On Bigotry and Intolerance

[Note: This was originally published here on August 1, 2012. It deals with the then-current kerfluffel about Chick-fil-a, but by the end it pretty accurately sums up my thoughts on the gay lifestyle, religion and gay "marriage." This is a repost because I think it still says everything I want to say about the subject.]

I've been called a bigot and intolerant (both directly and indirectly) many, many times in the last week over the Chick-fil-a thing and gay marriage simply because I'm a Christian and a Conservative.  From friends on Facebook and Twitter, from complete strangers in the same places and especially in "news" articles on the web.  The snarky, condescending rhetoric is thick.

For the record, here is the Webster's dictionary definition of "bigotry:"

'Bigotry' is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his orher own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

You see?  By demanding that I accept something that I think is wrong and by  saying I'm some sort of a hatemonger because I don't support gay marriage and by treating my viewpoint with intolerance, you're actually a bigot.  Having a common disagreement of ideas is fine, but when you refuse to accept my viewpoint at all and start calling names and trying to force me to accept your viewpoint, not through reasoned debate or discussion but by intimidation and coercion then not only have you already lost the argument, but by definition that makes you an intolerant bigot.

I would like to respectfully request that everyone see where the controversy started and read the original interview that this whole kerfluffle came from.  The tone of the rhetoric simply doesn't match the resulting hysteria coming form the "tolerant" left.  

I simply don't get it.  Here is a guy - a leader of a corporation - and a Christian in a very candid moment saying that he doesn't think that gay marriage is in accordance with what he considers to be family values and what he understands to be God's word.  He's entitled to his opinion and to run his business the way he wants just as much as the next guy.  If you don't like what his business stands for, just don't buy their product - it's as simple as that. 

There are people out there saying, "but well, yeah- I support his personal right to say whatever he wants to, but his company gives money from the company's profits to anti-gay hate groups that lobby against gay marriage!!!!" Fair enough argument, I thought.  Then I realized that Chick-fil-a is a private company without shareholders that can do whatever it wants with its profits.  Then I got to wondering what anti-gay "hate groups" the company might be sending money to.  The only thing I could find referenced by these shrill people was "Focus on the Family" and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.  It's interesting to me that some people have started classifying anything they don't agree with as hate. 

But what really gets me is all the people demanding tolerance and calling people bigots are many of the same ones spewing some truly hateful rhetoric.  Here are some real comments posted in the comment section of Tennessee representative Diane Black's Facebook page after she posted a photo of her holding a tray of Chick-fil-a sandwiches (names removed to protect the guilty):

"Like she needs to eat another one of those sandwiches. Look at how fat that cow is". 

"Jesus would be so proud, as we all know, he was all about hate and intolerance..." 

"shouldn't that be in the shape of a swastika. Ahh, remember when these bible thumpers called jews "christ killers?" 'mericans'" 

"So far I've stopped at 3 for water...mentioning that Im hungry..so far none have offered to feed a poor hungry person...( as Jesus would )" 

"A tray of chicken biscuits...and one turkeyneck." 

"hater" 

"Some peoples beliefs are as outdated as their hairstyle!"

And I could go on and on...

I would like to take a moment here to say that just because one doesn't support gay marriage doesn't mean that they hate gay people or want to see them die or be unhappy (ungay?) or wish them any kind of harm.  It simply means that from the beginning of time that there have probably been homosexuals out there as a small percentage of society. And also from the beginning of (human) time the concept of "marriage" has meant only one thing - one man and one woman.  Deviating from that definition is what gets people up in arms.  Take a look at polygamists.  They weren't and aren't accepted because they had multiple wives.  They are deviants from accepted societal norms.  The same is true of pedophiles and those who engage in beastiality.

But I guess what really bothers me is the vicious attack on Christianity itself.  People spouting truly hateful  and intentionally ignorant things such as:

"So far I've stopped at 3 for water...mentioning that Im hungry..so far none have offered to feed a poor hungry person...( as Jesus would )"   

"...you should probably spend a little extra time studying Jesus's commitment to social justice in the Gospels this morning. I don't think He'd be very proud of you right now." 

"David, you're not a Christian. You just play one on Sundays. REAL CHRISTIANS do what their book tells them. Ever wore a cotton blend? Sinner. You should be stoned for that. "

"Right where bigotry & hate fit in, a bible study."

...and, again, I could go on and on...

How, exactly, is that not hate and intolerance (and ignorance) of Christianity and Christ's teachings?  I'm no Biblical scholar, but it seems to me that Jesus said to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' but said nothing about condoning and accepting their actions.

Until now I have not waded into the homosexuality debate - and I don't plan to, either.  I have friends and family members who are gay.  I'm not going to tell them they can't be gay. That's not my right - it's not any individual's right to force their beliefs onto another.  I simply have to tolerate it and let them live their lives. But those are not the people I have any issue with, anyway.  The people I take issue with are the people who insist on making gay marriage an issue and forcing it upon us as some sort of a civil right.

