Happy Thansgiving

Author's note:  I've got stuff to do today, and I'm too lazy to proofread this.  Ignore the mistakes and/or figure out what I was trying to say for yourself.

Years ago, I first heard while listening to Rush.  The real story of the first Thanksgiving and the failure of communism.  Nowadays, every year, many bloggers will post same story, and I don’t disagree with them for doing so.  It’s a story that should be repeated as often as possible.  

The moral of the story is, communism doesn’t work, but let’s take a look at why it doesn’t.

Communism fails everywhere, every time, it is tried, and it’s not because (as liberals believe) a failure in execution.  It is due to a failure in principle.  Human beings are selfish and lazy.  They tend to not give a full effort unless they think that the fruits of their labor is going directly to themselves.  To confirm this, all you have to do is observe the amount of sweat produced during a community project versus when a farm family is trying to get all their hay up in the mow before it rains.

“Selfish” and “lazy” are generally pejorative terms, but being selfish and lazy are also two vital ingredients of survival.  A caveman didn’t expend any more effort at any given time, than he needed to, because he knew he might need to exert much more effort at a moments notice, at any given time.  (Like if a dinosaur snuck up on him and he had to quickly run away.)  Today, we call that, energy conservation.  

Being selfish and lazy are also two of the main ingredients for invention and human evolution.  Why did cavemen invent and use tools in the first place?  Because they made life easier, and that appealed to the laziness of human nature.  The more tools the cavemen invented to save themselves time and effort, the more time and effort could be devoted to developing new technologies.  Eventually, the cavemen with these technologies, permanently displaced those tribes who did not. Selfishness and laziness are in our DNA.  They’re not necessarily bad things, they’re just not conducive communal living.

OK, so we admit that we are all, by nature, selfish and lazy, and we understand that those two aspects of human nature are main reasons why communism does not work.  So why then, do we still have people who advocate communism, socialism, or some form of  it?  Oddly enough, the thought process of these people is driven by the very things that make communism fail.  They’re selfish and lazy.

“How can that be?” you might ask, “that the ingredients that drive human progress and evolution are same factors that motivate people to push a failed ideology?”   Go get a drink and a snack.  Explaining this is gonna take a while.

Alright, you all settled in?  Here it is.  Even though we are all selfish and lazy, we are not all stupid, we’re not all cowards, we’re not all greedy, and we all don’t have a lust for power.  All liberals however, have at least one of those last four attributes, any one of which can make one susceptible to lure of communism.  Let’s take a look as to how.

Easiest explanations first.  Many liberals are just too stupid to even have ever considered any of the things I have just written above.  They never even thought about the fact that socialism and human nature are at odds with each other, or they naive enough to think, “This time, things are going to be different.”

Liberals are often cowards. They’re just as selfish and lazy as anyone else, but they are afraid of looking as if they are.  That is why they tend to gravitate towards things like government, academia, or community service.  Areas where there is no direct comparison with a competitor, or other measure of effectiveness.  These are the type of people that would rather participate in a tug of war at a picnic, than a race.  If their team loses, nothing can be blamed directly on them.  These people often once tried and failed to make it in the real world, and rather than trying again, they quit entirely.  

There’s nothing wrong with that.  We need community organizers (or do we?) too.  The problem is, that these people resent the people that did try and try again, and then eventually succeeded.  That’s where that “You didn’t build that”, “It takes a village”, “99% vs 1%” crap comes from.  It’s OK to be lazy (we all are), just don’t resent those who weren’t quite as lazy as you.

The funny thing about liberals is that although they are the first to accept Darwinism as vehicle to explain away the existence of God, they are the least likely to accept the modern day consequences of it. The people I described in the above paragraphs, should been swept away long ago, but now, we either find homes for them in government or education, or we simply give them money.

Although liberals share the same qualities of laziness and selfishness as everyone else, many of them lack the competitive spirit that most of the rest of us have.  Their favorite solutions to the problems of disparity always involve taking from the winners and giving to the losers.  The end result of this will always be more losers, and fewer even trying to be winners.  Eventual failure for all, is guaranteed.

