Knight in Shining Armor?

So to sum up quickly, things are rough for my family right now financially.  My business did not do so well this year and I am working at a job that is almost straight commission.  I have struggled with feelings of failure for the first time in my life.  I am still fighting, but I have yet to make much headway. 

To make matters worse, my wife has always taken care of our personal finances.  She pays the bills now because at one point early on in our marriage, we shared the responsibility and I made a payment, not late, but during the grace period and she had a fit.  So I let her take over.  

The problem I am now faced with is that, although I feel a certain amount of pressure to 'be the man' and provide for my family, I am still functioning and moving forward on coming up with a solution.  My wife, however, who has no means or ability to solve the problem, is stressing about the financial situation and, in my opinion, is not coping well with it.  She has been very angry at God and at the world in general.  I know because I have to hear her frequently berate God and inadvertently put me down by complaining about how bad our life sucks.  

Please do not get me wrong, my wife still has a good relationship with God, she is just angry at the moment, and because of a conversation with my uncle and brother (same person), I now assume responsibility for my wife's situation.  You see, I think I now believe in chauvinism, wholeheartedly.  I guess that depends on your definition, but yes, I do.  To me, the term chauvinism has for years meant that a man exercises undue power over a woman to make her his own personal slave and force on her all of the crappy jobs that he does not want to do.  Today my thinking has changed.  I now believe it to mean that men and women have different responsibilities within a family and society, and one of a man's responsibilities is to protect his wife and family and help them to feel safe and secure.  

Ladies and gentlemen, assuming the care of the finances of our household doesn't have to be a power grab, but instead another way that I can help my wife to feel safe and secure.  Opening doors, driving, pulling out chairs, introducing my wife to people using her name first, holding open doors and other acts of chivalry, do not have to be for the purpose of belittling the opposite gender, but instead ways to show love and respect and to protect my wife and family and help them to feel safe and secure.  

For quite some time now, I have taken responsibility for my wife being stressed.  Her constant complaints and frustrations, not my situation, have caused me to experience these feelings of failure.  Not only do I assume responsibility for her pain and suffering because of our financial situation, but also because she never had to experience the pain of working things out financially.  That is the one thing in this scenario I could have prevented.

So what do I do now?  On the way to my current dead end job, I heard a song that my wife loves, for reasons I understand much more now--I Need a Hero.  Yes, my wife needs a hero, and that is what I will be.  I am going to take on the responsibility of our personal finances as well as start driving (yes, I am even one of those pansies), opening her door, etc.  Starting today, I act like a Man, because I do love my wife and family!

Your outstanding performance deserves nothing less than mediocrity...

Story time once more. A very liberal leaning young girl goes away to college. Her opinions have yet to be swayed by the tutelage of her very conservative parents. In college, she works very hard. Studying when her roommates are watching movies, staying up late preparing for tests when her roommates are partying and getting up and making it to class early when her roommates are sleeping in and skipping class. Her roommates share the same major as her and have the same classes as her.

At the end of the semester, the girl is excited to reap the reward of all her efforts and sacrifices. Her roommates end up with the report on their grades before her and she finds out they all got C's in all of their classes. She thinks nothing of their grades, judging that they all deserved to fail for their lack of effort in their schoolwork, and assuming they had some kind of connections to profit them the grades they ended up with. However, she becomes livid when she discovers that she also received C's in all of her classes.

She returns to her home for the Christmas break and pours her heart out to her parents concerning the matter. Her father's response is simply, "welcome to socialism..."

I have nothing to add to this short story. There is no such thing as an entitlement!

Viva America!

I went to an MLS soccer game the other day and our defense flubbed up major league, taking out our own goalie and allowing for one of the players from the Chivas to score. I was quite perturbed when the stadium erupted with cheers. This was a home game and there were probably more people there to cheer for the Chivas than the home team. Then I realized who the crowd was and turned quickly racist. Racist is the term used by them for me. I use a different term. That term is patriotic, or else scared...

I have nothing against the latin culture. Quite the contrary, actually, considering my choice of profession being landscaping. I am angry about the people that choose to break our rules to come here. My friend, Greg would say this is an emotional and not a logical argument, and he is right. However, there are very logical implications on my every day life with them being here. I refer mostly to the fear that has swept our country with the move to be politically correct. I won't spend much time on this blog, because it has all been said before by people much more eloquent than me. But why do we have 'latin heritage' month on the Disney Channel? And to take the topic one step further to a more deeply seeded issue, why do we have Black History Month? I think it is very important to know that not only white europeans contributed to the development of our country, but why does it have to be about color or ethnicity? I have got to tell you that my cotton gin is about overflowing with menial facts about black contributors to society. I would bet money that more people in this country now come out of school knowing about the cotton gin than Henry Ford or the Wright brothers. I am not trying to argue one way or another who contributed more, but let's not cram menial information down our children's throats in the name of being politically correct! Teach the important stuff. All of the important stuff and don't let it be about color.

Lastly, please cheer for the home team! Oh, and go to my blog and vote for your choice for President!

Is the Free Market a Waste of Time?

Bear with me as I retell a story I heard from someone a while ago...

A Harvard busines grad goes to a popular tourist location in Mexico for vacation. The business man is fascinated with one particluar fisherman he sees returning each afternoon from the ocean. For whatever reason, he feels inclined to talk to the fisherman about his lifestyle, anxious to employ his new found business knowledge. Shortly into the conversation the young man has gathered that each day the man leaves early into the morning to go out to the sea and fish. The man elaborates on watching the sun rise and getting an occasional show from a passing pod of dolphins. He comes back from fishing and spends each afternoon and into the evening with his family. Each night the man finds his way to the local cantina and relaxes with his closest friends and a couple of beers, chatting and strumming away on his guitar. This the man repeats each and every day with little variance.

