Saturday, July 2, 2011

Are you an environmentalist or a conservationist?

I remember taking a forestry class my freshman year of college.  The curriculum, presented by a veteran instructor from the California Department of Forestry, covered several related topics that included ecology, biology, life cycles, wild-land fire control, conservation, and commerce based on those natural resources.  I never heard the associate professor use the word "environment" or "environmentalist" during the course.  Granted, it was years ago, and course outlines do change over time as new information on any given subject becomes available.  But, the disconnect suggests the environmentalist movement is a recent concoction that has little basis in traditional resource management and everything to do do with political manipulation and empowerment.

From my experience, most environmentalists seem to be liberal socialists.  Their champions are people like Al Gore, and Van Jones. Both communists. So, what attracts communists to environmentalism?  I think they have a tremendous conflict with the concept of private property.  Long standing traditions in The United States of America allow for private citizens to own property.  Private property is a cornerstone of the American experience.  Environmentalism is the only way to attack private property ownership that allows sufficient cover.  Since most American communist politicians hate to be outed, environmentalism is the only game in town.  They have realized you don't have to own the property to control it.  You only need passage of some environmental "protection" laws whitewashed with some noble verbiage, and there you have it.  You have exclusive control - or benefit - without the obligations of purchase.

The liberal socialists have pieced together a coalition of dupes and useful idiots to this end. In addition to the hardcore communist leadership element of the environmentalist movement, their coalition includes those who worship the creation rather than the Creator, sycophants in it for the power and/or money, and some decent people who truly believe they are doing right by the world in which they live.  Hey, who wouldn't want clean air and water?

The point to this rant is this: there is a stark difference between environmentalism and conservationism.  I can comfortably state I appreciate clean air and water.  I enjoy a beautiful mountain or coastal vista as much as the next guy.  I believe God gave the earth, and rights to its bounty, to His ultimate creation : humanity.   I'm not willing to place a fundamental right like property ownership, also an inalienable right, on the alter of some socialist, neo-religion like environmentalism.  So, my question to you dear reader is this: are you a conservationist, or an environmentalist?

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

My first dose of Obamacare?

I'm very happy to see the spring weather finally arrive. It seems Old Man Winter just wouldn't go to bed this year. With changes in the weather, comes my spring chest cold. There isn't anything I can do about it except head to the doctor and ask him to treat the symptoms until it clears. That's the routine. However, I discovered the routine isn't so routine anymore. After entering the exam room, I saw a new computer had been set up in the exam room. Nice LCD monitor, sleek key board on a telescoping arm. I asked the nurse about it as she checked my vital signs. She said it was installed in January, and was part of their office upgrades to allow integration into the new national heath care system - something to do with reporting data, and "stuff like that", to insurance providers. She said some things about the system were irksome, but she thought it was "a good thing". My only thought, at the time was, "Huh." You'd think something more profound would have occurred to me, but hey, I was sick after all.
Ultimately, the doctor showed up, gave me a going over, and decided I needed some meds. Instead of writing it all out on a paper scrip, he did it all on the computer. Pretty nifty. He fired off the prescription to the local drug store, via email I suppose, and told me it would be ready in about fifteen minutes. I thought that was kind of cool.
This is where it gets interesting. I drove to the drug store, allowing for the fifteen minutes suggested by my doctor. I walked up to the pick-up window, and found a woman in a fairly heated discussion with the pharmacist. I tried to be polite, tuned out the conversation best as I could, and occupied myself with a really nice, near-by massage chair. After saying something about making a call to her doctor, the woman turned from the window and stalked off. Seizing the opportunity, I jumped up and asked the pharmacist if he had filled the prescription emailed by my doctor. He said "not yet" and asked me to take a seat. So, I went back to the chair. The woman returned a few minutes later, and took the seat next to mine.
After waiting a good twenty minutes, and a series of ignorant expressions offered by the pharmacy crew (blank looks when I made eye contact with them to remind them I was still waiting), I finally broke and went to the window for a status report. The pharmacist said, "Oh. Your prescription was denied." That surprised me. I've never had that happen before. I asked, "It was only for an antibiotic. What's so difficult about that?" He said,"Your insurance company disagreed with your doctor, and denied the prescription." Again, my thought was "Huh." But this "Huh" was immediately followed by a "That was pretty cheeky of them." In the desire to learn more about this situation I asked, "So, insurance companies can now over-ride my doctor's recommendations, without knowing or examining me?" The response was, "Yes." The pharmacist told me he was in the process of contacting my doctor to have him submit a prescription for a different drug, with different dosages, as suggested by my insurance company. He again asked me to, "Take a seat."
I returned to the massage chair. The woman, from the earlier conversation at the pick-up window, still occupied the adjacent seat. She said, "They did the same thing to me." She went on to say her insurance company was denying her mother's prescriptions. Apparently, the woman's poor mother was dying of stomach cancer, and in the final stages. According to her, their insurance company simply "Didn't want to pay for medication for a woman who was dying anyway." After concluding the brief conversation with the woman, the remaining contents of which I'll keep private, I finally received my updated prescription and left the store. I hoped the circumstances surrounding the woman's mother weren't as dire as she explained them. Since she was still waiting at the pharmacy as I left, the pharmacist was likely working on some sort of resolution for her prescription problem.