Simply put, I don't believe the way that a person chooses to have sex has the same standing as the color of their skin.

All that being said, I think that the solution is an easy one: leave religion out of it.  Christians need to accept that there will always be a "gay community" and that they will want to partner up just as "straight" people do.  But marriage has traditionally been a religious union.  Perhaps the answer is simply a governmentally recognized union that carries the same benefits of marriage, only without the religious connotations.

Words mean things, and the entire "gay marriage" debate boils down to those of faith wanting to uphold the traditional definition of the word "marriage," not keeping "people from having love" or "keeping gays from being happy," as I've seen many times in the past week. If the gay community would simply cede the word "marriage" from their debate and demands and accept a civil union, I suspect that Christians would be accepting of that. They will still not agree with homosexuality, but I suspect that they will be tolerant of it, just as they always have. Neither side will be completely happy or will get 100 percent of their way, but at least maybe then we can bring a little more civility back to the world.

We need it, especially now.

Texas Monthly Should Be Ashamed

*sigh* I have quite a few issues with this story in Texas Monthly.

It's stories such as this that made me cancel my subscription. Because of things like these:

"More recently, ice cream has become associated with being a good person and doing good works, even though the product really isn’t all that good for you. Honesty matters. Trust matters. We feed it to our children, after all. This is why Ben & Jerry’s, on its website, stresses its commitment to “progressive values across our business,” “climate justice,” and mandatory GMO labeling. This is why Häagen-Dazs wants you to know that the company has devoted more than $1 million to honeybee survival (“We want to keep those little heroes buzzing”). This is why Breyers pledges to use “sustainably farmed vanilla and fruit” and milk and cream from cows “not treated with artificial growth hormones.” Keeping up with modern times, Breyers also features lactose-free, no-sugar-added, fat-free, half-the-fat, carb-smart, and gluten-free ice cream."

No attribution on the claim of ice cream being a reward for good works. Or how unhealthy it may be. And how recently, exactly? Because I would peg that at an early 20th Century phenomenon, not a late 20th century or early 21st century one. You can look back to pop culture and movies from the '40s and '50s and see ice cream as a reward for good behavior and as a treat. Besides, what does reward have to do with being healthy for you? What daddy is taking his daughter out for a seaweed and kelp smoothie for a good report card, anyway? I’m sure it happens somewhere, but nowhere I’d want to live.

The rest of the paragraph is just dripping with sophisticated and enlightened Liberal condescension. Those hicks in Brenham couldn't possibly be enlightened enough to care about such Progressive causes and trends as honey bees and hormone-free milk and sugar-free ice cream, after all. 

Yet, even later in the article the writer admits that Blue Bell does a pretty good job of keeping up with trends: "The company adopted food trends with gusto: it built an empire of ice cream products that included about a zillion flavors, some seasonal and some not, including frozen yogurt, ice cream cups, ice cream without added sugar, low-fat ice cream, sherbet, Bullets, Mini Sandwiches, Banana Pops, Mooo Bars, several kinds of fruit bars, and more."

But that doesn't fit well into the enlightened Blue Bell = small town, hickish, conservative and simpleton narrative that the writer is building up to next.

"In 1989, as the company expanded beyond Texas, it started offering regional flavors, like Key Lime Pie for the Florida customers and Mississippi Mud Pie for those in the Delta. And even though the Blue Bell leadership pretty much ranged from middle-aged white men to middle-aged white men, Blue Bell also shrewdly moved into flavors like Mexican Vanilla—it had a dash of cinnamon—and tres leches con fresas to capitalize on Latino tastes ... And, of course, like all modern corporations, Blue Bell got involved in politics, generously supporting the likes of Dallas congressman Pete Sessions and Senator Ted Cruz, men who share their deeply conservative views of the Texas that was and the Texas that should be."

So we're to believe  that in a stroke of dumb luck and pandering, Blue Bell somehow (shrewdly - and with much mustache twisting and evil hand wringing, too, I suppose...) stumbled into the realization that Hispanics like ice cream, too, and decided to pander to them with. The fact that a bunch of middle-aged white guys are in charge somehow means that they couldn't possibly be in touch with the tastes of any other ethnic group but their own. Sheesh.

And then the bombshell that Blue Bell is a conservative company that supports “the likes of” Pete Sessions and Ted Cruz. Yeah… about that. According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics (http://beta.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=375) Blue Bell gives to both parties. Not equally, but who really expects them to in a conservative state like Texas? But the fact is that Blue Bell gave more money to a single Democrat candidate  - Bob Odom - than to any single Republican in a state race. Oh yeah, and it only gave $1000 to each of Cruz and Sessions, according to OpenSecrets.org (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000024383) - hardly bankrolling a campaign, and hardly “generous,” in the words of the author. I’m pretty sure Blue Bell gives more to the local high school every year.