Greed is a term that liberals love to toss around, but like laziness and selfishness, depending upon how you define it, greed is not always a bad thing.  Lefties will describe a rich businessman as being greedy, but in his pursuit of wealth, the businessman enriched many more people than just himself.  In a free market, you cannot conduct a transaction without enriching someone else.  A customer values a baker’s bread more than the money the baker is charging for it and vice versa, plus the government takes their share to run all those wonderful liberal programs.  Even if the baker is greedy, other people benefit from his greedy scheme of turning bread into money.  These last two sentences can be described as “creating wealth”.

My definition of greed is obtaining wealth without creating it.  Like say, a community organizer, from Illinois, who was born in Kenya, never produced a dime of wealth in his life, and is hell bent on taking as much wealth from people who did create it as he possibly can.  Another example might be a community organizer that somehow manages to make money simply by infusing himself whenever there is a case of racial tension that makes national headlines, and nets even more money by not paying his, as liberals love to say, “fair share” of taxes.

The people in the above paragraphs are lucky liberals, who managed to use their greedy desires into wealth at the expense of others under the current economic system we now have.  There are still more, many more with every bit as much desire for wealth and power with just as little work ethic and competitive spirit.  These are the people who openly express the desire to bring about a full blown communist revolution, thinking that they will be the ones in power is such a thing ever occurred.  They’re too stupid to realize that, that is a very dangerous game.  They should look at Russian history and note how many people who supported the Bolshevik Revolution, simply disappeared shortly after it was over.

All of the different types of liberals that are described above are both selfish and lazy, but unlike the caveman, unlike the businessman, they don’t produce anything that creates any wealth or benefits mankind in any way.  Neither does communism/socialism.  Can you think of any item (other than various forms of punishment, murder, and torture) that was invented in a communist country?

Communism always fails.  No matter where it is tried.  No matter what level at which it is imposed.  Either from within, because of laziness and selfishness of the people who must endure it, or from the outside, by being economically overwhelmed by people/countries that have a competitive spirit and are allowed to produce as much wealth as they can.

Happy Thanksgiving, and when you’re thinking of things to be thankful for, be sure to be thankful (that at least up until now) don’t live under the tyranny of communism.





Thinking Like a Liberal is a Good Way to Get Yourself Killed

“...we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them.”
                                                        - Oliver Friedfeld

“Here’s the ‘cards’ that are in my hands...

gun-collection.gif

...and I’m ready to play.”
                                                        - Neil Schnurr




If you’ve been reading the Golden Geese for some time, you’ve probably familiar with “Mr. Leftie, who speaks in italics”.  You probably figured that he just a generic term I made up for any given uber-liberal, and while that is true, I think I just may have found the real life version of him.

2381DB3A00000578-0-image-7_1416962691861.jpg

Enter Oliver Friedfeld.  I heard about the editorial he wrote, while listening to Rush today.  Other bloggers are writing about it too, so you may already be familiar with it.  If not, you can read it here.

For those of you who don’t click on links, Oliver and his “housemate” (I don’t think I’ve ever heard that term used before, and it sends up some red flags.) were mugged last week, but he’s OK with it.  You know, ‘cause he’s got all that privilege and shit, and the muggers ain’t got jack.  In true liberal form, Oliver is wrong, and he wasted no time being so.  He even titled his piece, “I Was Mugged and I Understand Why”.  

The truth is that Oliver does not understand why he was mugged.  In order to understand something, one must be correct in one’s assessment of it.  One does not achieve understanding, simply by making up an explanation that fits one’s narrative.  Oliver saying that he understands why he was mugged is like saying ancient cultures understood what causes the wind and waves.

The real reason that he was mugged was that he met up with "bad people" who were both "criminals" and "thugs".

The shame of it all is that Oliver’s so close to the true explanation, that he even wrote the words, but by refusing to accept the explanation that is plainly visible to anyone with any common sense, he is more vulnerable than ever to repeat his experience.  He writes:

“I come from a solidly middle-class family, and, with relatives in Mexico City, certainly don’t consider myself entirely shielded from poverty. And yet I’d venture to guess that our attackers have had to experience things I’ve never dreamed of. When I struggled in school, I had parents who willingly sat down with me and helped me work through it. When I have a problem, I have countless people who I can turn to for solid advice.”

