If You Want Blood...

...You Got It!

I’ve heard this crap before.  They say that when no one listens to your voice, violence is the only alternative.  Here’s the latest round of this twisted thinking by some dude named Benji Hart:

source: Salon, of course.

Baltimore’s violent protesters are right: Smashing police cars is a legitimate political strategy

It's crucial to see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy. If it fails to win people over it's a futile tactic

Baltimore's violent protesters are right: Smashing police cars is a legitimate political strategyEnlargeA Baltimore Metropolitan Police transport vehicle burns during clashes in Baltimore, Maryland April 27, 2015. (Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton)
As a nation, we fail to comprehend Black political strategy in much the same way we fail to recognize the value of Black life.
We see ghettos and crime and absent parents where we should see communities actively struggling against mental health crises and premeditated economic exploitation. And when we see police cars being smashed and corporate property being destroyed, we should see reasonable responses to generations of extreme state violence, and logical decisions about what kind of actions yield the desired political results.
I’m overwhelmed by the pervasive slandering of protesters in Baltimore this weekend for not remaining peaceful. The bad-apple rhetoric would have us believe that most Baltimore protesters are demonstrating the right way—as is their constitutional right—and only a few are disrupting the peace, giving the movement a bad name.
This spin should be disregarded, first because of the virtual media blackout of any of the action happening on the ground, particularly over the weekend. Equally, it makes no sense to cite the Constitution in any demonstration for Black civil rights (that document was not written about us, remember?), but certainly not one organized specifically to call attention to the fact that the state breaks its own laws with regard to the oppressed on a nearly constant basis.
But there is an even bigger problem. Referring to Black Lives Matter protests, as well as organic responses to police and state violence as “non-violent” or “peaceful” erases the actual climate in which these movements are acting, the militant strategies that have rendered them effective, and the long history of riots and direct action on which they are built.
I do not advocate non-violence—particularly in a moment like the one we currently face. In the spirit and words of militant Black and Brown feminist movements from around the globe, I believe it is crucial that we see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy.
Non-violence is a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege. When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed, this is a futile political strategy. It not only fails to meet the needs of the community, but actually puts oppressed people in further danger of violence.
Read more. Don’t fuckin’ bother.

So now, they are (and have been) excusing the rioters.  Back in November, I ran across an idiot who was saying that what the rioters in Ferguson MO were the equivalent to those who participated in the Boston Tea Party.  These idiots say that the rioting scumbags in our nation’s cities today are just like the brave patriots who fought in the American Revolution.  Really?  Well, I can think of a few differences between the two groups, and I think that I can prove to any sane, rational person, that they aren’t the same at all.

First of all, the British government was enriching itself off of the American colonists, whereas most of the protesters are living off of the our federal, state, and local governments.  That’s about as opposite as you can get.

Secondly, the patriots of the American Revolution fully understood and expected, that England would come back on them with everything they had, and would not stop short of killing every last one of them, if they could.  The rioters, and those who support them, will say that anything done to hold them accountable by law is unreasonable and unfair.  Once the dust settles, they will expect all of us, including those who had their property destroyed and tax money spent on increased policing and rebuilding public property that was destroyed, to just forget the whole thing (and be happy about it).  Not much similarity there either.

Third, our founding fathers did not shy away from what they believed in.  As the story goes, John Hancock signed his name large enough on the Declaration of Independence so the king of England could read it without his eyeglasses. These men were in it for the long haul and were willing to suffer the consequences if they were not successful.  The rioters will try to kill a police officer, if they can get away with it, and then hide in the shadows and hope they are not identified.  These two groups are as different from each other as the meanings of bravery and cowardice.

One last thing for Benji - He says that rioting is “a legitimate political strategy”.  WRONG!!!!!  The ONLY legitimate political strategy in this country is one that remains within the law.  Once a group defines its criminal actions as a “political strategy”, then that group has moved outside the realm of simple criminality, and into something much more sinister.   

If these protesters, (and their sympathizers), are going try to legitimize the attacking of police officers and the destruction of property by describing it as a political strategy, then they are giving us the right to accuse them of treason, and treat them accordingly.  

