OK. Everybody hates McDonald's. The food is awful and the service sucks. You don't HAVE to go there, just like if people don't like being paid minimum wage, they don't have to work for it. If you want a burger AND the satisfaction of having it delivered to your table by someone making barely any money because they made poor life choices and do not deserve to have a decent life in THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD© go to any restaurant in the country, sit down and order a burger. They'll probably serve you actual beef from an actual cow. It's WIN/WIN! Except for the server, whom you're not going to tip because you don't owe them a living for their poor choices in life. You do have to pay homage (and $15 bucks for the burger) to the owner because he's a small business owner who had the fiscal fortitude to sink a ton of money into his Chili's franchise so he could make a restaurant conglomerate extremely wealthy. Ya gotta respect that.
Folks, it isn't about paying the idiot at McDonald's $15 an hour to screw up your order. Had things progressed at the proper pace in the wage-paying world, you wouldn't know or care what the mother of three working the counter at Mickey's was making. I like to believe they are asking for $15 to reinforce the Obama administrations desire to raise the minimum to $10.10 per hour. This isn't Donald Trump and The Art Of The Deal but rather, basic horse trading. You start high and settle for what you're comfortable with. The other party balks at the higher figure and ultimately settles lower and believes he did good and so did you.
The federal minimum is $7.25 and hasn't been raised in three years. The price of practically everything has risen in that same period. Doubling the minimum all of a sudden (or even bumping it by nearly $3 dollars) is a shock to anyone's bottom line. No doubt about that. You have to ease into these things, a little bit at a time. A quarter here, 37 cents there. Economist's say the minimum, to reflect the cost of living in 2014, should be $15 an hour. Some put it higher. Republican Congressmen put it lower, somewhere around less than zero, plus or minus nothing. Carry the-2.
The problem was, the GOP- the fiscally responsible party of business- has fought EVERY small hike in the minimum wage in the last 50 years. The reality of those people is that workers don't deserve a $0.28 hike either. In fact, the GOP would rather there be NO minimum at all. They actually sell this as being 'good' for the worker too. They- with straight but, wrinkled, old white faces-say that without a minimum, you would be free to negotiate for more! You could afford to buy that unicorn you always wanted! How 'bout that? Now, it's true that your employer might pay you less than the current minimum but, that's the invisible hand of the free market. You are free to move on down the road until you get the pay you desire or until your hat floats, whichever comes first. That's their argument for dismantling Unions too.
They mention free a lot. Once upon a time in this country people worked for free. It was called slavery. Slavery is great for the bottom line. After an initial investment of capital in the purchasing of a slave, it's just room and board after that. The War Of Northern Aggression (Civil War) ended that and it took the south several decades to recover. Ever do payroll? They never had. I'm told it's not fun. There's a lot of math and you wind up just paying money out instead of taking money in.NOT what you got into business for!
There are @310 million people in this country. We can't all be business owners or score 30 points a game and be paid millions for it. We can't all be accountants or regional sales managers or firemen. You get my drift. A certain percentage of people, for a variety of reasons, just aren't going to get their own Wiki page or vacation every year in Costa Rica. So they must work. I'll let my friend, activist George Bailey expound on this:
George Bailey:
"Just a minute... just a minute. Now, hold on, Mr. Potter. You're right
when you say my father was no businessman. I know that. Why he ever
started this cheap, penny-ante Building and Loan, I'll never know. But
neither you nor anyone else can say anything against his character,
because his whole life was... why, in the 25 years since he and his
brother, Uncle Billy, started this thing, he never once thought of
himself. Isn't that right, Uncle Billy? He didn't save enough money to
send Harry away to college, let alone me. But he did help a few people
get out of your slums, Mr. Potter, and what's wrong with that? Why...
here, you're all businessmen here. Doesn't it make them better citizens?
Doesn't it make them better customers? You... you said... what'd you
say a minute ago? They had to wait and save their money before they even
ought to think of a decent home. Wait? Wait for what? Until their
children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken down
that they... Do you know how long it takes a working man to save $5,000?
Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you're talking
about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in
this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live
and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn't
think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, a warped,
frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well in my book, my father died a
much richer man than you'll ever be!"
Well said, Mr. Bailey. And while that was a rant from a small business owner, it was a rant for the common man and woman, as well- the people who do the bulk of the working and paying, living and dying, in this world. The We The People of of colonial and Declaration Of Independence lore. The people They gave up on. They people They want US to give upon. US.you
Thursday, May 22, 2014
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Vowel Movements By Pat Sajak
Noted game show host...Pat Sajak, recently tweeted that, in his opinion, "global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists."
As opposed to patriotic racists?
Pat said this on Twitter so, Federally limited by oppressive law to 140 characters, he didn't expound on the racist aspect of climate change. Perhaps he passed out before completing that portion of the puzzle? Aside from both Neil deGrasse Tyson and our president both being black and vocal about climate, I can't fathom how he finds race as a part of the global warming discussion. I probably just did reveal the reason but, that's just so far beyond idiocy, I won't pursue it further.