The business grad spends the evening perplexed by the man's problem and barely sleeps as he creates a beautiful business plan to enhance the man's life. The next afternoon, as the man comes in from the ocean, the business grad chases him down to present the man with his epiphany. The business grad then reveals his plan of buying a second boat and hiring someone to fish in a second boat all day and hiring two others to fish starting in the afternoon. He then shows how the man can slowly purchase more boats and increase his earning potential. With his new earnings, the man can then chase down his own contact for selling the fish to and add to his profit the money made by the middle man. From there, the man can save up his profit and open his own fish canning facility and own the production line from beginning to end, undoubtedly making the old fisherman millions of dollars. With all of this new income, the man can then retire.

The old man laughs at the business man and asks him what he would do then?

The business man quickly replies that the man could wake up early and watch the sunrise. He could go out on a small boat and enjoy some fishing on a small tranquil boat and perhaps watch a pod of dolphins play. He could spend time with his family. And he could hang out in the evenings with his closest friends and have a few beers and play his guitar.

The old fisherman gives the young businessman a condescending pat on the back or something and that is where the story ends.

I think the story is meant to illustrate how stupid capitalism really is and that we should all just fall in line like good little stooges and do our respective jobs without complaining because life really is great and we wouldn't change what we enjoyed if we had all the money in the world anyway (deep breath now after that tirade...)and fluffy bunnies and unicorns and rainbows and blah, blah, blah!

Ignorance really pisses me off, and the point that is missed is the freedom the man enjoys from being a capitalist. The untold part of the story shows the difference...

One day the man wakes up to go hit the ocean. He is now 68 years old and there is a storm brewing. He has to go out on the ocean anyway because the approach of the huge storm caused the fish to move away from their regular routes and he hasn't caught anything for three days now and his rice and beans are all gone. So he fumbles through the dark, barely able to see because his eyes have been ruined by the sun beating on them off the surface of the ocean water for years now, and gathers up his equipment in arthritis stricken hands. He gets out to his boat and begins stuffing cloth into the several holes in his small boat because he hasn't had the money to repair it, and heads out for his miserable day on the wild ocean waves.

With a very small catch he finally heads back in to shore and approaches the market with his catch. Unfortunately, he got back too late because it took so long for the old man to row back in from the storm tossed sea, and no one is at the market to buy his poor catch. The fish go to waste and the man must return empty handed to his family. The man's grandkids are crying with hunger pangs as he approaches his little hut and makes his report. His daughter, whose husband died recently, gathers her children close to comfort them for the long wet evening they have ahead of them. The man's son whose legs could have been saved with a simple medical procedure when he was young huddles in the corner. The man kisses his wife good bye and heads for the cantina.

The man sits alone in the corner of the cantina, watching longingly at his ex-friends drinking, singing and laughing. He reviews in his mind just how much money he owes each of these people and just how long ago he borrowed from each of them. He pulls out his guitar and strums for a while on the four strings that are not broken, not sure of what tomorrow brings.

I am sure that it is the fault of the young, entrepreneurially minded, Harvard Business School grad this man suffers so, because his hard earned wealth really should be taken from him to fix this man's problems. Instead of teaching this man how he can still look his friends and family in the eyes again, he should have just voted for the wonderful socialists in our world who would so carefully manage his finances for him and make sure that this man gets 'bailed out!'

What do you think?????

Help Me W, You're My Only Hope

Okay, first understand that I am a victim of the current downturn in our economy. My business has suffered greatly in the current market. That being said, I want everyone to understand that I think it is stupid and ridiculous for the government to help resolve ANYTHING connected with the economy. The last president who had a magnificent plan to bail out the economy stuck us with social security and government work programs. I think that the only thing to fear is a president who is afraid his legacy is at risk.

I have ranted before about allowing bad things to happen. Sometimes we make poor decisions that ultimately result in pain and suffering. Pain and suffering is part of life and part of growth and improvement. Being the horticulturist geek that I am, I will give an example from our many wonderful forests. You see, there are many coniferous species whose seeds lie dormant in the soil or the cone until they reach blistering heats--in other words intense global warming or a forest fire. After a forest fire, the old wood has been cleared out and the ground is now barren and ready for new growth. It just so happens that, because of the intense heat from a forest fire, that the seeds of these aforementioned conifers are now ready to germinate and grow. The end result is a forest free of debris and spent life, and brimming with new, vigorous life.

Sorry for the geek moment, but do you see what I am saying. It is not the economy that is the problem, it is the perspective of the people in our country. Death and sickness is bad, so we have to save everyone by passing universal healthcare, war and killing is bad, so we have to learn to be 'tolerant' of those who hate us, the economy has a downturn, so we have to rush in with billions of as-of-yet uncollected taxpayers dollars to fix the problem. Do you not see that this requires the sacrifice of freedom to ensure? Do you not see that the solutions the government comes up with do not actually solve the problems, but instead prolong and multiply the impending doom? No one can actually eradicate death or sickness! No amount of money or tolerance can appease the enemy! No government bail out can do anything to our economy except leave our posterity with an even more difficult problem to solve in the future (social security.)

W, I don't agree with your policies on about anything except the war on terror but I believe you are a great man and very well may be a jedi knight. But please, stand down on this one and let there just be balance in the force. Let go, W! Let it fix itself, because it most assuredly will!

Yeah right, like government is going to step out of things...Conservatism is DEAD!

Mind Your Own Business

I am fed up with passing the buck! Our society has engrained upon us the idea of entitlement and avoiding personal responsibility. I can have an abortion because it is my body and you can't tell me what to do with it! I am going to get credit cards and charge them to the max because I deserve it! The government will take away your children because your children are entitled to an environment they deem appropriate! I won't plead guilty to murder because I was drunk when I got in my car and didn't know any better! Under what rules where any of these things promised to people? Certainly not the laws of nature, and definitely not the laws of God. I am trying to think of the time when a mother dog was thrown in prison because she would not allow a new puppy to suckle. I know for a fact that you can irritate a dog for days on end and the first time it bites at you, the dog is put to sleep. The dog shouldn't be entitled just like the drunk driver should not be entitled. And the puppy is not entitled to have a mother that would feed it, just like a child is not entitled to an 'appropriate' situation.