I'm just a bloke who writes a blog. I don't know at what stage the implementation of Obamacare is currently. The dems could have gotten some of it in place before they were slapped down last November. I don't know if the federal government now dictates policy to private insurance providers in this country as part of that process. Supposedly, Obamacare is stalled by court rulings, restive republicans in congress, and some Democrat Party concern for public opinion. That may well be the case. From this experience, I can see what awaits if Obamacare becomes fully operational.  It was my wake-up call, my peek at the man behind the curtain. The above incident was just a taste of things to come. Perhaps, much worse awaits than dealing with profit oriented insurance providers.

Friday, April 8, 2011

A funny thing happened on the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court

A far as messed-up elections go, this Kloppenburg-Prosser affair in Wisconsin has been enormously amusing for me.  It’s one of those rare occasions when a “clerical error” has gone in favor of a republican candidate.  By rare, I mean as rare as hobby-horse dung.  By messed-up, I mean it’s one of those typical close elections that attracts liberal socialist thuggery like President Obama attracts re-election endorsements from third-world dictators.

In past elections, with vote totals separated by razor-thin margins, we could count on our socialist friends pulling up in their mobile home with out-of-state tags.  They would disgorge the typical bevy of sympathetic lawyers, slack-jawed union muscle, and traitorous news media.  We’ve seen their operation in Washington when Gregoire stole the governor’s seat, and in Minnesota with Franken, just to name a few.  When stakes could not be higher, the circus comes to Wisconsin.  The funny part is, I think they may have been out-maneuvered.

There are some things in life you can count on.  Water is wet, the sun rises in the east, and commies will always act like commies.  I don’t know if Kathy Nickolaus, the Waukesha County Clerk, counted on the commie recount van showing up and threw them a curve ball by intentionally withholding those 14,000 votes, or the votes were simply lost in a clerical error.  If it was a clerical error, I call it fortuitous.  If it was by design, I call it brilliant (as long as the votes were genuine and not fraudulent – if she’s a fraud, she needs to go to jail).

I’m sure the liberal socialist angst is palpable, specifically after running all the same old dirty tricks in their How to Steal Elections play book.  The reporting error provided the socialists with an erroneous target number, the nut they needed to crack to steal this thing.  By the time they were done, their candidate was up by 200 votes.  Never mind there were indications of over votes in some democratic precincts.  Sound familiar?  Then, out of the blue, “Oops, I seem to have found 14,000 votes that were previously unreported.”  That’s a deficit that will likely not be overcome by our liberal socialist election thieves without a much higher risk of exposure.  They have to be mad as hell.

I’m sure their post-election tantrum will result in investigations, maybe some law suits, because that’s how they roll. They will cite all kinds violated laws and principles in feigned indignation. They will showcase their hypocrisy by calling for the system they loathe to take action against their political foes.  I must confess, it’s kind of fun to watch.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Outlawed Songs on Outlawed Pipes

Following the tragedy at Tucson, our liberal socialists have again showcased their ability to "never let a good crisis go to waste".  Attempting to exploit the grief and sorrow of ordinary Americans, over a horrific event, our liberal socialists shamefully further their own political ambitions by blaming the event on any political dialogue that is opposed to their socialist agenda.  You have to admire their persistence and determination as they remain willing to say or do anything to make political headway by publicly demanding we adopt "a more civil political dialogue".  It is a bold attempt to define the American political dialogue and assign meaning to words as if we're living in George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four", where alternative thinking becomes a thought crime. One character, Syme, says admiringly of the simplicity of the Newspeak vocabulary, "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