“By 2015, Blue Bell wasn’t a luxury product anymore, and it wasn’t so pure either—high-fructose corn syrup had become part of the recipe, and maybe the factories could be just a little bit cleaner. But it was right there behind Ben & Jerry’s and Häagen-Dazs. Like so many Texans, it had made it from a small town to the big time.”

Where the hell did this come from? “…and maybe the factories could be a little bit cleaner?????” That little sucker punch of a sentence was out of nowhere and was was completely un-attributed. Have there been cleanliness problems with Blue Bell reported before? Have ceiling tiles and cigarette butts found their way into every bucket of ice cream, like a little nasty prize at the bottom? Not that I’ve ever heard of. I have had the privilege of taking the WAY behind the scenes tour of the Blue Bell factory and I’ve gotta tell you - it’s one of the cleanest places I’ve ever seen. Could it be cleaner and more sterile? I’m sure, but not short of laying off all the workers and using only robots to make the old-fashioned ice cream or hermetically sealing everything and everyone in bubbles. That said, I’m with her on the HFCS. Seriously, Blue Bell - who at home making ice cream uses HFCS? No one. So don’t put it in “Homemade Vanilla.” But I digress…

From the Dallas Morning New: “A health department spokeswoman has repeatedly described the iconic Texas company’s inspection track over the years as “good” with “very few issues, and none that required a warning letter or penalty.” (http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/health-inspectors-found-crickets-mildew-at-blue-bell-plant-report.html/)

“Here is what normally happens when a product is recalled. There are lots of angry protests, with people bearing placards and chanting and, in the most-modern times, setting up change.org accounts. Health experts weigh in. Congressional hearings are held. There are calls for more government regulation. Lawsuits are threatened and filed. The product and its company are vilified, mostly for not caring about the little guy. Some products come back from the brink, and some don’t: Tylenol did. The Ford Pinto did not.”

Tylenol is a product, yes, but it’s also a brand. The Pinto was a model of car. It was a product - a faulty product. But Ford is the brand. It still makes vehicles today. And Blue Bell is more than a product - it’s a brand that makes products. The writer’s failure to see the difference is appalling. Or is it? I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it comes at the end of a paragraph about other sensationalized and scary things like congressional hearings and lawsuits. And protests? Placards? Chanting? Has that happened? I drive by the Blue Bell factory every single day and haven’t seen any sign of such a thing. So why even bring it up?

“It wasn’t until April 20 that Blue Bell accepted reality, announcing a total and complete recall of all products. That same day, it brought in another PR firm, the global Burson-Marsteller, whose crisis-management team had represented Tylenol, Union Carbide (now Dow Chemical) in India, and the Argentine military dictatorship. More recently, Blackwater USA hired a subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller to help defend itself in a congressional hearing after the killing of more than a dozen Iraqi civilians in 2007.”

Oh my. The association of Blue Bell with the same PR firm that was associated with Blackwater and the Argentine military dictatorship? Clearly then, Blue Bell is just as evil. To borrow from another Texas iconic brand: “get a rope.”

But wait. They’re just a PR firm. They handle all kinds of clients who want to protect their brand - from Lady Gaga to Hormel to Behr paint. And now Blue Bell. Before this Blue Bell has never needed anyone skilled in crisis management, so I don’t fault them for bringing in the professionals -and one of the best. Recalls are high stakes business. But no.. Texas Monthly wants you to just go ahead with the Ted Cruz association and continue down the “Blue Bell is just another big evil corporation” trail with the references to Blackwater and dictators.

But where I almost lost it completely - and what made me sit down and write this piece - was this: 

“The supportive yard signs easily stretched all the way to Houston. Bun B voiced his support on Instagram. Gallery Furniture took out full-page ads. The “Come and Take It” flag, the one used by doomed soldiers in the Battle of Gonzales in 1835, showed up affixed to the Blue Bell logo all over the Internet.”

Here’s the thing. Any real Texan knows that the “Come and Take It Flag” and the battle of Gonzales ended well for the Texans and with Mexican retreat. The “soldiers” in Gonzales were not doomed. They freaking WON!

But don’t take my word for it - have a look at the Texas State Historical Association’s page on the battle. Go ahead. I’ll wait. (https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qeg03)

You just lost any and all credibility as far as I’m concerned. You write for Texas Monthly and don’t even know basic Texas history??? Shame on you.

And finally, this:

“Psychiatrists would probably call the (over)reaction of the fans a narcissistic injury, that defense mechanism that kicks in when someone reexperiences a wound that dates all the way back to childhood, like when someone made you go to bed without ice cream, or teased you for being a dunderheaded Texan, or pointed out that what you believed in wasn’t really what it seemed.”