The fact of the matter is that all of our choices in life have consequences. If you screw around, you might end up with a pregnancy on your hands. I am really sorry for the inconvenience and change of lifestyle that requires, but you might have considered that before hand. The moral corruption of our society is based largely upon this principle. People have become really creative with the ways that they can avoid consequences. The problem is, that by avoiding one consequence, you thrust yourself into another, usually larger and usually morally implicated consequence. In other words, you get pregnant, you are guilty of fornication; you have the abortion to avoid one of the consequences of fornication, you are now guilty of murder! I know this is a heated debate, but whether the fetus is alive or not, you are avoiding the consequence by having an abortion, which is always worse, not better!

The problem is that the consequences avoided are frequently related to deity. Guilt is a huge part of that equation. However, whether you believe in deity or are an atheist, either way avoiding consequences leads to the degradation of the human soul. It creates calloused and selfish people who spend more time focusing on how to feel good without repercussions than on how to help each other and nurture those around us who are hurting and who possibly might need comfort as they make the decision to stand up and be honorable by facing the consequences of his or her actions. So next time you take a drink, screw around, abuse your child, etc. at least realize this: you are not only hurting yourself if you don't accept your consequences, but you are also contributing to the overall deterioration of society!

There's No Place for Peace!

I have spoken to several people lately that do not believe in war. I mock those who are so naieve. You see, I believe in God and the insurmountable peace that comes from following the path laid out by our Lord God Almighty, but I also believe in Satan and the great power of the devil over the feeble-minded and power driven individuals here on our wonderful planet.

To quote the wonderful late 80's and early 90's band, They Might Be Giants, 'you can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.' In other words, if you are 'negotiating' with an individual who is evil, and I do believe there are evil people, you can not possibly believe that you can come to an agreement that will be anything but triumphant for the evil person. There may be varying degrees of evil, but still, if a person is evil, there really is no 'negotiating.' I consider a leader very disillusioned if he or she can look evil in the eye, work on making a deal with the evil person, and then assume things will turn out well, or that the result is not that bad.

You do not reach results with these people by talking to them, you reach results by eradicating them--and how do you eradicate someone who is protected by hundreds, thousands, or (China) millions of minions? You go to war! You must remove the evil leader and eradicate the brainwashed minions as well. Yes, I realize that people change, but at whose expense--and how many? The Israelites had it right when they eradicated the Canaanites. Do not marry the Canaanite women.

Please do not throw out the blanket statement to me anymore that 'war is bad!' There can be no definitive when speaking on such a sensitive and far reaching topic. I will admit that many skirmishes can be avoided by talking, but come on folks, there are radical Muslims out there right now that want to eradicate you and I as selfish and evil Americans, and I believe there are truly evil leaders among them and thousands of brainwashed minions that will not be 'changed.'

Besides, the problem with labeling a war as 'justified' or not comes down to information, and how much information do you really have on the war in Iraq or Afghanistan? I am guessing you received your info from the press, which we all know is omniscient and purely objective in their reporting. The truth is, you and I will NEVER know the top secret information that leads to any war, and therefore, we become little more than ignorant judges. The real way to determine whether the war is justified or not is to judge your leaders instead--and I don't just mean Bush, I mean all of them. Everyone that received the privileged information and had a hand in making the decision to enter the war.

So think about war with a more open mind. Pray for your leaders and vote for those you think are good people. Then you can support the decisions he or she makes. Always strive for the inner-peace that comes from following Christ or whatever other moral tenets you may have, but realize that not all strive to do good like you and I, and that means some conflict will always be necessary.

I haven't watched Zeitgeist yet...

I suppose this means that I do not really know what I believe yet. If you have not seen it yet, perhaps you do not know what you believe either. Maybe we should both go to www.thislittlehell.com/2008/07/18/friday-zeitgeist-rules-and-regulations/ to take us to a website with the link. I am anxious to begin goosestepping with the rest of the country. If you look through my archives you will notice an article titled "Checkmate in 3 Moves." Such propaganda, and the effectiveness of it, will let you know where our country is on this slippery slope.

The control of information is a very scary thing to me. Years ago, there was an incident up in the Oakley area with the Singer and Swapp polygamist clans. During the incident, from my recollection, a journalist was not following rules and felt it more important to get the story than to keep himself alive, and the altercation ended with an Officer Fred House being shot and killed rescuing the individual. I am not sure about my facts on this, but I don't really care. Research it yourself if you really care, I don't claim to be a journalist and that is what I remember! Anyway, the point is, regardless of the facts, that I have hated the press ever since! I very much hate the 'right to know' mentality. I think the greater question is if I really care to know.

I realize this sounds very callous, but why on earth should I care about some stupid people being gunned down by gangsters? Why should I care about some little kid drowning at sugar house park? Why should I care about domestic violence, divorces, drug arrests, and the ecclectic actions of movie stars? Honestly, I see most news as fodder for gossips, not of any relvance to me and my life! I can not think of the tragedy in my life or that of my family's that was reported to me by the news before it was through other avenues--or that had the details correct, or as many details. I don't watch the news or read the newspaper because, for the most part, it is irrelevant!

As I mentioned, controlling information is a scary thing and I see most journalism as a fanatacism that is 99% hooking the ignoramuses and gossips and 1% leading those who are hooked down a very scary path of misinformation. This can only be cured by people who stop drinking the Kool-Aid (that one is for you, Trent,) start reading every day to exercise the brain, and start thinking things through on their own! So fine, read this column, but then do us all a favor and think about it and argue you own opinion. This is really the first step to 'save the planet!'

Should Government PREVENT Abuse?