Therefore, in the spirit of reconciliation, I apologize in advance to any politically sensitive reader looking for a "feel good" kind of experience by reading this posting.  I'm just not in the mood.  This body of writing contains certain words or ideas some may find offensive. For example, a reader may find words to the effect of...I've had enough of weak-kneed Republicans lasting all of, what? One month?  Following their crushing defeat of the liberal socialist agenda in this country, I'm hearing rumors Mr. Boehner is just not feeling it, and is allowing this gambit to force him into calling Obamacare "job destroying" rather than "job killing"?  OMG!  If this is true, what are you thinking, Sir! If you go down this path, where will it end? Outlawing Bugs Bunny cartoons because Elmer Fudd says, "Shhh! Be vewy, vewy quiet. I'm hunting wabbits." I'll say this, if Boehner and the Republicans continue to bend at any soft breeze, or continue failing to support conservative candidates like we saw last year, the Tea Party must kick the Republican Party to the curb, let it die a natural death, and start afresh. I'm sorry to say, I'm starting to believe that's where the Tea Party is being pushed.

Know this Mr. Boehner and all Republicans, the liberal socialist politician is not your friend and has no desire to compromise with you.  So, grow some! Their agenda will never die as long as there is one socialist politician in a policy making position in this country. Yes, we are at war with communism in its attempt to destroy our traditional form of government. Unless their ideas and agenda are exposed, and totally discredited in the American political arena, there is a real and present danger to the principles of freedom and liberty this country was founded upon.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

At what point does merit supersede affirmative action?

In my childhood, I always dreamed of being a professional athlete. I played football and baseball in high school. Though I was recruited to play football at a local college, my true love was basketball, a sport I did not play well in high school. I apparently lacked the requisite skills to play that particular sport and was not invited to play on the school basketball team.

It really was no fault of my own. In fact, some of the factors that made me good at football and baseball were a hindrance in basketball. I was cursed with short legs and a low center of gravity. I simply didn't have the necessary genetic make-up to excel at that sport. As I attended my high school basketball games as a spectator, I watched our basketball stars soar through the air as they slammed the ball home in dramatic form, and thought how unfair life was. Hold that thought.

This past week I attended my daughter's high school Christmas celebration, grateful my children could attend a high school that still allowed the season to be called Christmas. She was a member of the school's choir. As the program advanced, I was struck by the amount of apparent preparation and planning that went into the presentation by both student and faculty. I also noted the presence of three students who were obvious special-needs kids. They were on stage participating with the performing artists, and clearly performing well below the mean. Two looked to be having a load of fun wandering around the stage, singing on occasion and clapping their hands with the music, while the third didn't seem to be aware of much of anything. I'm sure their families were having a great time watching them on stage and thought their participation on the program a wonderful thing and good for their kids. For them, as well as some in the audience, no doubt it was all good. Not so much for me.

You may think me an uncaring bigot. I assure you, I'm not. While I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for the families of these kids, believing the over-all performance of the group was hindered by their presence causes me no small degree of guilt. They were distracting to the other kids, had no appreciable music skills to contribute to the performance, and their presence seemed some sort of nod to the surreal that - IMHO - detracted from the general performance. In short, it was like watching me in a Laker uniform.

I clearly understand the differences between a professional basketball team and a high school choir. But the experience brings a question to my mind. I see the above as metaphor that extends beyond the high school stage. At what point between the high school choir and the Los Angeles Lakers does merit and performance supersede affirmative action? Where is that line? Where can I see it? It seems to be an illusive point moving through politically correct space based solely on the perceptions of intellectual elitists that happen to find themselves in policy-making positions. Unfortunately, those policy makers are quite often our liberal socialists bent on hammering the majority of us into their socialist template where the majority loses their right to excellence to the minority definition of fairness. How unfair life truly is.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Perception is the mask that hides the monster

"What you see is what you get."  How many of you believe in that old adage? Ever since Aaron Burr - America's first professional politician - put a lead ball into Alexander Hamilton, Americans have had to be more aware of what truly goes on behind the scenes in Washington, D.C.  In our time, we need be similarly concerned with the dark machinations within the minds of our contemporary professional politicians. I believe that if the average American was privy to the behind closed doors conversations and intrigues that occur daily "in our best interest", they would be appalled.  Maybe some folks would hang.