Ah, yes. Armchair psychology. Gotta love it. It’s gotta be because someone more supposedly enlightened than us told us that something we believed in wasn’t worth a pile of cow crap. Like Texas Monthly and this article, for instance? Or the Astrodome? Or the stereotypical Texan? 

Or maybe it’s because Blue Bell is as Texan as barbecue and heat (and goes well with each.)

The stupid suppositions in this article reads much like the highbrow condescension that’s found in The Atlantic and New Yorker, which make sense since its author, Mimi Swartz, was a writer for the New Yorker for years.

Blue Bell may well be in trouble and will take a long time to regain its footing. But the aspersions cast in this thinly researched, pathetic excuse for journalism are wholly unhelpful, unnecessary and unwelcome. Blue Bell is a great Texas brand and I, for one, will not savor the day that they ever decide to shut down or lay off workers because of piling on such as this. 

An important and treasured part of Texas is wounded and bleeding. Must we kick it while it’s down?

Thoughts on the Election

First, I want to say congratulations to my Democrat friends.  Your guy won.  I'm not sure how, exactly, but he did.  I don't want to debate it, either.  But I did want to congratulate you.  This is as close as I can come to being magnanimous this morning.  The wound is still just too fresh.

I want to say that for those of you who voted for President Obama again out of a genuine philosophical match, I respect that.  I commend that.  If you genuinely think he's the guy to lead us and think his way of doing things is the best for the country, then I can live with that. I've got no beef with you. Well, not exactly, but at least I respect your motive, if not your ideology.

What I can't stomach are the people who voted based on ignorance or hearsay against Mitt Romney or for a reason such as the color of his skin. When you vote for (or against someone) based on the color of his skin, that makes you a racist. When you view the world through a prism of race - that makes you a racist.

Looking over my blog posts about President Obama from the past four years - and I haven't blogged on nearly everything that I could have or wanted to - I'm simply amazed at how short our collective attention spans are. One thing that struck me again was just how often the Obama Administration says one thing in public and then does the exact opposite.

So President Obama remains in office.  The Senate remains under Democrat control and the House remains Republican.  Nothing has changed. But watch for the Democrats to start talking about a mandate. And watch for it quickly.  They've been salivating for this moment ever since they lost the House in 2010. It'll be interesting what they try to get done as soon as possible. The real agenda items will be the ones they pounce on.  Watch for it.

As I write this, I've finally calmed down after the election.  I'm not mad anymore, but I still have a sense  of disbelief.  How is it that so many people in our country could side with a party with ideology that runs completely counter to traditional values and to my ideals and morals? Are there really that many people out there that don't understand what President Obama's spending is threatening to do to our nation?  How can people not be insulted by his use of executive order and fiat to pass things that should have to go through Congress? How can people not see his actions as a dangerous precedent upon which a dictatorship could be built by a power hungry leader in the future? How can so many people not be incensed by the erosion of our individual liberties?

My only thought on that is that the Democrats have become so good at the shell game that people don't realize they're losing all those things. In fact, they've got some people actually believing that they stand for freedom. People are willing to let their government imprison them indefinitely with no recourse or order American citizens killed without trial or take control of all communication systems in the U.S. if it deems it necessary or put American citizens into military camps... as long as they get a shiny new Obamaphone or some other shiny trinket or handout out of it.

Elections have consequences, and I gravely fear the consequences of this election for our future liberties.

Teachers Strike in Chicago

So let me get this straight...

The average teacher salary in Chicago is around $75,000 annually, while the average citizen in Chicago earns around $45,000. And they're out in the streets protesting because they're only going to be getting a four percent raise every year?

The school district is running a budget shortfall of $3 billion over the next three years. And they're upset that there might be cutbacks?

Teachers unions are up in arms because teachers are being asked to be evaluated on merit and performance (just like those of us in the private sector.)  Aren't the students they teach evaluated on merit and performance in the form of grades?

I just don't get it.

On Bigotry and Intolerance

I've been called a bigot and intolerant (both directly and indirectly) many, many times in the last week over the Chick-fil-a thing and gay marriage simply because I'm a Christian and a Conservative.  From friends on Facebook and Twitter, from complete strangers in the same places and especially in "news" articles on the web.  The snarky, condescending rhetoric is thick.

For the record, here is the Webster's dictionary definition of "bigotry:"

'Bigotry' is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his orher own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

You see?  By demanding that I accept something that I think is wrong and by  saying I'm some sort of a hatemonger because I don't support gay marriage and by treating my viewpoint with intolerance, you're actually a bigot.  Having a common disagreement of ideas is fine, but when you refuse to accept my viewpoint at all and start calling names and trying to force me to accept your viewpoint, not through reasoned debate or discussion but by intimidation and coercion then not only have you already lost the argument, but by definition that makes you an intolerant bigot.

