Log in

Advice From Hollywood: Liar, Liar!

When I go to bed at night, I normally put in a familiar movie to help me sleep.  A recent selection for the past few nights is "Liar, Liar".  If you have not seen this film, I recommend it for a good laugh.

For those who don't know the plot of the film, Jim Carrey plays Fletcher Reed, an egotistical lawyer who happens to be a compulsive liar about everything.  He exploits the system to win ridiculous cases for his clients, as well as shortchange his family.  When Fletcher skips out on his son's birthday party (whilst screwing his boss), his son wishes that for one day, his dad can not tell a lie.  The wish comes true, and much hilarity ensues.

I was thinking about this film today and how similar it is to our current administration.  So I'll rephrase my previous paragraph in the proper context.

For those who don't know our current state of affairs, Barack Obama plays The President of the United States, but he is an egotistical community organizer who happens to be a compulsive liar about everything.  He exploits the system to win ridiculous benefits for his constituents, as well as shortchange the general public.  When Obama's lies are exposed (whilst screwing over the American people), conservatives wish that  their voices would be heard.  The wish comes true on January 19, 2010, and much hilarity ensues.

It's true, isn't it?  The left is foaming at the mouth over the election of Scott Brown.  With it, healthcare 'reform' (I use this term loosely) has been given a major setback.  Most people want real reform, not this disaster that's been going through Congress.

Honestly I think it would be interesting if for one day, Obama could not tell a lie.  This includes reading them off a teleprompter.  Actually forget just Obama, how about all of them up in Washington, including Pelosi and Harry "Fletcher" Reid?  I bet it would be the quietest day on record in Washington.

The truth shall set you free - free of a job when people find out you've been lying.  November can't get here soon enough.

The BS-O-Meter: Chivalry and Capitalism

I'm an artist for a site which has a membership composed of many young people. Unlike many forums which have a young membership, serious debate topics are allowed as long as things don't get out of hand.

To be quite frank, some of the things I have seen there are depressing, but not necessarily surprising considering the indoctrination that can occur in public education.

Today I was browsing a debate topic on chivalry. Is it dead or alive?

The gem of the thread, posted by a young person, was that chivalry was dead because capitalism killed it.  Yes, capitalism.  I'd certainly like to know what an economic system has to do with courtesy toward your fellow (wo)man.  This sounds remarkably to me like parroting baloney taught in school and not actually performing critical analysis.  Our students are not taught to think, but to repeat.

If anything 'killed' chivalry, it was militant feminism.  It would not surprise me if some men are afraid to hold open doors, offer seats, etc to women for fear of angering them on a basis of 'sexism'.  I find this highly ironic when 'musicians' that routinely demean women in their lyrics are viewed as role models.

I am very appreciative if a man, or anybody, holds open a door for me, regardless of their age or gender.  Why?  If my husband is not with me, normally I am holding a two-year-old's hand, holding a baby in a carseat in my other hand, and have two diaper bags on my back.  In that instance, it is very difficult for me to open a door on my own.

So next up on the societal ills of capitalism - the death of chivalry!  It sounds remarkably like the tired old leftist adage of blame Bush for everything.
The liberal left loves to bash and deride the successful. There is no denying this. This comes in the form of tax hikes specifically for the rich, as well as singling out individuals and capping what they can earn (unconstitutional). The mainstream media plays right along into this. Stories about how much so-and-so makes and how he spends it. Oh, he has a yacht and a private plane and you don't. (Never mind that by buying those items, he gave hundreds of people jobs. They'll never say that.)

Here's what I don't get about this whole thing of punishing the rich and increasing the size of government.

Show of hands: How many people completely trust that the government is honest, trustworthy, open, and fair when it comes to handling money? If you raised your hand, please think again. If Congress had a significant measure of integrity, they wouldn't be underhandedly putting unrelated pork into key legislation. The stimulus bill was a prime example of this. It was shameful. They also wouldn't be holding critical votes (i.e. the healthcare bill) on weekends! How open is that?

So now we are on the same page. Politicians waste money for their own gain (or to get votes), and some of it is lost due to inefficiency. You have to hire bureaucrats to "manage" it all. There is going to be corruption in there somewhere. Many of our current elected officials are tax-evaders. They are marvelous role models.