Ask the Man Who Owns One

That was Packard’s slogan for years.  It showed that Packard had enough confidence in its products to let their customers do the talking.  No electric car companies use this or any similar slogans.  Electric car companies must stick to perpetuating myths, disseminating misinformation, and at best, promoting half-truths.  Why?  Because the last thing electric car companies want prospective customers to do is “Ask the man who owns one”, and since actions speak louder than words, they certainly don’t want anyone looking at what electric vehicle owners are actually doing -

source: The Daily Caller

Record Numbers Of Drivers Trading In Electric Cars For SUVs

President Barack Obama promised to put a million more hybrid and electric cars on the road during his tenure, but new research shows drivers are trading them in to buy sports utility vehicles (SUVs).
The auto-research group Edmunds.com found that “22 percent of people who have traded in their hybrids and [electric vehicles] in 2015 bought a new SUV.”
This number is higher than the 18.8 percent that did the same last year, but it’s double the number that traded in their electric car for an SUV just three years ago. Edmunds.com reports that only “45 percent of this year’s hybrid and EV trade-ins have gone toward the purchase of another alternative fuel vehicle, down from just over 60 percent in 2012.”
“Never before have loyalty rates for alt-fuel vehicles fallen below 50 percent,” Edmunds notes.
Read more.  Go ahead, it’s worth it this time.

Just as I predicted, unsatisfied owners of electric cars will be one of the main reasons that they will never, never even come close to replacing gas powered vehicles.  Over half of electric car buyers aren’t going to make the same mistake twice, and mark my words, that percentage is sure to increase as time goes by.

Electric car owners can be divided into two groups - those who have learned from their own mistakes and those who are incapable of learning, but anyone with any amount of logic and reasoning ability should be able to avoid falling into the electric vehicle trap.  If you’ve ever been tempted to even consider purchasing an electric vehicle consider the following:

  • Ask the owner of a diesel powered vehicle, what is the biggest disadvantage of owning a diesel.  Chances are, they will mention the lack of places to refuel.  Multiply this problem by about ten billion, and you will begin to understand how inconvenient owing and electric car would be.
  • Flashlights - We all own about ten of them and none of them work.  Why?  Because they are battery powered.  A traditional flashlight isn’t so bad.  All you have to do is pop in a couple of new batteries and you’re good to go.  A rechargeable flashlight is much worse.  Of course, the battery on that will be dead too, but it’s gonna be several hours before it’s charged up enough to see in the dark.  Why do you need a flashlight anyway?  ‘Cause the power’s out?  Good luck recharging that flashlight.  It will either be morning or the power will be back on, before it can produce any light.
  • Batteries are a great source of intermittent power, but a terrible source of continuous power.  Compare how much longer gas powered tools like weed wackers, hedge trimmers, and chainsaws run on one tank of fuel than battery powered ones do on a single charge.  It isn’t even close and the gas powered tools have much, much more power, so you can get the job done more quickly.
  • Take a brand new, top of the line, lithium-ion powered drill, with a brand new half inch bit, and see how many holes you can drill in half inch steel.  It’s almost amazing how little you can do before the battery goes dead and it takes hours to recharge it.
  • Look at your cell phone.  The battery is almost as big as the phone itself.  A phone is electronic, with no mechanical moving parts, and can barely get you through a day on a charge. A car on the other hand, does have mechanical moving parts and often, also requires lights, heat, air conditioning, or windshield wipers to be run.  The battery of an electric car has much more demand placed upon it than the battery of a cell phone, even though an electric car’s battery is much smaller than a cell phone’s battery, relative to each of their sizes.  Your cell phone takes a long time to recharge.   An electric car takes much longer.
  • The salespeople and sales literature of your flashlight, power tools, and cell phones claimed that the batteries would last much longer than they do in real life, didn’t they?  It’s the same way with electric cars and they all take a long time to recharge.
  • Where I work we have both electric and gas powered forklifts.  A forklift is probably the most practical electric powered vehicle there is, but often, at the end of the day, one of our forklifts may run out of fuel.  No problem with the gas powered units.  You just swap out the propane tank.  The electric units however, become useless immobile hunks of iron for several hours while they recharge.

Remember your own experiences and the things you have witnessed, and you will determine for yourself that purchasing an electric powered car is a mistake without actually buying one, or you could just simply - ask the man who owned one.

Wait a Minute, Wait a Minute! I Thought Guns Were Bad

By now you have all heard countless stories about students getting suspended and otherwise disciplined for bringing toy water guns to school, drawing pictures of guns, chewing pop tarts into gun-like shapes, or pointing their fingers and saying “bang, bang”, and why shouldn’t those students be punished?  After all, guns are... bad.  Right?  Right!