There you have it, Oliver.  Your attackers, and their parents are pieces of shit.  The things you mentioned are obligations that all parents owe to their children, and no amount of poverty or anything else, is a legitimate excuse for parents to neglect these obligations.  Likewise, there is no legitimate excuse to rob someone at gun point.

Oliver’s experience and editorial are perfect illustrations why liberals are so often wrong...  and wrong again.  Holding on to their beliefs is more important to them than what does and does not work in the real world.  That’s why they hang on so fiercely to things like global warming, renewable energy, light rail.  It doesn’t matter that all have been discredited, they fit their view of how they want things to be.

Conservatives understand that there are bad people out there.  They’ll do whatever they think that they can get away with, making excuses for them only increases their numbers and the amount of bad things that they do, and they can only be effectively dealt with by meeting them with a force that is more intimidating than they think they are.





He betrayed our trust, but we should be ashamed of ourselves

Hey, hey, hey, that's so not OK!

Authors note:  I can tell from my stats, that people are not clicking on the link at the end of this post.  In order to get the true message of this post, you have to click on the link that says "look at the perpetrator"

There are few things more disappointing and heartbreaking than to learn that some nationally known figure has betrayed our trust.

We took for granted that we should respect him, that we could trust him, that we should believe him.

Then, it becomes apparent that for decades, he has used the power of his position to coerce naive and vulnerable young women into have sex with him.

Many of us share the guilt, because we were accomplices by blindly taking the perpetrator at his word and automatically questioning the credibility of the victim.

We should, as society, be ashamed of ourselves, and never look at the perpetrator the same way again. (make sure to click on the link) 

(More) Proof He is Wrong

source: AP

Latin America applauds Obama's immigration plan

Read more.  Not really necessary.

Did you ever get an uneasy feeling when some fuck-up approves of what you're doing.  It kinda makes you want to step back and second guess yourself.

Just because a bunch of fuck-up countries that are unable to manage their own affairs give you a thumbs up, that doesn't mean that you are doing the right thing.  Quite the opposite.

Don't ever, ever, think that they're smarter than you

They're not.

You knew this all along:

source: What's Up With That?

Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’


google-greenA research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

A Night to Remember

I’m almost done with the Toyota.  I even put license and insurance on it and took it down the road for the first time in six and a half years.  It seemed to run pretty good.  The tail lights weren’t working, but I just couldn’t wait any longer.  I figured I could fix them after dinner.

So there I was, in the shed, with the tail lights all torn apart, and about a half an hour of work to do before I can consider this project finished, and my son walks in.  I knew what he wanted.  Our pond had finally frozen solid enough to go skating.  

Yeah, I’m so close to getting this truck done, I can taste it, but it’s taken me over half a decade.  It can wait another day.  My son wanted to go skating with me, so I put my selfish desires aside.  That’s what fathers do.  Anyway, I knew it will be worth it, both immediately and for years to come.

Both of us will remember at least some parts of this night for the rest of our lives.  We don’t take any pictures.  We don’t need ‘em.  One of us will speak and bring up times skating last year or years before, what the weather was like, what the ice was like, the times we fell through thin ice, and the other always recalls the moments just as well.

We will talk about how our day went, cars, current events, friends and family too, but even these topics will spark a memory of skating.  I’ll remember skating with my dad, thirty and forty years ago.  I’ll recall running around on the ice in my boots when I was three and could not yet skate, as the rest of my family glided along on the ice.  

I’ve spent thousands of hours playing hockey, crack the whip, tag, racing, and just talking as we skated around the perimeter of a pond.  My parents weren’t very good with taking pictures either.  Of all the time I have spent skating and playing hockey, there are probably fewer than a dozen photographs of it, but so much is permanently burned into my memory.

Even though we didn’t record it, even though we didn’t spend any money, even though we don’t have any souvenirs, I know that parts of tonight will be forever etched into my son’s memory as well.