The question then... Why, oh why, do people want to entrust their healthcare to the government? Where your tax money put into the system will likely be squandered for unnecessary procedures, such as cosmetic surgery? How about federal abortion funding? The majority of Americans have indicated that they do not want to pay for abortions. Guess what, that's in the Senate bill. How about the potential for that money being lost to corruption, money that you need to pay for a lifesaving procedure?

Here is the stark difference between the government, and the rich CEO.

In the case of the CEO, the money is his. In the case of the government, the money is YOURS.
It happens before most sporting events here in America. The national anthem is played or sung, and players and fans alike (hopefully) salute the flag, either singing along or in silence. Then the anthem concludes, and the game begins.

I am not certain if this occurs very often in other countries, but if it does I imagine international readers will understand with respect to their own national anthems.

It bothers me to no end when people turn "The Star-Spangled Banner" into a team spirit chant by interjecting other words, or changing them altogether.

For example, before Dallas Stars games, you hear "Whose bright stripes and bright STARS" as hockey fans loudly shout out the name of their team. I am also ashamed to admit that my beloved Sooners have fans that change the ending to "And the home of the Sooners!" I'm certain there are plenty of other examples. In my most humble, yet patriotic opinion, it is classless and disgraceful.

This is the national anthem, not a pep rally. Show a little respect. Contrary to what some may believe, there are more important things in life than sports. Take a moment before the game starts and reflect on the actual "brave" who have given their lives to protect your freedom, even if it is freedom to disgrace the anthem in such a way.

Personally I would like to see university presidents, team owners, and coaches take a stand against this kind of behavior. Even if it is a humble request before a game starts. Kindly remind fans that although they are there to enjoy a sporting event, it doesn't hurt to remember those who gave you the freedom to do so.

The BS-O-Meter: "Climate Change"

If you've stumbled across my blog, you probably already know my stance on this issue. I'll give a basic, bare-bones explanation as to why human-fueled global warming is absolute BS. I mean it. BS.

I will tell you right now - no self-respecting climatologist believes in this. If you look at who signed off on AlGorean global warming, it was a bunch of psychiatrists, a chemist, and a bunch of other "scientists" whose fields have practically nothing to do with weather and climate. Psychiatrists certainly know how to mess with people's minds, though - so they really did pick the right people to back the theory.

My Climatology professor actually spent a few class sessions debunking the AlGorean theory. I applaud him for sticking to his guns in this era of liberalized academia.

Let's think about it. Human beings didn't start taking reliable, repetitive, widespread temperature observations until very recently in our planet's history. So, we only have "reliable" temperature trend data for a very short time. If you look at a very small portion of a graph of a mathematical function, it's quite possible you're missing the whole thing. So maybe we are in a warming period - but who is to say that this isn't a natural planetary cycle? Remember, not long ago, global cooling was going to be the doom of this planet.

I'd like to challenge all believers in human-fueled climate change to watch their weatherman for a few weeks. Take a note of his/her seven-day forecast, and then compare it to the actual data when that day occurs. How accurate are they? Here's a hint: almost no meteorologist can successfully predict the weather (outside of luck) more than three days out. Why? We cannot simulate weather conditions in a controlled lab environment to study them, for one. Where do these guys get off in believing that the temperature of the planet is going to skyrocket and create adverse conditions?

Well, let's suppose that they're right about the global warming part. The planet is indeed heating up. Problem: They are immediately convinced that it is human beings doing it. Oh, those bad, evil, greedy corporations and those horrid fuel-guzzling SUVs. This is really missing the forest for the trees.

Do you know what drives the weather on this planet? Here's a hint, it's not on this planet. It's 93 million miles away. The atmosphere does indeed play a part in terms of what's in it, as well as the rotation of the planet. The Sun's rays contain solar radiation, which warms the air, causing it to rise - but since the sun's rays are stronger in some places than others (tropics vs. poles) you get variances, which leads to weather patterns and wind.

What has been conveniently overlooked by most advocates of human-fueled global warming is solar radiation, and increases thereof. The Sun goes through natural cycles of its own, which change how much radiation it emits. I seriously doubt a little more greenhouse gas on earth will affect what the Sun is doing.