Suffice to say, Pat is several vowels and consonants short of solving the puzzle of his own tweets.
I have to admit that when I used to enjoy the show, back in the 20th century, I though Pat was a very personable guy and I really did think he should have his own talk show. When someone in Hollywood agreed with me, we both realized how wrong we were. I think that the show was cancelled in a couple of weeks. Wiki barely mentioned the show. He lost his day job on Wheel but went on to do the syndicated version and no doubt, he makes millions of dollars doing it still.
Being rich, naturally he's a conservative. Everyone is a conservative until they make that first hundred thousand and then they become experts on fucking poor people so that they might lessen their own tax burden. These days, the majority of conservatives don't make anywhere near $100k per year so that is why we're hearing about guns and Bibles more than tax rates. The reality of taxes is that the codes are written by folks that make more than Sajak's millions (Congressmen and ALEC) and if they pay at all, they don't miss it. Between the laws and good accountants, they are in no serious danger of getting hurt.The notion of *saving* taxpayer dollars by cutting welfare and such is never going to cut YOUR taxes. Not ever. Name a business with (or without) a board of directors (the Federal government and Congress) that wants to take in less money. Try it. Business doesn't work that way on purpose.
Wiki also told me that, in April of this year, Sajak also used Twitter to come out as a heterosexual so, yeah, he's a conservative. Interesting though, conservatives believe homosexuality is a choice. So, prior to April 18th of this year, what was Mr. Sajak's sexual preference? Was he not sure? Experimenting? Wondering if there was a "Q" and what was it for? Maybe he's just not that witty as he was in the last century.
He might believe like someone noted recently as they thought of pitching a movie about climate change, that global warming was a conspiracy by 97% of earth's scientists to destroy capitalism and the only thing standing in their way was a plucky band of billionaires. And one game show host who tweets.
As opposed to patriotic racists?
Pat said this on Twitter so, Federally limited by oppressive law to 140 characters, he didn't expound on the racist aspect of climate change. Perhaps he passed out before completing that portion of the puzzle? Aside from both Neil deGrasse Tyson and our president both being black and vocal about climate, I can't fathom how he finds race as a part of the global warming discussion. I probably just did reveal the reason but, that's just so far beyond idiocy, I won't pursue it further.
Suffice to say, Pat is several vowels and consonants short of solving the puzzle of his own tweets.
I have to admit that when I used to enjoy the show, back in the 20th century, I though Pat was a very personable guy and I really did think he should have his own talk show. When someone in Hollywood agreed with me, we both realized how wrong we were. I think that the show was cancelled in a couple of weeks. Wiki barely mentioned the show. He lost his day job on Wheel but went on to do the syndicated version and no doubt, he makes millions of dollars doing it still.
Being rich, naturally he's a conservative. Everyone is a conservative until they make that first hundred thousand and then they become experts on fucking poor people so that they might lessen their own tax burden. These days, the majority of conservatives don't make anywhere near $100k per year so that is why we're hearing about guns and Bibles more than tax rates. The reality of taxes is that the codes are written by folks that make more than Sajak's millions (Congressmen and ALEC) and if they pay at all, they don't miss it. Between the laws and good accountants, they are in no serious danger of getting hurt.The notion of *saving* taxpayer dollars by cutting welfare and such is never going to cut YOUR taxes. Not ever. Name a business with (or without) a board of directors (the Federal government and Congress) that wants to take in less money. Try it. Business doesn't work that way on purpose.
Wiki also told me that, in April of this year, Sajak also used Twitter to come out as a heterosexual so, yeah, he's a conservative. Interesting though, conservatives believe homosexuality is a choice. So, prior to April 18th of this year, what was Mr. Sajak's sexual preference? Was he not sure? Experimenting? Wondering if there was a "Q" and what was it for? Maybe he's just not that witty as he was in the last century.
He might believe like someone noted recently as they thought of pitching a movie about climate change, that global warming was a conspiracy by 97% of earth's scientists to destroy capitalism and the only thing standing in their way was a plucky band of billionaires. And one game show host who tweets.
Friday, May 16, 2014
A kiss Is just a kiss
The first time I ever saw two gay men kissing was several years ago in Memphis. Well, check that- I used to live in New Orleans and probably saw that many times in the Quarter and certainly during Mardi Gras but, I was probably too drunk to notice or care, one way or another. Anyway, in Memphis, a bunch of us were partying on our porch and the gay guy who lived in the house behind us was greeting his new boyfriend. They ran at each other like they were in a meadow, embraced and passionately kissed. I was a bit taken aback.
I was like: "Ohmydayum!!!" Words to that effect. Or affect? I'm never sure...
Whichever, I was a bit shocked. My friends asked what was going on. I told them. I think everyone but Eric's girlfriend, Shelly, knew about the gaybors. Shelly was incredulous. "That hottie? He's gay? No way!" Then, young Shelly declared, "I could change him...."