I don't really know. My dilemma comes from the Preamble to the Constitution, 'provide for the common defense.' To what extent should that be taken? Here are three examples, all of which I have an opinion on, I just haven't decided if my opinion is correct yet...

Example 1: A woman arrives at the Maverik gas station (which happens to be a police substation where I live) and her two children are asleep in the car. She runs in the store real quick to buy some oil. Mind you, the whole front of the store is glass windows, she left the car running so it wouldn't get too hot, and she was only in the store maybe two minutes. When she exits, the police meet her at her car and tell her that they are supposed to arrest her on the spot and take her children into state custody. These officers ended up letting her off with a warning.

My opinion on this is that the situation is ridiculous. I fail to see the abuse in this situation. However, my in-laws related this story to me with pitch forks and torches in hand, ready to march on this poor lady's house. Get a life! Mind your own business! This is not abuse and the children didn't need protecting!

Example 2: This scenario is a little more serious, but not much. A woman goes into Walmart in the winter time and leaves her nine year old in the car with the three year old, and the car still running. Some concerned citizen (in other words busy-body) calls the police and the police this time do end up arresting the lady and taking the children from her.

My opinion here is pretty much the same as before. Mind your own ____________ (this is where I have one of my friends fill in the blank for me with, what my uncle calls a five dollar word) business people. Again, not abuse. I do think that a nine year old would be just fine in the running car for the 15 minutes mom is in the store.

Example 3: My wife's aunt is severely anorexic. Both her and her husband are in denial. They have two children that, I believe are abused. Father is not around much because of work and school and doesn't seem to have the cohones to stand up to Mother anyway. Mother is completely out of touch with reality and, in an effort to be the best mom she can restricts the amount of food the kids can eat, schedules their day out in 15 minute increments, disciplines the children when they laugh out loud, and the youngest child wore socks on his hands until he was about a year old so he wouldn't grab things, and was prevented from moving to the point where an expert has been sent to work with the child because he couldn't roll over, scoot, crawl, grab things, make any sound or track anyone with his eyes. Those children are abused!

My opinion is that it is the responsibility of the family to intervene with the children. I don't ever want the state to intervene in these type of situations because I think that if anyone from the state would show up to take my children, they would be greeted at the door with a shotgun pressed up against his or her nose! I think that the parents will get their consequences later on in life and, possibly not until the next life. The problem with this opinion is that the children are still being abused. If there is no one in the family that has any clout with the mother and father (mother's mom and dad or sister--might I add, one of the same people that was ready to crucify the mothers in the previous two examples), that has the testicular fortitude to say and/or do something, do we stand by as the children continue to be abused? The phrase wicked traditions of their fathers seems very applicable in this scenario...

I do believe that parents should be punished after the perpetration. Abused children do deserve justice. If the children are left in the car and it is not running, and they have to go to the hospital, the parent should be punished. The problem is, at what point can you punish the parents in example 3?

My conclusion is that I do believe in small government, and I do believe that there are many things that I believe God will punish people for that the government should stay out of all together.

2"X4" Up Side the Head

My wife made a comment to me last night that I really like to make a very inflammatory remark and then follow the remark up with my arguments. I could not disagree. The titles and first sentences of each of my blogs seems to be a smack up side the head with a 2"X4". All I can say is that where it was unintentional and subconscious before, now it will be very intentional. I like to challenge people and their thinking, and making such statements weeds out those that are unwilling to be open-minded and think through different ideas. Those kind of people are a waste of my time to discuss my concepts with. I don't consider myself superior to these people, but Kool-aid drinkers are afraid of higher level thinking. I hate when an individual graduates from college and goes through the rest of his or her life refusing to question the things they were taught. Social studies classes are the worst for that. So here is my challenge to all of the college Kool-aid drinkers out there. Read the title, not the body of my blogs and then defend your college professor's position in a comment to me. If you struggle putting together a rational argument, then read the body of my comment. I don't care if you agree with my ideas, maybe at very least my thoughts will help you think for yourself and solidify your own opinion!

This one is the drill deal!

So, as with most things, once you study the drilling for oil option, you find that there is much more depth to the topic that there appears to be. Don't get me wrong, I am still a huge supporter of drilling for oil in ANWAR, but mainly for my capitalist ideals. I have found 3 reasons why drilling may not be the answer to high gas prices. These 3 reasons are the supply/demand curve, the nationality of those who drill, and, the big ugly--capitalism.

Oil, like most other things on the market except food (which is regulated by a global communistic organization), is controlled by the supply and demand curve. In essence, production and price are regulated by the supply and the demand for oil. The problem we face is that oil companies have now tested out the economy and found that we, as Americans will indeed pay $4.00 for a gallon of gas. People are still driving, and maybe some have changed their habits, but all the oil produced is still sold. So here is the million dollar (or perhaps billion dollar) question. Suppose someone drills for oil here in the great U.S of A. and begins to produce more oil for a cheaper rate. Do you think that, out of the goodness of the oil baron's heart, he is going to pass those savings on to you? I will tell you my thought process. I want the money in my hands so I can control where the money goes. If I am truly philanthropic, will those I care to help be better off paying $2.00 les per gallon of gas, or will they be better with me using the money to help them out with new businesses, additional training, etc. Things that can help them become more financially independent! I understand that the argument from the other side is that I am assuming the oil baron is philanthropic, but, even if they are not philanthropic, that money will most likely end up in investments for the person to make even more money, and we all know that the money used for investments would be much better off feeding some--sorry--loser with no ambition who will need that help again tomorrow. Anyway, my point is that producing more oil is not necessarily going to cause anyone to lower gas prices. Only government regulation will do that...can you say communism!

My second point is that those who will be drilling for the oil will not necessarily be American. From what I understand, Americans are very small players when it comes to the oil drilling industry. Erego, where will the oil go? I guess if the person is patriotic, he or she will send the oil to his or her home country, but most likely it will go to the highest bidder.