You Want to Save the Environment? Start Wasting Paper!

If you believe in man made global warming, the best thing you can do is to use as many non-recycled paper products as possible and dispose of them in a landfill.  Why?


Read this:


source: How Stuff Works


Even after a landfill is closed, the trash buried there will remain.

What Happens to Trash in a Landfill?

Trash put in a landfill will stay there for a very long time. Inside a landfill, there is little oxygen and little moisture. Under these conditions, trash does not break down very rapidly. In fact, when old landfills have been excavated or sampled, 40-year-old newspapers have been found with easily readable print. Landfills are not designed to break down trash, merely to bury it. When a landfill closes, the site, especially the groundwater, must be monitored and maintained for up to 30 years!




You’ve heard it before.  Nothing ever breaks down in landfills.  Newspapers that have been in landfills since the Kennedy administration, can still be read plain as day, bla, bla, bla.


Now, read this:


source: MIT Technology Review


Storing Carbon Dioxide under the Ocean

A safe, high-capacity method could make carbon sequestration more practical.


A better way to store carbon dioxide: Pump it into the sea floor in liquid form. There high pressure and cold temperatures make it more dense than water in the surrounding rock, preventing it from rising to the surface. (Source: Daniel Schrag. Artist: Jared T. Williams)
One way to combat global climate change is to directly capture carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as it is being emitted, and store it safely. But methods of carbon dioxide sequestration, notably, pumping the gas into underground geologic structures such as exhausted oil reservoirs, are not practical in many areas, and raise fears that the stored carbon dioxide will escape.
Now researchers at Harvard University and Columbia University have proposed a new method for trapping nearly limitless amounts of carbon dioxide – a technique they say will be secure, as well as a practical option for areas located far from underground reservoirs.
The researchers, in an article posted online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, propose that carbon dioxide be pumped into the porous sediment a few hundred meters into the sea floor in deep parts of the ocean (greater than 3,000 meters deep), in what one of the researchers, Dan Schrag, professor of geochemistry at Harvard, calls “a fairly simple, permanent solution.”






You’ve probably seen this before too.  We could combat global warming by liquifying carbon dioxide and storing it on the ocean floor.


And then, we got the chick who wrote the article below.


source: AlterNet  If you ever go through a day and feel like you just haven’t been fed enough crap, make sure to check out AlterNet. ⇽ That’s not a link.  I just used blue underlined letters.  I don’t want you to visit AlterNet.  It scuks.


Does Having a Child Make Me an Environmental Villain?

Those serious about reducing their carbon footprint are forgoing parenthood. Should I feel bad that I didn’t?
I've got some of the standard maternal guilt that is ingrained in our culture: I worry that I am not spending enough quality time with my son, while also worried that I may be a "helicopter" mother. But my main source of guilt springs from the mere fact that I created a person. Specifically, an American person who will inevitably leave a large carbon footprint. It's environmental guilt.
There is a little voice in my head that chastises me every time I forget to bring my canvas bags to the grocery store, when I throw away coffee grounds that should be composted, or when I drive when I could walk or take the subway. The thing is, I'm just too damn tired sometimes. I have a one-year-old.
And that little voice; well, it's actually my husband's voice. I married an environmentalist who bikes to work and stops by the farmers market to drop off our compost twice a week. Usually, I love this about him. He challenges me to be a better person. But in 10 years of togetherness, our most heated arguments have been about my failure to live up to his environmental standards.
Read more.  Don’t fuckin’bother.  Once again, that’s not a link.