She was young. Bless her heart, I think she really thought she could. Anyway, I was just caught by surprise. It was unnerving to my decidedly Ferrerman sensibilities but I wasn't angry or disgusted. I just wasn't used to that. Neighborhood busybody, Chris, explained that the guy was kissing his new boyfriend. He noted that the new BF was the one who had been parking in our valuable (to us) rental trash parking spaces until I blocked his car in one day with my truck. I had been expecting a knock on the door, asking me to please move the Ford so he could get out but, amazingly, he was able to maneuver his little SUV out of there. We then surmised that his likely reason for parking in our spots was so the old boyfriend wouldn't see his vehicle in dude's driveway.
So, there you go- gay people are just like straight people in matters of the heart. And probably duplicitous parking too.
Now, women. I've seen thousands of girls kiss and I'm quite fine with that, as you might imagine. Women are soft and cuddly and they generally smell really nice! You probably knew that. And not to get Sublimey here but, it just seems so natural. They seem to take better to it than us fellas.
Waiting for a streetcar in New Orleans one night, I saw two attractive, young women approaching. Suddenly, they stopped, embraced and kissed very passionately. She kissed a girl and I liked it. The power was out and a bus rolled up to take us home. Five or six black teen boys boarded the bus with us. They were very aware of the two young ladies.
"Go on and kiss!" they begged and the girls obliged.
They were coming from the Quarter so, naturally, the girls had been drinking. I kinda doubted they were a couple and, quite likely given their show-womanship, had just picked each other up in a bar. So-yeah, gay people are just like us in their frivolous romancing.
That's the thing. They really are just like us. They have all the hopes and dreams and fears that we do and they can be every bit as goofy as us. In years of tending bar I was annoyed a few thousand times by the total lack of decorum and class displayed by straight couples in public. I used to say: Public Displays of Affection lead to public displays of erections!" Many times they literally did. No one wants to see that. A woman down the street from me used to make out with her boyfriend at the bar, just about 5 blocks from her home, the one with the husband and two kids. No one wants to see that despite the raging heterosexuality of it all. Really, they don't.
But, getting picked by an NFL team in the draft and sharing that joy and a soulful kiss with the man you love. well, why not? I'm sure straight couples have done that on ESPN too. I bet some have kissed their moms. That's kinda Oedipal. Others might have kissed their agents. Who cares? So, gay football players are just like the straight ones too. Now we know. We learn something new every day. That is, when we try.
I was like: "Ohmydayum!!!" Words to that effect. Or affect? I'm never sure...
Whichever, I was a bit shocked. My friends asked what was going on. I told them. I think everyone but Eric's girlfriend, Shelly, knew about the gaybors. Shelly was incredulous. "That hottie? He's gay? No way!" Then, young Shelly declared, "I could change him...."
She was young. Bless her heart, I think she really thought she could. Anyway, I was just caught by surprise. It was unnerving to my decidedly Ferrerman sensibilities but I wasn't angry or disgusted. I just wasn't used to that. Neighborhood busybody, Chris, explained that the guy was kissing his new boyfriend. He noted that the new BF was the one who had been parking in our valuable (to us) rental trash parking spaces until I blocked his car in one day with my truck. I had been expecting a knock on the door, asking me to please move the Ford so he could get out but, amazingly, he was able to maneuver his little SUV out of there. We then surmised that his likely reason for parking in our spots was so the old boyfriend wouldn't see his vehicle in dude's driveway.
So, there you go- gay people are just like straight people in matters of the heart. And probably duplicitous parking too.
Now, women. I've seen thousands of girls kiss and I'm quite fine with that, as you might imagine. Women are soft and cuddly and they generally smell really nice! You probably knew that. And not to get Sublimey here but, it just seems so natural. They seem to take better to it than us fellas.
Waiting for a streetcar in New Orleans one night, I saw two attractive, young women approaching. Suddenly, they stopped, embraced and kissed very passionately. She kissed a girl and I liked it. The power was out and a bus rolled up to take us home. Five or six black teen boys boarded the bus with us. They were very aware of the two young ladies.
"Go on and kiss!" they begged and the girls obliged.
They were coming from the Quarter so, naturally, the girls had been drinking. I kinda doubted they were a couple and, quite likely given their show-womanship, had just picked each other up in a bar. So-yeah, gay people are just like us in their frivolous romancing.
That's the thing. They really are just like us. They have all the hopes and dreams and fears that we do and they can be every bit as goofy as us. In years of tending bar I was annoyed a few thousand times by the total lack of decorum and class displayed by straight couples in public. I used to say: Public Displays of Affection lead to public displays of erections!" Many times they literally did. No one wants to see that. A woman down the street from me used to make out with her boyfriend at the bar, just about 5 blocks from her home, the one with the husband and two kids. No one wants to see that despite the raging heterosexuality of it all. Really, they don't.