That leads me to my third point--assuming that those who drill are American, is someone going to play the patriotic card on them? I imagine some liberal, maybe John McCain, will approach that individual and tell them that the oil really needs to stay here in the United States. Ultimately, money speaks louder than the mother country (and of course the wife speaks louder than them both--happy wife, happy life, right?!) and my bet is that the person would instead decide to sell to the highest bidder and leave America and purchase an island somewhere in the Carribean and start his or her own country! Anyway, you can, and in my opinion should, allow drilling in the U.S., but you can not control where the oil or money goes, and you can not control the charge for the gas. Well, I guess you can control all of that, just like Stalin did!

I really like my friend Ted's idea. We start a new 'Moon Shot' program for energy. I hate NASA because it is beyond me what studying rocks from Mars is going to net, aside from a larger national debt. However, he makes a great point that so much technology, including the personal computer and internet came from the rush to beat the Russians to the moon. The problem is that we would be competing with ourselves and that just isn't as effective as having a good old fashioned nemesis to compete with. So maybe China could try to power the T.V. sets of the world before us. Maybe I will send a letter to China's emperor...

Converting to Imperialism

Okay, so first fascist, now imperialist. I guess I am wading into dangerous territory, but I can do that on this blog because it is only a few of my acquaintances who are reading this blog anyway. My point today is based on inner-peace, not world peace (or as I once saw on a bumper sticker, 'whirled peas.') This is somewhat of a shameless plug for Christianity (not Christianity's definition but a Mormon's definition) but have you ever noticed that the only recorded periods in history of true world peace revolve around Jesus Christ? Granted, it may be that the only source for these occurences are in the Bible and Book of Mormon, but non-Christians throughout history have known how to write too, haven't they? Truth be told, it is probably the fault of the Knights Templar (throw Christians and Freemasons under the bus) that there are no records of world peace from non-Christian sources because they destroyed them all. Anyway, my point is that world peace is only possible through inner-peace of all in a society and the only time I know of when that has occurred coincides with a good old fashioned come to Jesus party (quite literally.) So, without said party, world peace is a waste of time. Personally I would rather have, and can have inner-peace by hosting my own little party.

So how does this all tie in to Imperialism. Let us use the epitome of peace and love and look to nature! I am reminded of a Tom and Jerry cartoon clip where a dog is hypnotized into thinking he is a gazelle. He wanders around throughout the whole show and states quite emphatically to passersby that "[He is] a gazelle!" Allow me to throw out there, I don't want to be the gazelle in nature. Do you ever watch national geographic? I would rather be the lion. Being the gazelle sucks. And what is more, I would much rather be the dominant lion. You know, the one that doesn't get torn to shreds because he is a pansy and wants to do the nasty with one of the hot pieces of lion tail. Or, for that matter, the tough lion that doesn't get wallopped when, as a leader of his own pride, he treads on another lion's territory. Yeah, that lion. But it is so humane (or would it be lionane) to tear other lions and gazelles to shreds. Look how peaceful and balanced nature is! And yes, that is exactly my point. Nature is balanced, and that can not exclude mankind.

This harsh and cruel world favors the brave and the tough. In this sense I am going to call King Arthur a pansy soicalist because he fought against the creed of 'might makes right.' You see, world peace is not simply the lack of war. World peace can only be attained through all members of society reaching an inner-peace and improving to his or her own fullest potential. Quite honestly, to paraphrase my uncle, I have met too many of my fellow human beings and frankly, I am not too optimistic about reaching this worldwide nirvana anytime soon. I believe his quote is (stolen from someone else, I believe): Losing faith in mankind one person at a time. You see, you have oil and I need oil. You are a bunch of pansies with spears and slings and I can just shoot you. It does me no good to teach you how to produce oil because you are still walking or taking a camel and, last I checked, neither required oil. Therefore, I move in, kick your tail all over the sandy desert and take your oil, just like the lion and gazelle. Now that is balance for you! The circle of life right? I use up all of my oil (which doesn't take long because we really care about interrupting caribou sex), move in to your country wipe you out to use your oil and in the process return the precious carbon deposits back to the earth to turn back into more oil! I don't see what is wrong with that!

Okay, so I admit that is a little bit extreme, but you can use the same argument about terrorism. We know where the terrorists are or how to get them to gather in different locations (Irag.) So, since most of us as Americans do want to live long and full lives (in whatever manner you deem appropriate) let us remove the threat that has treaded upon our territory and kick a pansy lion's keister before he finds himself some nice American lion tail (figuratively--you can figure out the analogy yourself.) I guess my point is number one, I don't have a problem with war. It is a part of nature, including man, and always will be as long as that inner-peace can not be reached en masse. Second, you can be at peace even without world peace. And third, I don't think it does us any good to send aid to impoverished places in the world. They just don't get it. We didn't evolve because we were given technology, we evolved because we earned our technology. You must yearn for it to learn it, and learn it to earn it. Kind of catchy, I just made that up on the spot here. Yearn to learn and learn to earn. Okay that really does actually kind of suck, but oh well, it makes my point. Might really does make right and Robin Hood, not King Arthur had it right all along. I used to love King Arthur and hate Robin Hood because I saw Robin Hood as a socialist S.O.B. what with all of his redistribution of wealth and all. But I guess really he worked hard, made a good income and then turned his earnings toward charity, which is really as it should be!

Apology

I want to apologize to my friend, Greg for misrepresenting his side of the argument. Please refer to his comment on 'Get Your Big Government Outta My Way' to get his actual opinion. I think his point must have been misunderestimated by me. I am not worried about offending him, he is certainly thick-skinned and open to debate--I just want to make sure my reader (singular on purpose) knows his point.

Converting to Fascism

I only just recently began to understand Fascism. Oddly enough, it is because of a political survey on Facebook that I am beginning to understand it. The survey, called 'Political Compass' is a two dimensional survey that rates your moral and fiscal ideals. On the x-axis is where you rank fiscally. The far right relies on capitalism and the far left on communism. To the right is smaller government and to the left, larger.