Even if you do not agree with that, you would certainly have to agree that any society that felt the need to severely punish a child playing with a toy or imaginary gun, would also seek the death penalty for any adult that held a child at gunpoint while committing a crime, right?  Wrong! We let the criminals off easy because racist three-year-olds are a far greater threat than guns. 

 I wonder what would happen to a student that brought a racist three-year-old to school?  He’d probably get the electric chair.

We may one day, run out of oil and natural gas, but we will never, never run out of ludicrous, ridiculous, hypocritical, illogical, inconsistent, actions and statements from the anti-gun crowd.

I have a lifelong project for you all:  From here on in, whenever you come across a news story about a crime involving a gun, check to see if the story says anything about whether the suspect was legally able to carry a gun.    
Often it is safe to assume that the suspect would not be able to legally carry a gun because the story might state that he has a felony record, but such stories seldom directly mention any violation of gun control laws.  Why?

Because that would undermine the gun control nuts agenda. If every gun crime story focused on whether the suspect was legally able to possess a firearm, it would only illustrate to the public how useless gun control laws are.  It would show that gun crimes are usually committed by violent thugs that have a long history of not obeying the law, and hardly ever committed by gun enthusiasts or by law abiding citizens concerned about having the ability to defend themselves.

If simply making something illegal, prevented it, there would already be no crime (gun or otherwise) at all.  Guns don’t kill people, people do, but if you mention what type of people commit the most gun crime on a percentage basis, you’ll be branded as a racist.    

The Gender Wage Gap is the Feminist's Best Friend

I ran across this dumb bitch while reading IOTW Report.  If you aren’t familiar with her, don’t feel bad.  Most people have never heard of her.  Prove this for yourself.  Count the number of people you have to ask before you find someone who knows who she is.

OK, so she’s a nobody. That’s not a crime.  Most people are nobodies.  The problem of course, is that she doesn’t realize that she is a nobody, and she actually thinks that someone gives a shit about her opinion.  Anyway, she seems to have a problem with the “gender wage gap” and even attempts to lie about being a “victim” of it.

Many people say that the gender wage gap is a myth. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but there is one group of people that better hope it is real.  They had better hope it is real, because it is their best friend.  In fact, it is their only hope of them ever reaching the goals they have set in their agenda.  The people in this group are referred to as feminists, and without a gender wage gap, they haven’t got a hope in hell. Why?  Read this.

Hey, that link is about cars.  What does it have to do with feminism and the gender wage gap?

It’s called an analogy, sports fans, and the economics of both are exactly the same.  Let’s take another look at the most pertinent part:


You've probably noticed that the 2014 Honda Civic seems to be winning most categories -- though we stress that it's rarely by a wide margin. That doesn't mean that the Honda is necessarily the best deal. On the contrary, a typical Elantra costs around $1,000 less than a similarly equipped Civic -- a big figure for two cars priced from less than $19,000 with shipping.

Which is the better value? To us, it depends on what you want. The Hyundai offers a highly similar experience to the Honda for about 95 percent of the price. Of course, it can't quite match the Civic in terms of fuel economy and safety, but if you're looking for a better deal, the Hyundai offers an excellent value in the compact-car world.

The article says you would get darned close to the same value purchasing either a Hyundai or a Honda.  If you had to choose one, which car would you buy?   Most likely, some of you would choose the Honda, and some of you would choose the Hyundai.

Now, what if both cars were the same price?  Virtually all of you would choose the Honda.  Why?  Because most people think the Honda is at least a slightly better car.  It may not be, but it is definitely perceived to be a better car, and that is all that really matters.  If similarly equipped Hondas and Hyundais were the same price, Hyundai would go out of business very quickly.  Being less expensive is Hyundai’s saving grace.

Hyundai has come a long way over the past fifteen years, and the day might come that the general public will consider a Hyundai to be equal or even superior to a Honda, but that could never happen unless Hyundais had been less expensive than Hondas for all these years.  If they were the same price, no one would have taken a chance with the Hyundai.

It’s the same way with employment.  It doesn’t matter if men and women are equal.  Employers perceive male employees as a better values, so they may be willing to pay them more.  On the hand, (if the gender wage gap is indeed, real) female employees could be a better value if they can be paid less.  Just like with Hyundai, women must deliver a better value for years, if not decades, before they change employer’s perceptions.