But, getting picked by an NFL team in the draft and sharing that joy and a soulful kiss with the man you love. well, why not? I'm sure straight couples have done that on ESPN too. I bet some have kissed their moms. That's kinda Oedipal. Others might have kissed their agents. Who cares? So, gay football players are just like the straight ones too. Now we know. We learn something new every day. That is, when we try.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Death And Statistics
Aside from the absurd politicking of BENGHAZI!!!!! the thing that bothers me the most is that there was no similar outrage and ensuing investigation of the deaths of 241 Marines and other personnel in Beirut in 1983.
Our guys were there as part of a multi-national peace keeping force. President Reagan had allowed them to deploy with guns but they were not to be loaded. The rules of engagement dictated that no rounds would be chambered, no magazines attached. Two suicide truck bombs crashed through a barrier of concertina wire and exploded in the Marine barracks. Moments later, at a French barracks, French paratroopers fired at truck bombs attacking their position, stopping one of the two trucks 15 yards from the building, killing the driver. Moments later that truck exploded. It was the largest, single day loss of life for the Marines since Iwo Jima during WWII and for the French (58 killed) since their war in Algeria in 1962. A truly awful day.
So, massive loss of life and unarmed troops. You'd think republicans would raise all sorts of Hell about that.
Not as I recall. And neither did democrats. They sure could have. Who in their right mind sends in unarmed Marines as peacekeepers? They are killers, not peacekeepers. Ask them.
Well, Ronald Reagan did that, that's who. It was a mistake and he was sorry but the nation pretty much pulled together and mourned the dead and moved on in life. There was no: "BEIRUT! BEIRUT!! BEIRUT!!!!" Well, no FOX noise at the time and, of course, with RR in The White House, no republican outrage from them even if there had been such media at the time. CNN hadn't even been invented yet. The dems could have made political hay those dark days but they did not.
Now we have Benghazi and republican outrage. Four died there in two assaults, our ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, Information Officer, Sean Smith and CIA Security Contractors, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
You are welcome to consult Wikipedia for the details. This, is about the sad, contrived outrage of the GOP after this tragedy and their near complete ignorance of the Beirut bombing and a dozen attacks similar to Benghazi, most of which happened under the GW Bush watch.
If you're going to pretend that hostages were released in Iran out of fear of Reagan and that communist walls in Berlin were torn down with but a word from him, you better have a good explanation why there was no republican outrage at unarmed Marines dying in Beirut. I can explain it. Simply, Ronald Reagan was not a black, democratic president.
That's it. And, not to imply that republicans are strictly racist, they are misogynist too. The Benghazi tragedy is a double-edged butter knife of blame as it's intent now is to hamper a presidential run by Hillary Clinton who was Secretary of State at the time.
No political outrage at their guy when 241 Marines die of their incompetence but plenty when four tragically die also probably as a result of their own negligence? Josef Stalin said: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The deaths of one million is a statistic." Was Beirut just a statistic? At the very best, it is a sham of a shame on a once great political party that is it's own worst enemy and perhaps America's.
Our guys were there as part of a multi-national peace keeping force. President Reagan had allowed them to deploy with guns but they were not to be loaded. The rules of engagement dictated that no rounds would be chambered, no magazines attached. Two suicide truck bombs crashed through a barrier of concertina wire and exploded in the Marine barracks. Moments later, at a French barracks, French paratroopers fired at truck bombs attacking their position, stopping one of the two trucks 15 yards from the building, killing the driver. Moments later that truck exploded. It was the largest, single day loss of life for the Marines since Iwo Jima during WWII and for the French (58 killed) since their war in Algeria in 1962. A truly awful day.
So, massive loss of life and unarmed troops. You'd think republicans would raise all sorts of Hell about that.
Not as I recall. And neither did democrats. They sure could have. Who in their right mind sends in unarmed Marines as peacekeepers? They are killers, not peacekeepers. Ask them.
Well, Ronald Reagan did that, that's who. It was a mistake and he was sorry but the nation pretty much pulled together and mourned the dead and moved on in life. There was no: "BEIRUT! BEIRUT!! BEIRUT!!!!" Well, no FOX noise at the time and, of course, with RR in The White House, no republican outrage from them even if there had been such media at the time. CNN hadn't even been invented yet. The dems could have made political hay those dark days but they did not.
Now we have Benghazi and republican outrage. Four died there in two assaults, our ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, Information Officer, Sean Smith and CIA Security Contractors, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
You are welcome to consult Wikipedia for the details. This, is about the sad, contrived outrage of the GOP after this tragedy and their near complete ignorance of the Beirut bombing and a dozen attacks similar to Benghazi, most of which happened under the GW Bush watch.
If you're going to pretend that hostages were released in Iran out of fear of Reagan and that communist walls in Berlin were torn down with but a word from him, you better have a good explanation why there was no republican outrage at unarmed Marines dying in Beirut. I can explain it. Simply, Ronald Reagan was not a black, democratic president.
That's it. And, not to imply that republicans are strictly racist, they are misogynist too. The Benghazi tragedy is a double-edged butter knife of blame as it's intent now is to hamper a presidential run by Hillary Clinton who was Secretary of State at the time.