The y-axis rates your moral ideals. I think the y-axis differs from the x-axis because with the x-axis, right is less government and left is more whereas, with the y-axis, up and down are both bigger government and to the center is less government. The reason I say that is because to the North is Fascism and to the South Anarchy. It seems odd that I would claim that Anarchy means larger government, but I think that Facebook improperly labeled that part of the compass. The difference is that, with the fiscal axis, as you develop more legislation, by nature you move away from capitalism. Capitalism is a ruling force in and of itself which requires the absence of governement and legislation to function at its best. However, with the moral axis, you have three choices: you legislate for, you legislate against, or you leave people alone to govern their own morals. The classic example right now is that of gay marriage. Left alone, the issue is purely a moral issue to be decided by individuals, families and churches. The moment government insists on ruling for or against the issue, you can no longer just be accepting of others moral decisions. You are forced to make a stand one way or another, or let others choose for you. Thus 'conversion to fascism.'

An analogy that makes sense to me is that of a home. Inside your home you are safe and secure with your beliefs and morals. When your home catches fire, you are no longer safe and sound staying inside the home, you must choose to escape or fall victim to the flames by staying inside. Friends, our homes are on fire! Every moral issue is being challenged today. If it hasn't yet been challenged, it soon will. If you stay in your home, you run the risk of being subjected to the morals of others (burned by the fire.) However, if you choose to stand up for your morals, you are no longer safe and secure inside the four walls of your home, able to adhere to your own moral ideals without the intrusion of others. You no longer can be considered accepting, or even tolerant of others ideals, because someone threw you an ultimatum and you chose. I am not afraid to leave the burning home and stand proud, exposed to the world, wearing the colorful and flamboyant frock of my morals. I was and still am accepting of you and your morals, though I may not approve, but you pitted me against you by demanding the choice. You started my home on fire and so now, instead of standing next to you with my arm around you in friendship, I stand toe to toe with you and, at best, extend a hand of friendship to you. Burn down my home, and I will become a goose-stepping Fascist, without thought of offending. Leave my home alone and we can stand side by side.

Chances are, if the analogy here is too deep for you, you are one of the pigs burning down my home! I want to note here, though, that if you do burn down my home, and I end up standing on the same side of the issue with you, my disdain for you is equal to that which I have for the minions of Hell! Burn in peace, dear friend, for your hypocrisy and intolerance will earn you an eternity of damnation, and believe me, I refuse to be on your side for that.

In case you didn't pick up on the point, I choose to be against gay marriage. Not because I am intolerant, but because you could not be satisfied with me just being accepting of your moral beliefs. You want to cram your immoral and heinous lifestyle down my throat, and yes, I will not only refuse to swallow, but also I will beat you down with all of my resources! I finally understand the L.D.S. church's stand against gay marriage.

Drove My Chevy to the Levee

Muskrats--1
Missourians--0
(If you don't get it, google muskrats, Missouri and levee)

Call today to order your George W. Bush government trained rodent...

Get Your Big Government Outta My Way!

Three evenings ago I had a conversation with a friend on the phone about politics--shocker, I know. Actually it is quite a shocker because my wife won't allow me to play with my friends if I argue with them. At very least she leaves the room. Anyway, my friend has very convincing arguments for moving to the middle. I as usual am a slow thinker when it comes to debate, so when I am approached with a new topic, it takes me a while to decide where I stand and develop the rebuttal to defend my position. And so, after a very convincing argument about the evil and power of big business, I have decided to stand firm on my radical, right wing ideals.



His argument was that, first and foremost, I am not that far off from the most radical, left wing people. He argued that I believe big government to be evil and leaned on big business to solve the problems of the world and that the oppposite is true with socialists, and so by wanting to beat big government into submission, I am not that far off from the ideals and tactics of the far left. He stands in the middle because he thinks both are evil and both should be in check by the other. I am summarizing and doing absolutely no justice to his argument, but it is hard to eloquently explain someone else's view point.



My argument is simple and, as of yet undeveloped. I argue that it is easier for the people to remove power from big business than from big government. Also, big business is earned; big government is acquired by a popularity contest usually relying on pandering and lies. Last, big business is based on choice, big government is devoid of choice.

So first off, how do you remove a corrupt government official? You certainly can impeach him or her, but that is nothing more than a scarlet letter on his or her forehead (Captain Lollipop Bill). The problem comes in the dissemination of information. Now if you believe the press truly is objective, first I have bridge for sale with a lovely view of the S.F. bay, and second I don't want you to have the right to vote any more! Voting comes with a responsibility that few undertake--research. Please don't believe everything you are told. And for heaven's sake (and all American's sake) please read a history book or two and develop your philosophies a little. I am not saying that if you are educated you will think one way or another, I don't care what you think, just think! The problem is that in order to remove a corrupt government official, it takes education and therefore a removal of ignorance.

In contrast, collapsing a big business is more an emotional act. In capitalism, your dollar is your vote. The leaders in business are leaders because people are casting their votes for them. Bill Gates would not be the success he is without having developed something that most of the civilized world voted for with their dollars. When a big business collapses, it is because of corruption, in which case the economy benefits (Enron), or because people are not voting for you with their dollars because they don't like your product (Apple)--and that is purely emotional-based. How many times do you have to be screwed over by a company or their product before you refuse to buy from them any more? If your answer is not once, you must really like the product, or you are a Sadist.

Now put the two together. Government really does have a product--governing. When you hate George W. Bush or Bill Clinton and their way of governing (their product) what do you do to get rid of them? How has that been working for you? When your mechanic lied to you and screwed you over, what did you do to get rid of them? Now tell me this, who still plays a role in your life, your mechanic or your President?