That’s not fair!  We should make a law that men and women be paid equally for the same work!

Well, we could and we have, made laws addressing this very matter.  Just remember which cars people would choose if Hondas and Hyundais were the same price.  The feminists are going to have to choose between laws that guarantee equal pay with fewer women hired, or competing in the free market and delivering a better value for their employers. If they're smart, they will choose option two. (What do you think are the chances of that happening?) Laws that force people to do things that they otherwise would not have done, only serve to reinforce their preconceived notions.

One more thing to all you feminists out there.  Being a better value than a man in the workplace is relatively easy.  All you have to do is rely on your old friend, the gender wage gap, and work for less.  

What would it take for women to earn the same pay as men in all situations?  Here’s a hint.  You know that guy that fixes his own car, does all his own home repairs, never pays anyone to things for him, and even does jobs for other people on the side?  Of course you do.  Almost everyone knows at least several guys like that.  Now, how many women do you know like that?  None?  Me either.  I know plenty of women that are experts in their particular field, but most of them are helpless in just about every other area.  You know - the lady doctor, lawyer, fill in the blank, can’t fix her car, lawn mower, fill in blank.

The mistake you feminists are making here is that the pay gap you are experiencing is based entirely on gender. There are plenty of men out there that are useless fucks outside of their particular fields, and they tend to make less than other men who have a broad field of knowledge. Not all men can truly take care of themselves, but a higher percentage of men can than women.

Knowledge is power and knowledge in one area is often extremely beneficial in another.  That's why men are paid more. The day women as a rule, get paid the same as men for the same type of job, is the day when it won’t be uncommon for the lady doctor, lawyer, fill in the blank, to be spending her weekends running chainsaws, welding, building hot rods, fill in the blank. How many of you feminists are willing to become that type of person? Anybody? Anybody? None? Well, at least you now know why you are paid less than men.

It's All Artificial

Comin' in hot in the carpool lane!

I've been telling you for years now, how the Tesla car is an overpriced P.O.S.  I always wondered why anyone would buy one.  Sure, the federal government will bribe you to purchase one, but the cars are still very expensive and very unreliable. (Essentially broke down almost half a day, every day.  They call it "recharging".)

Then, I came across this post at IOTW Report, and it explains everything.  Basically, no one buys Tesla's, except for people who live in Los Angeles, and we all know how weird they are.  But it seems that the state of California has its own way of bribing people to buy these things.

If it weren't for our state and federal governments giving special treatment to stupid people, there wouldn't be any electric cars on the road.

Why the Leftism Fails

From the smallest hippie commune, to the largest communist nation, the final result of leftism is inevitable - failure.  Most of the counterculture communes started in the "60's, did not survive into the '70's, and many people born before the formation of the Soviet Union, lived to see it's demise.  Venezuela is falling apart before our eyes.  The semi-socialist, western European nations are in the process of destroying themselves.  Cuba is Cuba, and while its communist government has not yet officially failed, it will certainly always be remembered for it's lack of success.  China has made great strides over the last few decades, but only because it finally accepted the fact that capitalism was a necessary ingredient for a modern, industrialized nation.

Can any of this be credibly disputed, even by the most hardcore liberal?  The answer is no, and the best argument anyone could come up with would be a reference to some obscure nation or organization, which wouldn't even come close to neutralizing what was said in the above paragraph.

Even more laughable is the other leftist response:  They will concede that everything said in the first paragraph is true but then add:

"Communism can work in theory, it has just never been implemented correctly." 

Let us assume for the moment, that the above statement is correct.  What does that mean?  It means that communism is not "user friendly".  It's a funny coincidence that I am writing this piece on a computer and with a program that are both, very user friendly and the very proof of that, is the fact that I am doing it.  I wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't easy. 

All of what I am doing right now, was possible in the not too distant past, on more primitive machines, with software that was more difficult to use.  Where are those machines now?  Where is that software now?  They're in the basements, attics, and closets of people who can't bear to throw things away, or have gone to landfills or recycling centers by people who can.

There are two important points to consider from all of this.  First, things that are not relatively user friendly are always selected out by technological evolution.  It's why the cavemen upgraded from throwing rocks to using spears.  Second, virtually all progress and innovation, from the spear to internet, was driven by not by governments and central planning, but by individuals who came up with better ideas.