No political outrage at their guy when 241 Marines die of their incompetence but plenty when four tragically die also probably as a result of their own negligence? Josef Stalin said: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The deaths of one million is a statistic." Was Beirut just a statistic? At the very best, it is a sham of a shame on a once great political party that is it's own worst enemy and perhaps America's.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
The Ridiculousness Of The Sublime
People usually believe what they want to believe. Bar stools were made for big talk and so was the internet. Bullshit is a little harder to prove on the internet but it can be done.
One of the biggest talkers on Topix is a guy who calls himself Sublime1. To hear him tell it, women are constantly throwing themselves at him, even in front of their husbands! There's just something about him...
The wife evidently approves. She knows full well how women are drawn to him and, in acquiescence to that, she agreed to join in wife swapping adventures. It wasn't really a fair deal on her part as all she got on her end (giggle) was men who paled in comparison to her husband.
People seemed to take Sub at his word about the swapping. I did. But it wasn't because I bought into his vision of his studliness. I believed it because I know that a couple doesn't have to be beautiful and desirable to participate in swinging. You pretty much just have to have genitals and be breathing. The best and the brightest aren't necessarily involved as the movies might suggest. And really, is sanctioned infidelity something to be proud of? He may be saying: "The wife and I are so desirable we share ourselves with other people!" however, it sounds an awful lot like: "We are sluts!"
That's typical though. Bragging about aberrant behavior is one way of legitimizing it. That's half of politics. But, what if Sub's talk of wife-swapping is as contrived as his regular reporting of friend's and stranger's wives willing to cuckold their husbands with him? To hear him tell it, every time he goes out in public some wife is willing to betray her marital vows pretty much upon sight of Sublime. Odd but, him and the Mrs. rolling around with other average looking people in suburban living rooms is far more believable.
He's posted their pictures. This is not Brad and Angelina. I always thought it was kinda dumb to tout yourself as a stud muffin and post a picture of your bald-headed self. Sub insists he's not bald but that he opts to shave his head on purpose. I don't know how he explains the five o'clock shadow on a semi-spherical section of his otherwise chrome dome. He just denies it. Not to be too catty here but, if you want to be perceived on the internet as God's gift to women, either do not post a pic at all and leave your handsomeness to the imagination, or post a pic of a model or movie star. It's Topix - behind every pretty girl avatar is a guy with his hand on his dick. Would a real, pretty woman want that attention? Please....
So, if Sub is full of shit about so many wives wanting so desperately to shame themselves and their husbands to be with him, why should anyone believe the wife swapping stuff? When someone has proven themselves to be a liar, why believe other stories they tell? Why pick and choose?
Sadly, his real life wife likely has NO idea of his Topix life and the things he writes about her and the kids. Wait- maybe that's not so sad. He calls her "Bambi" in the threads and posts as her with an avatar. Yes, it *could* be her but, it's doubtful. *Her* posts sounded contrived, kinda phoned in... like someone was trying to prove they had a wife who was happy with their posting....
In reality, if you were talking about your and your spouse's sexcapades on a public forum, would you want your spouse anywhere near the scene of that crime? That's a door that can be opened at anytime. Some guys are that stupid. Sublime certainly seems to be.
I just doubt that the wife has even signed off on the wife-swapping or any of the cuckolding tales either. She probably has no earthly idea he talks about their autistic son or any of the other children on a regular basis. He used his autistic kid's small penis as a segue into talking about how large he (Sub) considered his own penis to be! Who does that?
Well- again- who even knows if the guy is even married? Why believe that? Why believe he has any children, let alone an autistic one? His Topix back story gets a little shaky when you think of an (alleged) lawyer with a good job, spending his work days writing lifestyles of the stupid and slutty-type shit on a message board. Who does that? Why?
Well, I don't really want to know. Whoever and whatever he really is in real life, he's just another braggart on the internet- the barstool of the 21st century.
One of the biggest talkers on Topix is a guy who calls himself Sublime1. To hear him tell it, women are constantly throwing themselves at him, even in front of their husbands! There's just something about him...
The wife evidently approves. She knows full well how women are drawn to him and, in acquiescence to that, she agreed to join in wife swapping adventures. It wasn't really a fair deal on her part as all she got on her end (giggle) was men who paled in comparison to her husband.
People seemed to take Sub at his word about the swapping. I did. But it wasn't because I bought into his vision of his studliness. I believed it because I know that a couple doesn't have to be beautiful and desirable to participate in swinging. You pretty much just have to have genitals and be breathing. The best and the brightest aren't necessarily involved as the movies might suggest. And really, is sanctioned infidelity something to be proud of? He may be saying: "The wife and I are so desirable we share ourselves with other people!" however, it sounds an awful lot like: "We are sluts!"