I would like to respectfully request that everyone see where the controversy started and read the original interview that this whole kerfluffle came from.  The tone of the rhetoric simply doesn't match the resulting hysteria coming form the "tolerant" left.  

I simply don't get it.  Here is a guy - a leader of a corporation - and a Christian in a very candid moment saying that he doesn't think that gay marriage is in accordance with what he considers to be family values and what he understands to be God's word.  He's entitled to his opinion and to run his business the way he wants just as much as the next guy.  If you don't like what his business stands for, just don't buy their product - it's as simple as that. 

There are people out there saying, "but well, yeah- I support his personal right to say whatever he wants to, but his company gives money from the company's profits to anti-gay hate groups that lobby against gay marriage!!!!" Fair enough argument, I thought.  Then I realized that Chick-fil-a is a private company without shareholders that can do whatever it wants with its profits.  Then I got to wondering what anti-gay "hate groups" the company might be sending money to.  The only thing I could find referenced by these shrill people was "Focus on the Family" and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.  It's interesting to me that some people have started classifying anything they don't agree with as hate. 

But what really gets me is all the people demanding tolerance and calling people bigots are many of the same ones spewing some truly hateful rhetoric.  Here are some real comments posted in the comment section of Tennessee representative Diane Black's Facebook page after she posted a photo of her holding a tray of Chick-fil-a sandwiches (names removed to protect the guilty):

"Like she needs to eat another one of those sandwiches. Look at how fat that cow is". 

"Jesus would be so proud, as we all know, he was all about hate and intolerance..." 

"shouldn't that be in the shape of a swastika. Ahh, remember when these bible thumpers called jews "christ killers?" 'mericans'" 

"So far I've stopped at 3 for water...mentioning that Im hungry..so far none have offered to feed a poor hungry person...( as Jesus would )" 

"A tray of chicken biscuits...and one turkeyneck." 

"hater" 

"Some peoples beliefs are as outdated as their hairstyle!"

And I could go on and on...

I would like to take a moment here to say that just because one doesn't support gay marriage doesn't mean that they hate gay people or want to see them die or be unhappy (ungay?) or wish them any kind of harm.  It simply means that from the beginning of time that there have probably been homosexuals out there as a small percentage of society. And also from the beginning of (human) time the concept of "marriage" has meant only one thing - one man and one woman.  Deviating from that definition is what gets people up in arms.  Take a look at polygamists.  They weren't and aren't accepted because they had multiple wives.  They are deviants from accepted societal norms.  The same is true of pedophiles and those who engage in beastiality.

But I guess what really bothers me is the vicious attack on Christianity itself.  People spouting truly hateful  and intentionally ignorant things such as:

"So far I've stopped at 3 for water...mentioning that Im hungry..so far none have offered to feed a poor hungry person...( as Jesus would )"   

"...you should probably spend a little extra time studying Jesus's commitment to social justice in the Gospels this morning. I don't think He'd be very proud of you right now." 

"David, you're not a Christian. You just play one on Sundays. REAL CHRISTIANS do what their book tells them. Ever wore a cotton blend? Sinner. You should be stoned for that. "

"Right where bigotry & hate fit in, a bible study."

...and, again, I could go on and on...

How, exactly, is that not hate and intolerance (and ignorance) of Christianity and Christ's teachings?  I'm no Biblical scholar, but it seems to me that Jesus said to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' but said nothing about condoning and accepting their actions.

Until now I have not waded into the homosexuality debate - and I don't plan to, either.  I have friends and family members who are gay.  I'm not going to tell them they can't be gay. That's not my right - it's not any individual's right to force their beliefs onto another.  I simply have to tolerate it and let them live their lives. But those are not the people I have any issue with, anyway.  The people I take issue with are the people who insist on making gay marriage an issue and forcing it upon us as some sort of a civil right.

Simply put, I don't believe the way that a person chooses to have sex has the same standing as the color of their skin.

All that being said, I think that the solution is an easy one: leave religion out of it.  Christians need to accept that there will always be a "gay community" and that they will want to partner up just as "straight" people do.  But marriage has traditionally been a religious union.  Perhaps the answer is simply a governmentally recognized union that carries the same benefits of marriage, only without the religious connotations.

Words mean things, and the entire "gay marriage" debate boils down to those of faith wanting to uphold the traditional definition of the word "marriage," not keeping "people from having love" or "keeping gays from being happy," as I've seen many times in the past week. If the gay community would simply cede the word "marriage" from their debate and demands and accept a civil union, I suspect that Christians would be accepting of that. They will still not agree with homosexuality, but I suspect that they will be tolerant of it, just as they always have. Neither side will be completely happy or will get 100 percent of their way, but at least maybe then we can bring a little more civility back to the world.