My second point is very similar to the first because it is also based on information. Elections are based on a selective dissemination (I always feel dirty saying that word) of information for a short period of time. When the campaigning is over and the election stands, how is the elected official held to their campaign promises. Even the most moral of people feel the pressure to pander to individuals or groups. And then, goodbye to the campaign promises. However, every day big business must hold up to their promises. If they don't, you don't buy and they lose power. Whether you like it or not, companies like in big oil are thriving because you and your fellow Americans vote for them every day. And will you stop voting for them. Most likely not, because you love the product they offer. Free industry will always find an answer. If someone dislikes the product enough, they will develop a new one and if others like their product, they will gain power.

People hate big business for many reasons, one of which is the influence they have on the government and legislation. But, I ask, is it possible for big business to influence these things if there is no such thing as big government? I would like to say no, but that is merely speculation. However, if the government is limited, then how much does the influence of big business really affect you--I would conclude in a 'limited' way.

My last point is again, related to the two previous, but enough different to give it a separate paragraph or two. The very subtle difference between big government and big business is choice. In a communist regime, you have no choice about where to work, how much you want to make, how much to donate to charity, etc. And, my friends, socialism practiced, is communism. There is no other way. Big business is selfish, yes, but you have a choice. Where to work, how much to make, how much to donate to charity, etc. This is a survival of the fittest setting and you are totally empowered to come up with ways to survive. If you choose to help others survive too, you are that much better for it. But, you chose. Someone else didn't choose for you. My friend mentioned earlier was arguing that I am very similar to the left-wing nuts because we both want to see everyone taken care of, I believe. This is true, but I want the choice to do it. I do not receive blessings for being forced to do something, I receive blessings for my choices. Government should not be 'compassionate,' it should be amoral. Please do not confuse that with immoral--I mean amoral, without the capacity to be moral or immoral. In other words, the government shouldn't care that you lost your job, or you are old, or you got pregnant as a teenager. Therefore, if it is amoral, it should not legislate to help people out in these circumstances. You and I have the capacity to be moral or immoral. Help people if you can. Otherwise, it is survival of the fittest out there in the cruel world, baby, and I will be the last one standing with my friends and family, if it comes to that!

Disaster Quandry

Aren't we good Christian people here in the United States? We argue and fight with communist governments half way around the world begging them to let us bestow our charity upon them when it is not wanted...

To Compete or Not to Compete...

...I don't get a say in that question!



Have you ever signed a non-compete agreement? Why!?! Chances are you are like one of my many minions and your hand was guided through the loops and lines and curves of your Herbie Hancock by fear--fear that you would not have a job unless you signed. So what do you do with it and would it really hold up in court. Of course any lawyer would say definitely maybe. As of this morning, I have heard arguments for yes and no. There is the philosophy that a non-compete can be written in such a way that it can not be broken by the wisest of lawyers, but that monster is about as realistic as bigfoot--of course in my ignorant opinion.



I really do understand the importance of the non-compete to certain business owners, I just do not agree with them. Non-compete agreements are little more than another government shelter for those who fail to compete effectively in the market. Maybe if the individuals being forced in to signing the non-compete agreements were viewed as more than a piece of rented equipment, and all their original thoughts and ideas as commodities of the business rather than well earned inspiration, then fewer of those individuals would leave and take away your customers (unless they have a personality like mine and do not play well with others to begin with.)



I have three main reasons for disagreeing with non-compete agreements and they relate to competition, a customer's right to choose, and caring for your employees.



First of all is competition. It is crucially important to understand why it is that people are choosing to become your client. If people are choosing to become your client because they really like one of the people working for you, and that person leaves, what are you left with? I have learned a lot about marketing lately thanks to my business advisor, and one of the important steps in developing a marketing plan is clearly defining your products and then also defining how you are going to set yourself apart from your competition. If your primary selling point is your low cost, that is terrific, but it is also a very fragile thing upon which to base your marketing. If an employee leaves you and offers a cheaper product or lower price--and that is what your clientele is basing their decision upon, you are going to lose that customer. However, if your company offers many intangible things along with the products and services, then your customers may be purchasing from you instead of your competition because of the intangibles you offer, as opposed to price.



The ski resorts here in Utah can be used for a great analogy on this topic. Why, do you suppose, do the ski resorts have more clients during the winter than the summer? Okay, stupid question, right? But that is exactly my point. The people that love to ski and snowboard go where the snow is. Some people are driven exclusively by the almighty dollar in their consumption, but not all. If I can get something for a fair price and it includes a pat on the back and a smile, I am there! So, for a company that fears losing clients to former employees, what will your former employee offer and how can you out compete him or her in the market.



Number two is the client's right to choose. It would be a beautiful endeavor to be able to put a chain on all of your clients and not allow them to leave. Unfortunately, we can not do that. Your clients may or may not have a familiar relationship with you, but, either way, you do not get to force people into purchasing from you, and, if you fail to meet your client's needs and one of your former clients does, you really get no say in their decision. This all somewhat comes back to the topic of competing, but from the opposite side of the coin. If you are a consumer, you do not want your choices limited by some middle school staking of territory. If a former employee can leave and start his or her own business and out compete you, then you have failed and he or she deserves your business.

The last reason I have briefly mentioned. Retain your employees! If your employee is talented enough that he or she could leave your business and take clients with them, do all you can to keep the employee around--or prepare for battle. Either way, the end goal is to keep money coming in to your company and the only way to do that is to keep clients. Besides, there are so many benefits to happy employees, but that is another post.

In closing, the term 'non-compete' in and of itself is offensive to me! Sounds like communism...

Tanker You Capitalism

I recently entertained the opinion of a friend about the involvement of governement in the market. The story goes that there are tankers marooned in a bay in India. These tankers are owned by some rich individual(s) there in India and they are paying people $1.50 a day to tear apart the tanker so the metal can be sold as scrap. Apparently, the workers do not wear shoes, they sleep in the mud, and there are frequent accidents during the process which results in the maiming or death of the workers. All very tragic occurences.

