scion of the political culture of the '60s left is now sitting in the White House and doing everything in his power to effect the fundamental transformation of America to which that culture was dedicated and to which he has pledged his own personal allegiance.
I disagree with those of my fellow conservatives who maintain that Mr. Obama is indifferent to "the best interests of the United States" (Thomas Sowell) and is "purposely" out to harm America (Rush Limbaugh). In my opinion, he imagines that he is helping America to repent of its many sins and to become a different and better country. 

But I emphatically agree with Messrs. Limbaugh and Sowell about this president's attitude toward America as it exists and as the Founding Fathers intended it. That is why my own answer to the question, "What Happened to Obama?" is that nothing happened to him. He is still the same anti-American leftist he was before becoming our president, and it is this rather than inexperience or incompetence or weakness or stupidity that accounts for the richly deserved failure both at home and abroad of the policies stemming from that reprehensible cast of mind.

Do you agree? Z
Mr. Podhoretz was the editor of Commentary from 1960 to 1995. His most recent book is "Why Are Jews Liberals?" (Doubleday, 2009).

What's 'WORSE?'

The Miami Hurricanes have a scandal on their hands; many of you might have heard about it.  I just heard about it on CNN.  Something their news reader said jumped out at me and I had to post it and ask what you thought:

A big booster of theirs had apparently offered players on the Hurricanes things like cars, cash, rides on his yacht and pricey evenings out on the town.   They were also given "bounty money to injure players"!   As the CNN news reader said, "Nevin  Shapiro offered bounty money to injure players and, "what's WORSE....Prostitutes were offered to the players"

I thought to myself "prostitutes given as bribes to young guys" is "WORSE" than giving them money to injure other players, perhaps injuring their bodies permanently and, thereby, their whole futures?  

Which seems worse to YOU.........prostitutes or injuring others?   I'd like to know..........thanks!

z

Warren Buffett...."We rich don't pay enough taxes...Darn it!"

The Real Reason Warren Buffett's Taxes are Low

By Peter J Reilly

Warren Buffett was in the New York Times  today bragging about his low effective tax rate and saying how he would like to be paying more.   Fellow Forbes contributor Tim Worstall weighed in quibbling about Mr. Buffet not factoring in the corporate taxes on Berkshire Hathaway's earnings.  I'm just a simple CPA, whose firm won't even let him sign audit reports anymore. (That's true of all tax partners here by the way.  I don't take it personally).  I don't want to quibble with a quibble but apparently economists have a hard time figuring out the incidence of the corporate income tax (i.e. who is really paying it), so I think we can let go of that piece of the analysis.

Still Mr. Buffet is not sharing the real reason that he doesn't pay much in the way of income tax relative to his great fortune.  The secret is hidden in plain sight.  Mr. Worstall alludes to it when he mentions that Berkshire Hathaway does not in fact pay dividends.  Mr. Buffet's secret which you can find blasted all over the Internet is one of his famous quotations:

Our favorite holding period is forever

You only pay income taxes at any rate on realized appreciation.  An investment with a holding period of forever incurs a capital gains tax of 0%, while all along the holder can be getting wealthy from appreciation.  That's the real reason Mr. Buffet does not pay a lot of income taxes. (end of article)
  
 Z: This fascinated me because I heard what Mr. Buffet said on Monday about how he only pays 17% in taxes and the rich need to pay more, when most of us know the 'rich' pay the huge bulk of American taxes.
By the way, if Mr. Buffett wants to pay more, what's keeping him from it?

Z

Democrats......just because they accuse, does it make sense?

You and I keep hearing from the Leftwing politicians, media, and the president and his people, that .....


1.  "The Republican candidates are caving to the TEA PARTY"  (as if they're succumbing to cholera)

       Has any of them considered that the candidates aren't 'caving in' but might just share the opinions of the Tea Party and other Americans who don't believe raising the debt ceiling and raising taxes are the best solution for the economic problems we're facing?