Also: Volcanoes. These things pump out quite a bit of greenhouse gases, and they've certainly been doing it longer than human beings have. If greenhouse gases were the major culprit, this planet would be a furnace. Also, carbon dioxide levels were apparently higher in the planet's past. Yet the planet is still here and life is thriving. Carbon dioxide just happens to be food for plants.

The point is: Don't go jumping out of your seat assuming that it is the fault of people. Climate change on this planet happens all by itself without human influence. There's ice ages that can attest to that. Some species die out, others thrive.

I am not an advocate of purposely trashing the planet. There is plenty of stuff that I'd never want in my drinking water, or anyone else's. However I'm a firm believer in this planet's ability to fix itself, because it's gone through greater climate "catastrophes" than human beings could ever hope to wreak. There's a lot more for us to learn about this planet before jumping to any conclusions.

On a whim today, I decided to browse the White House's website.  I couldn't help but notice the little "Contact Us" button at the top-right.  Upon opening the page, I was greeted with the following blurb:

"President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history. To send questions, comments, concerns, or well-wishes to the President or his staff, please use the form below."

After almost choking on my Diet Dr. Pepper, I actually thought about sending a message.  Maybe I'd ask a question about funding health reform, and why offering government insurance was the "best" option instead of cutting costs elsewhere.  What is his opinion of the recent ACORN allegations?  Perhaps I'd inquire as to why focusing on the Olympics in the future was more important than working on issues here at home.  Or I could question why he wasn't listening to the military leaders in Afghanistan, and end it with why he thought he was qualified to run for President in the first place.  Why is FOX news so disturbing to his administration, and wouldn't effort be better spent elsewhere?

I started filling in my required contact information.  Name, check.  Email address, check.  All went well until I got to the Subject line.

Instead of being allowed to type in your own subject, you get a drop-down menu with the three following choices:
  • Message of Support
  • I Have a Policy Comment
  • I Have a Non-Policy Comment
Oh, okay.  So where do 'concerns' go, according to the open and accessible blurb?  Policy comments?  Where, may I ask, is the "Message of Dissension" option?  Maybe I should write to the webmaster about that.

Nevermind, I forgot.  We are all living in happy socialist Utopia land (or will be soon), where everyone gets along and listens to their Big Brother because he's going to take care of your every need, whether you've earned it or not.  Oh wait, there can't be a Utopia because the people who are actually funding this operation are going to be extorted and miserable.  Gotcha.

The other night, I dreamed one of my sons was in the hospital.  When he was discharged, we had to pay the bill up front at the administration desk.  I got into an argument with the clerk, because on the bill were the following charges:

$6,000 for revelant medical care charges
$10,000 to "donate" to a politician's campaign fund
$10,000 to fund a government project that had nothing to do with health care

I was stuck with a bill that was more than four times the size it should have been, and could barely afford because of it.

I cannot remember the exact conversation with the clerk, but the gist of it was since the government was running health care, we all paid a "sales tax" on it in order to pay for it.  If I didn't pay up, they were going to keep my son and possibly take away my other son as collateral, all the while adding extra charges for their upkeep.

I woke up briefly from that dream, and after falling asleep again, immediately had another.

This time it was me in the hospital, and I was apparently going to give birth to a third child.  The staff started performing a procedure without my consent, and refused to tell me what it was, saying it wasn't policy.  It was leaving me unable to breathe and causing an irregular heartbeat.  I tried to fight back but I couldn't. because they were holding me down.  I woke up as the heart monitor flat-lined, kiling both me and my baby.

Now I imagine government-run health care won't go to the extremes I had in my dream, but I believe some aspects of it will become very real over time.  Extra charges for bureaucrats, pulled out of our pockets one way or another.  When government gets involved, someone has to 'regulate' this stuff and yes, they will get paid.

How about eliminating the middle man and just having a patient-doctor relationship?  I certainly don't want some liberal politician indirectly making decisions about what procedures I can and cannot or must have performed.  Wouldn't that decision be better left to say, the doctors who are actively working with their patients?

I imagine deciding who lives or dies to "cut costs" will be next.