My friend's side of the argument is that the government should at very least regulate the on-site safety for the workers.

My side of the argument is that government involvement is a slippery slope. Safe conditions would undoubtedly mean steel toe boots for the workers--so the employer or the governement (India's loyal taxpayers...) would have to pay for those. Next, the workers could not be left to sleep in the mud, so housing would be required for all workers. If you are putting the workers in houses, you would have to provide transportation to and from the job site. Now the workers are clothed and housed appropriately, they would need to be making more than $1.50 a day for their labors, so a minimum wage would have to be instituted. The work site would have to be accessible by handicapped people and you of course would have to give equal chance at employment to the buddhists that you would to the hindus...where do you stop and when is it enough. By the way, this sounds very familiar to me!!!

Additionally, the answer to the bleeding heart stance that it is just not fair for these workers is first and foremost that you could not be more absolutely correct. Since when was life fair! I would guess that every one of those workers knew what they were getting in to before hand and willingly accepted the opportunity to earn a fair day's wages.

Not only that, but also, the solution to the problems is the same solution for most of the world's problems--capitalism. You see, the way the system works is that some individual feels bad for the way things are going for the workers--or just sees a money making opportunity--and buys his own tankers to maroon in the next bay over. He then buys his workers boots, housing, transportation and pay them $2.50 an hour. Where are the workers going to go to work? Hmmmm. And if you have all the workers, how much work are you getting done compared to your competition? And if you are producing more than your competition, who will control the market prices? And voila (I can't tell you how much it pains me to use a FRENCH word!), a free market economy!

To satisfy the potential claims of my ignorance, I will say that I realize that this is not an overnight process, but it is so clean and easy. Might I add there are no taxpayer funded debates about where to draw the line and how much regulation is appropriate. The less you can involve government, the better!

Checkmate in 3 moves

If you are going to vote for me, you ought to understand a little about me. I have a simple plan to take over the world in 3 moves. When it happens though, it will all be cuddly puppies and fluffy bunnies. I am operating on the premise that the ALL nature functions on the premise of survival of the fittest. ALL nature, including humankind. Those blasted Capitalist pigs thrive on this idea. They are perfectly comfortable with the idea of the lazy, non-producers in our society being weeded out by nature. The pigs have the nerve to blame his or her failure on his or her own short comings or laziness. The ignoramuses! Don't they know it takes a whole village and they are all part of the village?!? They haven't failed society and themselves, society has failed them. Do they really think that the world would be better off without free handouts and societal leeches?



Anyway, back to survival of the fittest. What we really need to do is beat back nature and sustain every human. When we accomplish this task, we will finally achieve world peace and every soul would be happy regardless of his or her ability to contribute to society. The plan is to first control the dissemination of information; second to give everyone in the world everything they need--not want, but need; and third is to make sure people are afraid to rebel against the system. This is my plan for world domination, and in turn, world peace.



The first step is to control all information. We have to be able to control what people hear about their society so that we can tailor a feeling of despair. You see, sheep don't follow unless they see a need for a leader. I have to create in everyone's mind a feeling that there is absolutely no hope left in life unless they all follow me. I plan on doing this by fabricating a huge fear of the environment. The world is spinning wildly out of control and we will all burn up and die unless we unite under one leader who can guide us back to safety. Also, there can not be a perceived threat from any other group of humans. If a group were to be, say, terrorists, then the sheep will not trust those people and can't be on the same team as them. Finally, the people need to hear story after story of good people struggling against nature to survive but they have failed time and again by no fault of their own. The enemy--nature--has to be perceived as unconquerable without the rest of the world uniting.



The second step is to make sure everyone has what they need. Obviously, there is not enough in the world to provide for everyone in the world to have everything they want, so we must only provide what they need. This means that everyone with wealth of any form, except the leadership, has to sacrifice what they already have to provide for everyone else in the world. The leaders of course have to be able to maintain their wealth because some things are just far too difficult to liquidate or recycle and we can not waste these things. The object is to create a fat, lazy people that are incapable of revolting against the system, because let's just put it out there, Chris Farley wasn't about to attack any one if something was unfair. Granted, production will decrease, but we can dress everyone in burlap sacks, universalize health care, and put them to work in the agricultural industry producing food, which is most important. When people are busy all day working to obtain food, they stay out of trouble and are easier to control.



Last, any who rebel must be severely punished in public in order to prevent people from gaining the courage to revolt. This fear is necessary for peace. Discourage the people first, then make them sorely afraid to try and overcome the discouragement. The first generation of people will struggle with the changes, but their children will accept the new way of life, and their children will be divinely happy, with no worries or cares at all. Fear worked in the Lord/Serf social order and it worked wonders on the Children of Israel in Egypt and has for over 1500 years with Catholics, especially with the inquisition. Never has the Earth seen a happier society than the serfs, the Children of Israel, and the Aztecs under Catholic rule.



So this is my three step plan to world peace through global domination. I promise to implement this plan as President. Vote for me!



P.S. It is very scary how far along this path we have already progressed...Are you afraid to revolt?

Welcome, Pusilanimous Sycophant

If you are intelligent enough to actually read this blog, then you are probably wise enough to figure out I am not at all a progressive! In fact, you probably don't get any more right wing than I am. Contact me personally to learn which conspiracies I am involved in--actually, you know what, I am involved in all of them. I go to the weekly meetings and arrive by a private helicopter (black of course), which I keep in the underground bunker behind my house, next to the nuclear holocaust button. For those of you wondering, the button is not red, it is blue. I much prefer blue, except when in reference to the scum of the earth Democrats.

Anyway the purpose of this blog is to offend as many people as possible, expose the world domination ploy of the 'Progressives' (liberals in communist clothing), and sway as many people as possible to vote for me so that when the inevitable take over of the communist, I mean progressive party happens, I can switch my alignment and be in control of millions of minions as opposed to being robbed of all I have earned and stuck in a bread line...

Enjoy!