That's typical though. Bragging about aberrant behavior is one way of legitimizing it. That's half of politics. But, what if Sub's talk of wife-swapping is as contrived as his regular reporting of friend's and stranger's wives willing to cuckold their husbands with him? To hear him tell it, every time he goes out in public some wife is willing to betray her marital vows pretty much upon sight of Sublime. Odd but, him and the Mrs. rolling around with other average looking people in suburban living rooms is far more believable.
He's posted their pictures. This is not Brad and Angelina. I always thought it was kinda dumb to tout yourself as a stud muffin and post a picture of your bald-headed self. Sub insists he's not bald but that he opts to shave his head on purpose. I don't know how he explains the five o'clock shadow on a semi-spherical section of his otherwise chrome dome. He just denies it. Not to be too catty here but, if you want to be perceived on the internet as God's gift to women, either do not post a pic at all and leave your handsomeness to the imagination, or post a pic of a model or movie star. It's Topix - behind every pretty girl avatar is a guy with his hand on his dick. Would a real, pretty woman want that attention? Please....
So, if Sub is full of shit about so many wives wanting so desperately to shame themselves and their husbands to be with him, why should anyone believe the wife swapping stuff? When someone has proven themselves to be a liar, why believe other stories they tell? Why pick and choose?
Sadly, his real life wife likely has NO idea of his Topix life and the things he writes about her and the kids. Wait- maybe that's not so sad. He calls her "Bambi" in the threads and posts as her with an avatar. Yes, it *could* be her but, it's doubtful. *Her* posts sounded contrived, kinda phoned in... like someone was trying to prove they had a wife who was happy with their posting....
In reality, if you were talking about your and your spouse's sexcapades on a public forum, would you want your spouse anywhere near the scene of that crime? That's a door that can be opened at anytime. Some guys are that stupid. Sublime certainly seems to be.
I just doubt that the wife has even signed off on the wife-swapping or any of the cuckolding tales either. She probably has no earthly idea he talks about their autistic son or any of the other children on a regular basis. He used his autistic kid's small penis as a segue into talking about how large he (Sub) considered his own penis to be! Who does that?
Well- again- who even knows if the guy is even married? Why believe that? Why believe he has any children, let alone an autistic one? His Topix back story gets a little shaky when you think of an (alleged) lawyer with a good job, spending his work days writing lifestyles of the stupid and slutty-type shit on a message board. Who does that? Why?
Well, I don't really want to know. Whoever and whatever he really is in real life, he's just another braggart on the internet- the barstool of the 21st century.
But first, a word from our sponsor
Of course, we're a nation of masturbators.
I don't know why we don't start all our government meetings with everyone masturbating.
Wait- I probably meant "Christians" and "praying". They like to say we're a Christian nation but, according to Wiki, 73% of us Americans identify as Christians. With 99.9% of us having genitals, I'm going to speculate that if 73% of us admit to masturbating, the other 27% are liars.
So, while 73% is a lot and even a majority, we're still not a Christian nation because the first amendment to the Constitution says that "....Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
That means we can not only not be officially a Christian nation, we can't be officially Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, etc. either. No state religion. So, no Church of England. No Sharia Law. Thomas Jefferson wrote of the need for separation of church and state and I don't think any of the other founders disagreed about that. Neither did the Supreme Court until recently. They haven't taken a sledgehammer to the 1A like it's an outdated kitchen on the DIY Network. It's more a systematic dismantling that'll take a little time. The Supremes ruled that it's OK for the town meetings in Greece, NY to begin with a religious invocation. Change it up to vary religions is fine. Give everybody a chance. That's kinda fair. Personally, I say leave all religion out of government but- admittedly- that's hard to do.
And Christians, if you give them an inch, they think it's a yard. One of the arguments for us clearly being a Christian nation is that it says "In God We Trust" on our money. That happened in 1956 and the phrase that pays started appearing on our money in '57. That was during the Cold War when we found Jesus and he delivered us from the communists. It was in that same decade that "under God" was added to the Pledge Of Allegiance, also to ward off or weed out commies. Christians believe these words have been American since for the entire 6000 year history of the world. That's fine. Wrong but, fine.
The founders knew that religion could really make people crazy and that a state religion would be officially crazy. Thus, the separation of church and state. If you want the Vatican to run your life, you can have that. But if your neighbor, Schlomo MacGuillacudy, doesn't want the Vatican running his life, in America he has that choice. Unless you are crazy, that makes perfect sense. I don't know why Christians have such a hard time with this. The way it is now, all religions are welcome. The way Christians are seeing it, only Christian religions count and should be welcome. The way it would be if made 'official' is, the winning religion after years of bloodshed would actually be officially official. If you are unsure about this, google: "world history". You'll see that religion and/or God is generally the leading call to arms.
It must be human nature that people can't be content with their own freedom, that they must covet their neighbors freedom as well. Like, how wonderful can my freedom be when my neighbor is also free? What if he has more freedom than me? And if everybody is free, isn't freedom diluted? Freedom Lite? That's the way people are. It's probably explained in a book somewhere.