All right, all right.  What do we got here?
  1. We don’t need history books or news archives. Whenever we want to check out something from the pre-internet era, all we have to do is just go dig it up in a landfill.
  2. We can save the planet by liquifying CO2 and pumping it down to Davy Jones’ Locker.
  3. Stupid liberal chicks are reusing their toilet paper and tampons in order to save the environment.
What conclusions can we draw from all of this?
First of all, Maria Luisa Tucker is an idiot, second, burying that corpse of victim you murdered in a landfill wasn’t such a good idea, and third, some (probably all) schemes to combat global warming might be a little pricey, and have potential unintended consequences.
Here’s an idea that won’t cost us anything and just might keep Maria’s home from being so disgusting.
Use as many non-recycled paper products as possible and throw them away in landfills.
Why?
If what is said in the first article is true, throwing paper products in landfills has the same effect as liquifying CO2 and pumping it to the ocean floor, only better.  The CO2 on the ocean floor scheme only removes CO2 from the atmosphere, it is costly and energy intensive.  Plus, we don’t know if huge lakes of CO2 at the bottom of the ocean won't cause problems.
The used paper products in landfill scheme removes CO2 from the atmosphere via the growth of trees and stores the carbon in the form of used paper products, indefinitely. The paper products in landfill scheme has already been tested in the real world, plus as an added bonus, it requires the growth of many trees which produce oxygen.  Oxygen is good, right?  Or are the lefties now against oxygen too?  I have a hard time keeping up with them.
“But don’t we save trees if we use less paper?”
No, Mr. Lefty, who speaks in italics.  Using less paper does not “save” any trees.  If anything, it reduces the number of trees.
“What?  How can that be?”
The trees used to make paper are planted specifically for that purpose.  They’re a crop, just like corn, except it takes them longer to reach maturity, and just like with corn, the people/companies that plant them, try to take into account, the future demand of what products derived from that crop might be.
The higher the forecasted demand, the more is planted, so you see, if there is a general consensus among paper companies that there will be a continuing upward trend of paper consumption in the foreseeable future, more trees will be planted and more oxygen will be produced.  Conversely, if it is perceived that the consumption of paper products will decrease in the future, fewer trees will be planted.    Saying “Don’t use paper products” to “save the trees” is like saying, “Don’t eat Doritos” to “save the corn”.
Liberals are idiots.  Just like with the “War on Poverty”, forced bussing, minimum wage hikes, luxury taxes, (and the list goes on and on) they do damage to the causes/people they claim to care about.






Birds of a Feather - Both Claim They're Ready to Act This Week

These two dudes are basically the same.


national destroyer
local destroyer


























They both feel they can do whatever they want, regardless of the law, regardless of who or what they might be causing harm, and they both are supported by liberals.  Neither cares about the consequences.  The only difference is one threatens to cause destruction at a local level, and the other threatens to cause destruction at a national level.

No wonder one told the other to "Stay the course."

Democratic Thinking:

Quick!  Let's do more of what made us lose control of the Senate before we have to leave!

source: Yahoo News

Keystone XL pipeline bill dies in Senate

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bill to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline failed in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, sparing President Barack Obama from an expected veto of legislation that several fellow Democrats supported.
The measure fell just short of the 60 votes needed for passage, despite frantic last-minute lobbying by supporters, especially Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who faces a runoff election on Dec. 6. She has staked her hopes of winning a fourth Senate term on the Keystone gambit.
The tally was 59 to 41 on TransCanada Corp's $8 billion project, with all 45 Republicans supporting the bill.

Did you ever notice...

...how often when you sarcastically ask the question, "Who wudda thunk?", liberals are the ones who wouldn't have thunk?

So they decided to crack down on Fraternities and drinking on campus, but then this happened:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
source: College Insurrection


Cornell Overregulation of Fraternities May Have Driven Binge Drinking Off-Campus

This is the problem with the “fraternities are dangerous and drive students to drink excessively” narrative: fraternities are in fact the most regulated sources of alcohol on campus, whereas student drinking off campus is entirely lawless.
Chris Byrns at The Cornell Daily Sun reports:

Students Push for Review of Greek Quarter System

Students on campus are continuing to call for the examination of the quarter system, a set of controversial changes made to the Greek system in 2011 controlling formal contact between freshmen and chapters.
Citing concerns over the limited contact between freshmen and those involve in Greek life, as well as the perceived pushing of drinking “behind closed doors,” Cornellians pushing for change saw a victory Thursday when the Student Assembly unanimously called for the investigation of the system.