We need it, especially now.

Obama: Be Grateful, For Your Government Has Given You Everything

From the UK Daily Mail (among others):

  

President Barack Obama said in a speech at the weekend that governments and not individuals create jobs, telling entrepreneurs: 'If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'

He added: 'You didn't get there on your own.  I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.'  

He continued: 'If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.

'Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you've got a business - you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  

'The Internet didn't get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.'

President Obama is making the case for full-on Socialism here.  He's telling us - you and me - that we are nothing and have nothing and can do nothing unless the government allows it to be so - that we're basically wards of the state.


Memo to President Obama: where do you think the government got the money to build the roads that you so graciously built for us?  Where does funding for the military come from that built the internet?  It came from the people.  It came from small - and large - businesses and the taxpayers of the United States.  


The government does not make money on its own. It derives its power and its funding from the citizens of the United States. The government - any government - does not build roads or infrastructure out of sheer benevolence, either.  It does not do so for government employees or use only.  It does so because it allows for free trade and commerce, which in turn allows for more money to flow into government coffers.


Your ideas and rhetoric are insulting.  I have worked for small businesses and none of them were successful because of the government.  In fact, sometimes they were successful in spite of the government.  They were successful because they offered goods and services that people wanted to pay money for and worked long hours and many years to either build a market for those services or to claw their way into that market.


Your ideas and rhetoric are chilling to the successful mindset of entrepreneurs in the United States.  By belittling the success of small businessmen and women in the US, you do not make future entrepreneurs want to work hard to be successful.  You undermine their success and dispirit their ambition.


I, for one, plan on owning a successful small business (again) someday. And I will get there with my own talent an initiative, not with government handouts.  In fact, I could be a lot more successful if I got to keep more of the money I earn, instead of having to send 30 percent of it to Washington in the form of self-employment taxes.  That money would allow me to build my business faster and to feed my family and to buy more products and services. 


You, sir, are a cancer on country and on our economy and on the morale of our nation.  Not only do I hope you are defeated in November, I hope you are defeated in embarrassing margins and are run out of town in a landslide of epic proportions.

I reject your silly ideas of government benevolence and I hope that the voters of our country show you just how stupid you are very, very soon.

The Supreme Court Just Fixed Everything

So Obamacare is a "tax."

By declaring Obamacare a "tax," the Supreme Court has just also confirmed that he has enacted a hefty new tax directly on the middle class.

This new tax and all this new government power and upheaval of the best medical system in the world just because 7% of the population didn't have health insurance.

Note to Republicans in Congress: this is exactly why it's a really, really bad idea to pass a flawed law in the interest of compromise and let the courts "fix" it later. Yeah, they fixed it real good, didn't they? They fixed us all.  As in- they just neutered our economy and out health care system and our individual rights.

And what really makes me mad is that Elena Kagan shouldn't have even been allowed to rule on the subject because she helped write the law as Solicitor General.

Note to Republicans in the Senate: this is why Supreme Court confirmation hearings matter!  Kagan essentially got a rubber stamp appointment because Republicans didn't have the stomach to fight for a better candidate due to the fact that she was a) Hispanic and b) a woman.

I'm really, really ticked off today.  Can we please have an election, already?

Why Even Bother Camping?

A couple of weekends ago our family went with another family to Garner State Park, about an hour and a half west of San Antonio. We had a great time, almost in spite of the other campers around us.

But before I get into the meat of my rant, I want to pose the question: why do people go camping?  What I mean is, why camp and not stay in a cabin or a trailer or a hotel somewhere?  I guess the obvious answer is that camping is less expensive than those other options.  But me- I go camping to be outdoors and to connect to nature and a simpler, quieter kind of life.  I was a Boy Scout up until I was 18 and couldn't be one anymore.  And I kept camping after that well into college.  I absolutely love camping and being outdoors and just being a small speck of nature.

Let me assure you that based on my last three camping experiences that it seems that the vast majority of people out there do not go camping for the same reason.  There may have been a time when people camped to connect with nature.  But I think these days people just camp because they can get away with behavior that they couldn't get away with at a hotel.  And even worse, it seems that people have lost all common decency and consideration for others as well.