So, end of the world up there in Greece, NY? Yeah, probably. The view is getting clearer at least. Religion is the opiate of the masses and, that means it's a great way of controlling people. But, you've got to get everybody on the same page. That takes coercion, either literal or figurative. It's never easy telling people what they want. It should not be.
I don't know why we don't start all our government meetings with everyone masturbating.
Wait- I probably meant "Christians" and "praying". They like to say we're a Christian nation but, according to Wiki, 73% of us Americans identify as Christians. With 99.9% of us having genitals, I'm going to speculate that if 73% of us admit to masturbating, the other 27% are liars.
So, while 73% is a lot and even a majority, we're still not a Christian nation because the first amendment to the Constitution says that "....Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
That means we can not only not be officially a Christian nation, we can't be officially Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, etc. either. No state religion. So, no Church of England. No Sharia Law. Thomas Jefferson wrote of the need for separation of church and state and I don't think any of the other founders disagreed about that. Neither did the Supreme Court until recently. They haven't taken a sledgehammer to the 1A like it's an outdated kitchen on the DIY Network. It's more a systematic dismantling that'll take a little time. The Supremes ruled that it's OK for the town meetings in Greece, NY to begin with a religious invocation. Change it up to vary religions is fine. Give everybody a chance. That's kinda fair. Personally, I say leave all religion out of government but- admittedly- that's hard to do.
And Christians, if you give them an inch, they think it's a yard. One of the arguments for us clearly being a Christian nation is that it says "In God We Trust" on our money. That happened in 1956 and the phrase that pays started appearing on our money in '57. That was during the Cold War when we found Jesus and he delivered us from the communists. It was in that same decade that "under God" was added to the Pledge Of Allegiance, also to ward off or weed out commies. Christians believe these words have been American since for the entire 6000 year history of the world. That's fine. Wrong but, fine.
The founders knew that religion could really make people crazy and that a state religion would be officially crazy. Thus, the separation of church and state. If you want the Vatican to run your life, you can have that. But if your neighbor, Schlomo MacGuillacudy, doesn't want the Vatican running his life, in America he has that choice. Unless you are crazy, that makes perfect sense. I don't know why Christians have such a hard time with this. The way it is now, all religions are welcome. The way Christians are seeing it, only Christian religions count and should be welcome. The way it would be if made 'official' is, the winning religion after years of bloodshed would actually be officially official. If you are unsure about this, google: "world history". You'll see that religion and/or God is generally the leading call to arms.
It must be human nature that people can't be content with their own freedom, that they must covet their neighbors freedom as well. Like, how wonderful can my freedom be when my neighbor is also free? What if he has more freedom than me? And if everybody is free, isn't freedom diluted? Freedom Lite? That's the way people are. It's probably explained in a book somewhere.
So, end of the world up there in Greece, NY? Yeah, probably. The view is getting clearer at least. Religion is the opiate of the masses and, that means it's a great way of controlling people. But, you've got to get everybody on the same page. That takes coercion, either literal or figurative. It's never easy telling people what they want. It should not be.
Monday, May 5, 2014
The Economic Sense Of Slavery
It's time for me to push slavery again. House republicans just voted down an increase on the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to the $10.10 that the democrats are proposing. This doesn't mean it's politically dead. It just means it will come to life again this fall, in time for the mid term elections. Evidently that is supposed to be good timing for republicans because their people vote in the mid-terms more so than democrats. Now mind you- we the people won't be voting on raising the minimum. We the people will be voting on the future of the assholes who vote on those things for us. Do we the people want assholes who care about us? Or, do we want assholes who care about 'our' corporations? That's what the mid-terms are about.
If the republicans can maintain control of the House and gain control of the senate, then they don't have to bother with the White House. You think there has been obstruction of Obama with a republican House? Try two houses controlled by republicans.Democrats can have all the President Hillary's they want. Not a fucking thing will get done unless the republicans say so. Now ain't that America?
I mention slavery because historically, slavery is a real money-saver for slave owners. After than initial expense of buying a person, you pretty much just have to feed and water them to recoup your losses on the initial purchase. As a bonus, you can breed them yourself and save on the front end. Prior to the War Of Northern Aggression (which is fun to say in a Foghorn Leghorn accent) and coincided with what the winning side refers to as "The Civil War", the greatest concentration of wealth in this country was in Vicksburg, Mississippi. This was largely due to the cotton trade and the low, low overhead of slavery.
You can argue about the causes of the American Civil War but you can't argue that not-paying workers is great for the bottom line of business!
No one actually is arguing for slavery but they sure are hinting about it. The GOP has been calling for the elimination of the minimum wage for decades. They claim it restricts people and actually keeps them from making more. I think they might be confusing minimum and maximum. They claim that doing away with the minimum means that instead of being stuck making the minimum at Walmart or some warehouse somewhere, you can ask for more instead.
The thing is, you can ask for more than the minimum now. You probably won't get it but, you can ask. Your fall-back wage would be the current minimum of $7.25. But, they say, without that minimum, you could ask for $20 an hour! You might not get it though and the fall-back rate would be whatever the boss was willing to pay you. It could be $18 an hour! Or, it could be $2. Or food and water. But, it could be the $20 you asked for!