2.  "The Republicans caused the Standards and Poor rating loss because they held up the talks."

       Really?  So, the Republicans should have given in on things they really didn't believe in just to hurry along what they felt were really bad compromises for this country? 

Do you see the spin?....as if what they say is the truth because they said it, spun it?  They know the public hears them as the media has repeated the claims ad nauseum;    just sayin'...........

An interesting fact is that, in Australia, Peter Costello (of the Liberal Party, not to be mistaken with the actually liberal LABOR PARTY), under Conservative (Liberal Party) PM John Howard, did the really hard work and turned their country around after having been downgraded by S&P.  It took 17 years of swimming upstream to get their rating back, going against the leftwing media (according to him) and some Australians asking "what's the big deal about the ratings?" !
They have finally achieved a surplus, and now are doing very well. Wouldn't it be good to hear a conversation on television, with both sides of our political aisle, about how Australia handled their situation?   Costello is considering running for Prime Minister in a few years.   Maybe we can get him here? :-)

geeeeZ

Drunken sailors......US?

Does THIS INFORMATION we're being good world citizens or "Drunken Sailors?" When Sailors are dead broke and their families are suffering, do they give money to their neighbor?  I'm not sure where I fall on this, but I think I know.   How about you? It's probably a very NICE thing of America to do;  is it WISE?
z

Teach Your Children....PART II

I just got an email including the information below.  I think it works very well with my Teach Your Children post below.....I think this is another thing that's really important to teach our children, don't you?

1. Name  the five wealthiest people in the  world.
2. Name  the last five Heisman trophy winners.
3. Name  the last five winners of the Miss America pageant.
4. Name  ten people who have won the Nobel or Pulitzer Prize.
5. Name  the last half dozen Academy Award winners for best actor and actress.
6. Name  the last decade's worth of World Series winners.

How did you do?  
 
The point is, none of us remember the headliners of yesterday.
These are no second-rate achievers.
They are the best in their fields.
But the applause dies.
Awards tarnish.
Achievements are forgotten.
Accolades and certificates are buried with their owners. 


Here's another quiz. See how you do on this one:   

1. List a few teachers who aided your journey through school.
2. Name three friends who have helped you through a difficult time.
3. Name five people who have taught you something worthwhile.
4. Think of a few people who have made you feel appreciated and special!!
5. Think of five people you enjoy spending time with.

Easier?   

The lesson:
The people who make a difference in your life are not the ones with the most credentials...

the most money...or the most awards.  They simply are the ones who care the most.  

The lesson being Teach Your Children to pick the right friends and to be a good friend, to honor good character and people with values you admire, and be helpful to others, etc...........another good lesson, don't you agree?

z

Teach Your Children Well

Teach them what we learned and what kept this country going for so many years:
Teach them that;
-America is a great country and they are so lucky to live here
-They should be self reliant and the government is the last place to go for help
-Immigrants who come here eagerly and legally are what makes this country great
-This is a Judeo Christian nation founded on all that that comes with it and that needs to be protected
-Always read and watch all sides of every story in the media and make your own decision
-Teach them to recognize indoctrination from the right or the left and to speak up when they see it
-The color of one's skin doesn't matter.  Ever.
-Marriage is a beautiful union of a man and a woman
-Killing innocent babies, starting from conception, isn't acceptable.
-Those with physical or emotional handicaps need more love than they do.
-The 10 Commandments are not the 10 Suggestions
-God will get you through anything
-
There are many more things I think our children need to learn. What else do you think it's important to teach our children?

Thanks, 
Z

Naval Female Offices on Submarines.......STUPID

Well, my goodness!  The media and the rest of the Leftwingers (and even some Conservatives, I suppose) were all for women on submarines....so it was done.   We haven't heard much about whether it was a roaring success or not, but then there's THIS article which includes this information about women officers now taking over:

The women naval officers  are already saying "I have a feeling more people will be focused on us. Our mistakes and successes will be magnified more than they deserve,"  But, then the article says the women felt treated totally equally in the Naval Academy.....so, which is it? Let the WHINING, and the "them versus us" (that so many of us knew would happen), BEGIN.