A “large portion of social activity has moved both behind closed doors and off campus entirely” to places such as Collegetown, according to the Cameron Pritchett ’15, president of the Interfraternity Council. These environments, according to Pritchett, tend to be of a higher risk because “event management guidelines are not necessarily followed.”
“When events take place on campus, in fraternity houses, bodies such as the IFC can regulate to ensure sober monitors are in place, no hard alcohol is present. The same is not possible off campus events,” Pritchett said.
Read the original article:
Students Push for Review of Greek Quarter System (The Cornell Daily Sun)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The kids started drinking more off campus.  Who wudda thunk? 

The Least Important Battle in the War on Drugs

pri·or·i·ty
prīˈôrədē/
noun
  1. a thing that is regarded as more important than another.
  2. "housework didn't figure high on her list of priorities"
    • the fact or condition of being regarded or treated as more important.
    • "the safety of the country takes priority over any other matter"
    • synonyms:

  • prime concern, most important consideration, primary issue
  • I just put that up there in case someone with better connections than I, wanted to forward it to the federal government.


    We all have things that we worry about, but for most of us, an old retired hippie smoking weed on his back porch or a stockbroker snorting a line of coke off of his office desk are not among them.


    The federal government says they have declared a war on drugs, but it is no wonder why they are losing that war.  They are doing a very poor job of prioritizing things.


    source: The Washington Post


    Federal drug agents launch surprise inspections of NFL teams following games

    Federal drug agents conducted surprise inspections of National Football League team medical staffs on Sunday as part of an ongoing investigation into prescription drug abuse in the league. The inspections, which entailed bag searches and questioning of team doctors by Drug Enforcement Administration agents in cooperation with the Transportation Security Administration, were based on the suspicion that NFL teams dispense drugs illegally to keep players on the field in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, according to a senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.
    The medical staffs were part of travel parties whose teams were playing at stadiums across the country. They included the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who played the Washington Redskins at FedEx Field, and the San Francisco 49ers, who played the New York Giants in New Jersey. DEA officials were expected to inspect six teams in all on Sunday.



       



    Most people are not concerned about the old hippie or the stockbroker, and why should they be?  We don’t have much of a problem with old hippies mugging people, or stockbrokers breaking into people’s homes to get money for their next high.


    Many people are worried about the heroin addict or meth head who is willing to do whatever it takes to get some fast cash, and they’re worried about drug gangs and the crime and violence associated with them.


    Now, how many of you have lost any sleep that some professional football player is going to rob you to get money for drugs?  Nobody?  Huh?  Then why the hell is our government wasting time and resources trying to bust NFL teams?  What difference does it make what kind or how many drugs football players take?  They could all O.D. for all I care.  


    There just aren’t that many players in the NFL, so whether the drug use by players was either 100% or zero%, it wouldn’t make a hill of beans worth of difference in the total amount of drugs used in this country, so why are the Feds going after them?  The same reason that the cops are out to destroy some working white guy who had a few beers after work and drives home while they let the gang bangers run wild.  It’s safe, it’s easy, there’s money in it, and it makes for good press.


    A working white guy gets busted for DUI.  He doesn’t pose any danger to the police officers, and he pays hundreds, if not thousands thousands of dollars in fines, and then he has to pay more for drunk driving classes and the ignition interlock.  It’s a pure profit center.  


    A gang banger is difficult and dangerous to apprehend, and doesn’t have a dime to his name.  Nothing but expense.


    A cop that busts the working white guy is a hero to groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, but a cop who busts a ganger is branded a racist.


    I doubt that the Feds were worried about any of those NFL teams shooting at them, and I’m sure there are going to be some hefty fines if they find anything, but their biggest motivation is basking in the glory of a highly publicised bust.


    Just as busting the working man who had five or six beers, busting NFL teams for drugs is going to do nothing to make our streets safer.  Even if they bring down the entire NFL, the real bad guys are still out there. The Feds are just too lazy and chicken to go after them.

    If they were truly concerned about fighting the war on drugs, wouldn’t they do something to tighten up our border security?  If it’s that easy for people to cross the Mexican border, think about how easy it must be to get drugs across it.  I think the Feds need to get their priorities straight and start fighting the important battles in the “war on drugs”. The ones where some lives might actually be saved.