That is why leftism fails.  Since leftism does not seek to protect the freedom and rights of the individual, it is not user friendly.  Difficult decisions must be made concerning limiting the rights of the individual for the good of the collective.  Compare that to Libertarianism, which amounts to "Just letting people do what they want".  Which is easier to implement?  

The same is true with economic systems.  A free market is simply easier to implement (more user friendly) than a centrally planned economy, and it's the reason that the shelves on our grocery stores are always full and are currently empty in Venezuela.  No one has to come up with any new legislation in the United States when there is a shortage of a particular product.  The price simply raises until demand drops off.  In Venezuela, they did not allow prices of goods to rise to the level it cost to supply them, and they simply disappeared.  Now, their government must make difficult decisions that are hardly ever necessary in a country where a free market economy exists.

Working examples of pure Communism and pure Libertarianism are both hard to find, but all of this should give anyone with any amount of common sense, which way a successful nation should be leaning.

Are there inherent problems with free markets and capitalism?  Absolutely, but it should be abundantly clear to everyone by now, that there are inherent problems with every thing and every idea that ever existed on this planet.  We should stop looking for Utopia, concentrate on what works best, and accept that the fact that sometimes, inherent problems are not as bad as the do-gooders prescribed "solutions" to them.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of libertariansim is that it frees the government of blame.  After all, how can a government be guilty of something it did not have a hand in?

Read the article below that I found at IOTW Report, and note that none of the things that impressed Boris Yeltsin were due to any of the things that liberals are fighting for today.  None of them.  How can I say that?  Because if those things had been in place back then, liberals would not need to be fighting for them today, would they?

souree: The Reaganite Republican 

The Day Frozen Pudding-Pops Destroyed
Boris Yeltsin's Faith in Communism

After a September 1989 tour of Houston's Johnson Space Center, 
Boris Yeltsin -freshly elected to the new Soviet Politburo- made an impromptu visit to a typical American grocery store -'Randalls'- in Clear Lake, Texas,
to have himself a look around...
And more than anything he'd seen at the advanced NASA facility, what really blew Yeltsin away was the sheer variety of goods at the supermarket. The fact that such stores where to be found in just about any town in America was said to be beyond comprehension for the Soviet politician- the pictures tell a thousand words- 

Think about it.  The leftists are fighting for everything Yeltsin and the Soviet Union already had.  

Maybe the U.S.S.R. just hadn't implemented communism correctly, but maybe, just maybe, a fifteen dollar per hour minimum wage, nationalized health care, and all the other things on the lefty agenda, aren't such good ideas.  As Utopian as they may appear on paper, they simply just stifle the freedom and innovation of individuals and are they anything but, user friendly. 


Let's make it part of our language

He/She/They "Rolling Stoned".   definition: gross incompetence or malfeasance in the field of journalism. 

source: The New York Times

Rolling Stone Article on Rape at University of Virginia Failed All Basics, Report Says

Rolling Stone magazine retracted its article about a brutal gang rape at aUniversity of Virginia fraternity after the release of a report on Sunday that concluded the widely discredited piece was the result of failures at every stage of the process.
The report, published by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and commissioned by Rolling Stone, said the magazine failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice” to verify details of the ordeal that the magazine’s source, identified only as Jackie, described to the article’s author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely.
On Sunday, Ms. Erdely, in her first extensive comments since the article was cast into doubt, apologized to Rolling Stone’s readers, her colleagues and “any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.”

I just can't tell you how much I am enjoying all of this.  I have detested Rolling Stone magazine for decades. 

 I want all you other bloggers out there to do me a favor.  From now on, when mentioning mistakes made by reporters, magazines, newspapers, etc., say they "Rolling Stoned"

 For example:  
  • Brian Williams Rolling Stoned his career away by lying about being places he wasn't.
  • Dan Rather really Rolling Stoned when he used that fake document about George Bush.
  • NBC totally Rolling Stoned it when they rigged those GM trucks with explosives.
  • Michael Moore Rolling Stones all the time.
  • Nobody watches MSNBC anymore because they're always Rolling Stoning.
You get the idea.  Spread it around.  Lets make Rolling Stone magazine synonymous with journalistic malpractice and incompetence.  

By the way, if I made any spelling or grammar errors here, just tell me I Rolling Stoned.

Let's make it part of the language!