Let me share three camping experiences with you as illustration:

Three years ago, a bunch of us guys (the "Dudes") went camping at a Rocky Creek, local Army Corps of Engineers park, on Lake Somerville.  We camped next to the water at one of the best campsites in the entire park and were all set to have a great weekend hanging out, fishing, drinking and just being guys.  But in the campsite next to ours were a group of teenagers from the local high school on spring break.  Those kids were loud and obnoxious [and yes, I fully realize how old and crotchety I sound writing this] all weekend.  There were about twenty boys and girls partying and coming and going at all hours, yelling and having all sorts of teenage drama all weekend at the tops of their lungs.  It was hell- especially at night when they got really cranked up.  At one point after what sounded like a fight between two of the boys over one of the girls we shouted at the kids to keep it down.  Only it wasn't quite as nice as that.  There may have been some profanity laced in there, as well.  The thing is, it didn't even begin to compare to the profanity we had been hearing spewing from the next campsite all weekend.  The kids shut up... for awhile.  But it was too late.  The trip was less awesome than it should have been because of those $@#*! kids.

In April, my brother and I went camping at Mission Tejas State Park in East Texas.  The park and the weather were great.  We had a great time cooking and hiking - and night hiking - and fishing.  The only major hiccup was a large group that was in a campsite about 100 yards away from us.  I'm not sure if it was a Girl Scout troop or some sort of club or what, but there was a mix of parents and boys and girls of all ages.  They weren't really loud, but their generator was.  That's right... they brought a generator.  And while that's not completely unheard of, it was one of the biggest, highest horsepower generators on the market - you know, the kind that can power an entire house.  And it was loud.  Really loud.  And it echoed all throughout the park from when they fired it up at about 6pm until about 10:30 pm when they shut it down.  Then they would fire it up promptly at 6 am the next morning and run it until about 10 am.  What should have been a quiet weekend in the woods for my brother and I and all the other campers in the park was ruined by the sound of that flibbin flabbin generator.  And the best part of all is that Adam and I were curious about what they could possibly be powering with the generator since they seemed to be cooking on propane stoves.  There was a trail than directly behind their campsite, so as we walked by we decided to look and see what was being powered.  It turns out that the Monster generator was being used to power - wait for it - a strand of rope lights and a coffee pot.  That's it.

And then, finally, there's our trip to Garner.  What I experienced at Garner was mindblowingly ridiculous (enough to spawn this here little rant.)  We experienced inconsiderate people (and not just one or two, but three neighbors around us - not to mention the groups that we saw and heard near the bathrooms and showers) as well as stunning displays of "you brought what camping?"

First off, I could't believe just how inconsiderate people were.  There was a trail (one of many) at the back of our campsite that headed down to the Frio River.  People seemed to have no problem walking directly through our (and our neighbor's) campsites to get to the trail.  It was easily accessible by walking in between the sites, but there were several times I saw people walk directly through sites to get down to the river.


Then, there was the music.  The people in the campsite across from ours seemed to have music blaring from their truck all day and into the night.  It was an odd mix of death metal and country.  The peopl next to them were playing Journey and other more classic rock songs, but still loudly enough so that it could be heard in out site about fifty yards away.  The people in the campsite next to ours also enjoyed listening to music playing from their vehicle. And for some reason, all these people seemed to turn up the music at night after dark.  I'm just glad that we weren't near the showers.  They were blasting Tejano polka up there that could be heard from over a hundred yards away. When all of our neighbors had their music going at 9:30 at night, it seemed almost as if they were having a contest.  And everyone around them was the losers.

I couldn't believe what people bring camping with them.  There were the death metal people that brought their dog, but then left it tied to a tree for the entire weekend.  As we were driving back to the campsite one time, I saw a mini refrigerator  - the kind that a student would use in a dorm room - up on a picnic table.  But that was nothing compared to what Tony told me about... and I didn't believe him until I saw it with my own eyes.  The Tejano music people had brought - in addition to enough Christmas lights to cover a house - a full refrigerator/freezer combo.  This is the kind of stand up refrigerator that most of us have in our kitchens at home.  This one had a refrigerator on bottom and a freezer section on top.  It was just standing there in the grass in their campsite, plugged in to the outlet at their campsite.  I never saw it, but there was also a report of someone having a deep freeze cabinet  in their site, also.

And as we were taking a hayride around the park on the first night, we saw a tent that had a window AC unit sticking out of it.  The park host who was giving the tour said that a lot of tents are actually made with spots for AC units now.

Which brings me back around to my main point - why?  What's the point of leaving the house?  If it's such a burden for people to do without their modern conveniences for a weekend, why don't they just stay home?  It would make them happier and it would make the people in the campsites around them happier.  Why do people feel like they have the right to be inconsiderate just because they're not at home?  Or a far scarier thought - how must they act when they are comfortably at home?  I would hate to be their neighbors.

And please keep in mind that you might, in fact, be the only one who wants to listen to your music.  Keep it down, please.

Friends, this is my plea to you: if you're one of those people, please stay home.  Or get a cabin or a hotel.  Or at the very least, try to be considerate of those around you and remember that some people are out there in our parks trying to have a quiet weekend away from all the conveniences of home.  Some of us are trying to "get away from it all."  Please don't make us have to go home just to get away from you.