Republican trolls on the internet will concede that, yes, it could be $2 an hour- if the invisible hand of the free market says so- but, you are free to move on down the road until you find an employer willing to pay your price or until your hat floats. Whichever comes first.
So, eliminating the minimum could bring room and board wages if the invisible hand of the free market went that way but it could also swing the way of $20 an hour. It's fickle, that invisible hand, isn't it? There are no guarantees in life though, especially if we eliminate them.
There are two economies at work here in America. There was no "Worst Recession Since The Great Depression" for rich people. The Koch brothers and lesser assholes like the Papa Johns fuckhead and the Walton family and the CEO of McDonald's all have made A LOT of money these past six years. All the one and two percent that you hear of did great. They almost always do. For all the bitching they do about him, these assholes have done very well under President Obama. The thing is, they could do better.
Letting that invisible hand of the free market setting wages would be better. Slavery would be better. It worked before. Very little overhead. FULL employment.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking: "That's not America. That won't ever happen!"
Why not? It happened before. And, it makes good fiscal sense. As long as you don't think it will happen to you, why worry about it? And, it makes good fiscal sense.
Relax. We're not going to legalize slavery! Why do that when we can just expand unpaid intern programs? That sounds so much nicer. And, did I mention it makes good fiscal sense?
It's a world economy and, like Mitt Romney pointed out when he ran for POTUS in '12, the Chinese factory he visited had to have barbed wire fences with guards to keep OUT people who would otherwise force their way in for a chance at one of those 99 cent an hour jobs inside. We're America. We can do better. No, not $2 an hour. The other way. We're not communists! Sheesh!
If the republicans can maintain control of the House and gain control of the senate, then they don't have to bother with the White House. You think there has been obstruction of Obama with a republican House? Try two houses controlled by republicans.Democrats can have all the President Hillary's they want. Not a fucking thing will get done unless the republicans say so. Now ain't that America?
I mention slavery because historically, slavery is a real money-saver for slave owners. After than initial expense of buying a person, you pretty much just have to feed and water them to recoup your losses on the initial purchase. As a bonus, you can breed them yourself and save on the front end. Prior to the War Of Northern Aggression (which is fun to say in a Foghorn Leghorn accent) and coincided with what the winning side refers to as "The Civil War", the greatest concentration of wealth in this country was in Vicksburg, Mississippi. This was largely due to the cotton trade and the low, low overhead of slavery.
You can argue about the causes of the American Civil War but you can't argue that not-paying workers is great for the bottom line of business!
No one actually is arguing for slavery but they sure are hinting about it. The GOP has been calling for the elimination of the minimum wage for decades. They claim it restricts people and actually keeps them from making more. I think they might be confusing minimum and maximum. They claim that doing away with the minimum means that instead of being stuck making the minimum at Walmart or some warehouse somewhere, you can ask for more instead.
The thing is, you can ask for more than the minimum now. You probably won't get it but, you can ask. Your fall-back wage would be the current minimum of $7.25. But, they say, without that minimum, you could ask for $20 an hour! You might not get it though and the fall-back rate would be whatever the boss was willing to pay you. It could be $18 an hour! Or, it could be $2. Or food and water. But, it could be the $20 you asked for!
Republican trolls on the internet will concede that, yes, it could be $2 an hour- if the invisible hand of the free market says so- but, you are free to move on down the road until you find an employer willing to pay your price or until your hat floats. Whichever comes first.
So, eliminating the minimum could bring room and board wages if the invisible hand of the free market went that way but it could also swing the way of $20 an hour. It's fickle, that invisible hand, isn't it? There are no guarantees in life though, especially if we eliminate them.
There are two economies at work here in America. There was no "Worst Recession Since The Great Depression" for rich people. The Koch brothers and lesser assholes like the Papa Johns fuckhead and the Walton family and the CEO of McDonald's all have made A LOT of money these past six years. All the one and two percent that you hear of did great. They almost always do. For all the bitching they do about him, these assholes have done very well under President Obama. The thing is, they could do better.
Letting that invisible hand of the free market setting wages would be better. Slavery would be better. It worked before. Very little overhead. FULL employment.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking: "That's not America. That won't ever happen!"
Why not? It happened before. And, it makes good fiscal sense. As long as you don't think it will happen to you, why worry about it? And, it makes good fiscal sense.
Relax. We're not going to legalize slavery! Why do that when we can just expand unpaid intern programs? That sounds so much nicer. And, did I mention it makes good fiscal sense?
It's a world economy and, like Mitt Romney pointed out when he ran for POTUS in '12, the Chinese factory he visited had to have barbed wire fences with guards to keep OUT people who would otherwise force their way in for a chance at one of those 99 cent an hour jobs inside. We're America. We can do better. No, not $2 an hour. The other way. We're not communists! Sheesh!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)