I thought the navy believed wives would be fine with women on board because they sure didn't seem to care when they allowed women aboard, but then we have this:

"The issue really has to do with the creation of a relationship that becomes very close and then results in further relations ashore. That is, of course, what bothers the wives. They know the kind of relationships that happen between the shipmates," said retired Navy Rear Adm. W.J. Holland Jr., a former submarine commander.

Gee,  were you listened to when this decision was being made, Rear Adm Holland, Sir?...Ya THINK a wife might not appreciate having other women on "..... submarines with corridors barely wide enough for sailors to brush past one another"  Yes, that's just the ticket for a new bride knowing her husband's on, or under, the high seas for months at a time without her!   

As anybody who's not badly mentally ill can imagine, it takes quite a bit of discipline and sacrifice to serve underwater in cramped quarters for long periods of time, hundreds of feet of water between you and fresh air...but, that's apparently okay for the navy which made this ridiculous decision to have women serve, though "One of the issues around women being integrated is this thought that, 'Oh, now because you're here, we can't do XYZ,'" Kennedy said. "And that creates a greater sense of isolation and exclusion for women."

Wait!  What about the "greater sense of " general well being among the MEN who have to serve and do their best to keep from flipping out in the difficult life of living on a submarine?  THEY now have to curtail things they might have done, like running to the john naked, or whatever one can imagine.....  but, now they will have to not do things that eased the feeling of claustrophobia because the women are worried about their own sense of isolation?  REALLY?

Sounds like a great idea, huh?  Of course not.  I rest my case.  I always thought this idea was insane and it looks like we who thought that were absolutely right;  it IS utterly stupid, ridiculous, insane and just another horrid push to dehumanize human beings by shoving men and women into ridiculous situations better handled by Great Danes than sexual human beings.

How many divorces? How much time off for mental stress?  How much sex on board?  How many pregnancies?   It's started.............dayum.
z
And Please check out my latest post on my FOOD BLOG!
Thanks!

Obama........is this a JOKE?

And do you hear CHEERING for what he said?  Want to know why and who's cheering?  HERE is the article you don't want to miss......UN-freakin'-BELIEVEABLE.

Thanks, Impertinent..xx

z

Gay Marriage.....to polygamy?

My friend and blog partner, Elmer's Brother, sent me the article below, from The Economist, and attached this comment ........"And so it begins. Gay marriages are becoming legal and now the arguments for other non traditional families. And the advocates of gay marriage said this would never happen." (and others said it might)

Please read the article and tell us if you agree........thanks.

Marriage and liberty

Why pick on polygamists?

Jul 22nd 2011, 20:41 by W.W. | IOWA CITY

 

JONATHAN TURLEY, a law professor at George Washington University, is representing the family featured on the reality show "Sister Wives" in their legal challenge to Utah's law against polygamy. It's a big, unusual family. Kody Brown is "married" to four women and father to 16 children. "One of the marriages is legal", Mr Turley writes, "and the others are what the family calls 'spiritual.' They are not asking for the state to recognise their marriages. They are simply asking for the state to leave them alone." Mr Turley goes on to make what I find to be a persuasive case.
The Browns have been subject to a criminal investigation for more than a year, but are not accused of child abuse or any crime other than having a particular kind of unusual family. Mr Turley notes that other families with similarly unusual structures are not picked out for persecution by the law. "It is widely accepted that a person can have multiple partners and have children with such partners", Mr Turley observes. "But the minute that person expresses a spiritual commitment and 'cohabits' with those partners, it is considered a crime." This certainly seems arbitrary. Indeed, the law positively encourages de facto polygamous families to organise into multiple households lacking the cohesion and economies of our culture's idealised single-household family.
Imagine the family of a twice-divorced, thrice-married woman with one child from each union. Let's say she's a stay-at-home mom who has custody of all the kids, and gets child-support payments from her first two husbands. So, children with three different fathers live together in a single household, supported by a portion of three different mens' income. How is this not de facto polyandry? How significant is it, really, that her first two husbands don't happen to live with their kids and her third husband? Suppose they move in. What then? Is it okay as long as they pay rent? As long as they no longer love the mother of their children, or vice versa? I say it's okay as long as everyone involved says it's okay.
Mr Turley wonders why civil libertarians haven't been more vocal in support of the right of polygamists to be left alone:

The reason might be strategic: some view the effort to decriminalize polygamy as a threat to the recognition of same-sex marriages or gay rights generally. After all, many who opposed the decriminalization of homosexual relations used polygamy as the culmination of a parade of horribles. In his dissent in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

But isn't polygamy, as it actually exists, a backward practice hostile to the interests of women? What about fundamentalist Mormon compounds in which children are raised in isolation, indoctrinated/brainwashed, teenage girls are married off to their uncles and impregnated, while surplus boys are ejected without the tools to cope with the outside world. Mr Turley replies:

Of course, the government should prosecute abuse wherever it is found. But there is nothing uniquely abusive about consenting polygamous relationships. It is no more fair to prosecute the Browns because of abuse in other polygamous families than it would be to hold a conventional family liable for the hundreds of thousands of domestic violence cases each year in monogamous families.

I think this is the right way to think about it. I would add that conventional monogamous marriage was in fact an abusive, exploitative, patriarchal arrangement until very recently. In 1993, North Carolina was the last state to recognise spousal rape as a crime. (end of article)

(the author of this piece is not named by The Economist.  I can't blame them)

Our Australian blogger friend MK once wrote this comment at another blog and I thought there was a lot to it and so I print it here::
On the subject of gay marriage, from my personal view, the argument against it is the slippery slope one. If you allow two women to marry because they love each other, well you have to then allow 3 women to marry or four men, a brother and sister for example.

Marriage to me is a key component to the success of western civilization, we should not fiddle with it for the sake of satisfying a small minority of people. I know gay marriage alone has not led to the downwards slide of the west, but the overall undermining of marriage, morality and commitment most certainly has made its contribution.
z

"I don't want to be crass......" REALLY?

Please see a part of the transcript for Bill Maher's REAL TIME from this last Friday night:

DAN SAVAGE, SEX ADVICE COLUMNIST: They're grifters and scumbags, the Bachmanns.

[Applause]

BILL MAHER, HOST: Grifters and scumbags.

SAVAGE: Yes

MAHER: Not just one or the other.

SAVAGE: They're not charming grifters like in the movie.

MAHER: No, no.

MARC MARON, COMEDIAN: I don't want to be crass but I just hope that Marcus Bachmann takes all that, you know, rage that comes from repression and denial and brings it into the bedroom with her. I hope he f--ks her angrily because, because that's how I would. And I've thought about it. I just…

[Laughter and applause]

MARON: …It's a political statement I'm trying to make.

SAVAGE: Just so we get, just so you don’t get charges of sexism, because only Michele Bachmann was involved, I sometimes think about f--king the s--t out of Rick Santorum.

[Laughter and applause]

SAVAGE: Because I think…

MARON: I’m with you.

SAVAGE: …he needs it. So, it’s not, it's not just women we’re talking about f--king. Like, let's bone that Santorum boy.

MARON: Alright. Let’s video it.

It gets much, much filthier and more rank HERE but I chose not to publish it at geeeeZ.

This is Bill Maher..........this is the Leftwing and what they get away with.    This is how Leftwingers treat presidential candidates in the United States of America.

And the Republicans take the high road and never speak like this, at least not that I have ever heard or read....and lose.  Of course, they'd never get away with it, cable or not, the media'd crucify them.........

z