Let's consider the liberal socialists currently walking the hallowed halls of Congress today.  What is their goal?  How will they accomplish their agenda?  They certainly cannot openly discuss the beauty of a Marxist State in a conservative leaning, capitalist country like the United States of America without damning themselves to electoral oblivion for quite sometime. How can they argue for the European socialist model they so dearly love when many European socialists are watching their countries burn down around them due to their very own failed liberal socialist policies of multiculturalism, social justice, and mandated wealth redistribution? There are fundamental reasons communism has failed in every country where it's been implemented. The answer is that our domestic communists must adopt a strategy of camouflage and obfuscation if they are to survive and further their socialist agenda.  Satan often comes dressed in white.

The most effective lies are those that mingle some truth with the corruption. For example, there are some unfortunates within this country that legitimately need and would benefit from a government mandated health care system. However, those numbers would be shockingly small and easily managed through other means if an honest appraisal was made. These extreme cases, often cited by Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid, were the whitewash for the diabolical intent of the nationalization of the American Health Care industry

Since the goal of the liberal socialist is the incremental, yet complete control of all national wealth, they must magnify these needs and fears in order to foist their various programs on the people of this country. They will use the above model over and over again.  They effectively seized the U.S. banking industry last year by following that model. Next, a series of disasters like the gulf oil spill, will provide the cover for the nationalization of the petroleum industry. Much touted environmental concerns will circumvent private property ownership through environmental law. They are even floating trial balloons regarding the seizure of our private retirement accounts.  After all, retirement accounts are just too important to leave exposed to the ravages of an open market and private account managers.

A socialist paradigm does not work.  It is a giant ponzi scheme that is in constant need of fresh capital to maintain the appearance of vitality while sucking the life from its host.  Nancy and Harry need your wealth. Unfortunately, we are running short of the stuff. Recent turn of political events have given me some hope.  The real hope. Not the faux hope Mr. Obama cleverly used as a campaign slogan in yet another stroke of the whitewash brush. I am anxious to see what the new congress will do starting in January.  I've heard some rumor of a Repeal Amendment.  The purpose of which is to give the states an opportunity to repeal federal legislation with a two-thirds vote.  That will place power back with the states, where it belongs,and limit future federal encroachment on our freedoms.

Friday, November 12, 2010

The Five Pillars of Liberalism

During my consideration of contemporary politics, I have noticed five reoccurring themes regarding liberal socialist thought. The Five Pillars of Liberalism detailed below, seem to capture the prevailing position taken by most every liberal socialist to which I have had the pleasure of conversing.  I have put their collective thought into words, and organized them for your pleasure.

1)      Scorn - America is bad

In order for a world socialist workers utopia to have any chance at realization, the United States of America, as we know it, must cease to exist.  The reason all prior communist revolutions have failed is because the United States of America, a minority of the world population, consumes the clear majority of the world’s resources.  This consumption deprives non-Americans of their rightful portion of the world’s bounty, and keeps a majority of the world’s population in poverty.

2)      Diversity - Divide and conquer

American exceptionalism, and the American identity must be attacked and broken down in order to expedite the conversion of The United States of America to a Marxist paradigm.  Corruption of borders, mingling of language, and dilution of prevailing culture must be accomplished to these ends.

3)      Hauteur - Few are fit to lead

Expect the worst in people. People are stupid.  They are incapable of any degree of independent, or intellectual thought.  They must be told what to think.  Words must be defined so people will understand them within the socialist model.  Any political discussion must be limited to socialist themes.  Any deviance from a socialist theme, or consideration of unorthodox thought, is undesirable.  However, debate within any socialist theme should be as brisk as possible to further the movement (Chomsky).  Few have the requisite intelligence to define words as they pertain to the revolution.  Those who do will lead the masses, and their authority will be absolute.  Political strategy should be based on the assumption people are stupid and will respond to greed, lethargy, and racism.

      4)  Hubris - Government is salvation

There is no God, but god.  There can be no authority above that of the government.  All vestiges and symbols of any higher authority must be purged from the public conscience.  Religious fervor and devotion are serious obstacles to the revolution.  Therefore, priestly functions must be infiltrated to add a revolutionary voice to the people’s communion to advance the liberal socialist agenda. Government is the final arbitrator, not God.

5)      Ambition - Ends justify the means

Those who dissent and resist do not understand the ultimate goal of the revolution.  If they did, they would welcome the end result.  Those voices must be overcome by any means necessary.  Once the objective of the world socialist worker’s utopia has been achieved, all will understand the beauty, and forgive any transgressions perceived along the way.  Any murder, theft, or lie may be forgiven by the grace offered through the victory of the masses.