..and We're Done.

A couple of days ago, we took a load of books and CDs to Half Price Books to sell as we get ready to "big kidify" the kids' room.  Among the things Kayci put in the bag to get rid of were her Miley Cyrus and Hannah Montana CDs.

She thought I'd be upset, but I've actually never been so proud.  Personally, I've been done with Miley for quite awhile now.  I tried to warn her.  I begged an pleaded.  But Miley just wouldn't listen.

Then today I found out that over Thanksgiving, while no one was really paying attention (including me, apparently,) Miley came out in support of the Occupy Wall Street crowd and even dedicated her song "Liberty Walk" to them.  That makes me even more happy that our house is now Miley Cyrus -free.

I've threatened it before, but now it's official.  We're officially done with (that trashy ignorant train wreck) Miley Cyrus.  It's too bad, really.  There was a time when she had so much potential, too...

It was a good run.  We sent a lot  - and I mean a whole friggin' lot - of money her way over the years when Kayci was into Hannah Montana.  But all mediocre things must come to an end, I suppose.  Just like the impending doom of her career.  It says a lot when a little girl who spent years watching and listening to an *cough* actress and *cough, cough* singer is willing to trade in her entire collection for $12.

Let this be a lesson, kids.  When you don't appreciate what you have and choose to throw it all away, don't wonder why people don't want anything to do with you anymore.  At least, not the real 99%.

Shut Up and Suck It Up, Big Babies

I'd like to add a fourth: nobody helped me pay my student loan debts.  It took me and my wife eleven years to pay off our loans, and even though it took considerable resources out of our monthly budget, it was still an obligation we had made and  it was our duty to honor it, no matter how much we disliked it.

Memo to students: shut up, get an education and then pay for it.  Education isn't free, and it shouldn't be.  Suck it up and quit being suck big damn crybabies.  You're (technically) adults.  Start acting like it.

Open Letter to Facebook

From Facebook, via e-mail:

Hi James,

We're trying out a new feature to reduce the amount of email you receive from Facebook. Starting today, we are turning off most individual email notifications and instead, we'll send you a summary only if there are popular stories you may have missed.

You can turn individual emails back on and restore all your original settings at any time.

Thanks, The Facebook Team Dear Facebook, QUIT MESSING AROUND WITH MY SETTING, ESPECIALLY MY PRIVACY AND NOTIFICATION SETTINGS!!!  It turns out that I LIKE getting e-mail when people send me messages or respond to my posts.  It lets me know that I need to go out to Facebook to interact (because, no, I don't spend all day wasting time on your site.)  You just keep disregarding the my preferences... I REALLY hate it when you change my feed to "Top Stories" instead of "Most Recent" without my knowledge.  I despise it when, after I've gotten my privacy setting JUST the way I want them, you come along and start turning things back on again because you changed your privacy policy or added a new feature. And per your e-mail this morning, I don't want to have to go and turn things BACK ON.  I want you to respect the settings that I've already chosen. Please leave your interface alone for awhile.  Having to learn a new interface three or four times a year is REALLY annoying.  I don't want you to put a chat bar on the left side of my screen.  The old chat wasn't broken.  I don't want lists on the right side of my screen. I hate having to search for my own photos.  Change your interface maybe once a year, if then.  I think you've got a pretty good interface going, but you keep monkeying with it, and most times I don't understand why.  For instance, six months ago, when I clicked on a friend's photo, it took me to a photo page that looked like the rest of the site.  Then about three months ago, when I clicked on the same photo, a black popup screen came up containing the photo.  And now it's a white pop-up screen. And the worst part is that each of those three pages acts COMPLETELY differently.  Ugh! I've been teetering on the edge of quitting you anyway.  All these interface changes may just push me over the edge.  No website should require this much work on my part.  No website is worth the amount of energy I have to expend to keep trying to figure you out.  I suppose you're trying to "stay fresh" and to innovate.  Fine.  Innovate, but please keep it to once a year or so.  This constant monkeying is really pissing me off. -James [Edit 1] - Now I have to be on the lookout for little blue triangles????!!!??  What is this - an episode of Dora the Explorer?  Oh, you DO know how to get at me, don't you? AND HOW THE HELL DO YOU GET BACK TO "MOST RECENT?"   AAAAAAAARGH!!!! [Edit 2] - And so now I have to click somewhere just to bring up a text box so I can post a status?  There's no box waiting there, wondering what I'm thinking?  WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT, FACEBOOK?!?!?!

Vacation Days

From USNews:

At a time when many more cash-strapped Americans are stuck at home instead of vacationing at the beach, President Obama next week will lead an entourage of several dozens to exclusive Martha's Vineyard island at a cost of millions to taxpayers.

While technically he is paying for his estimated $50,000 a week rental of the 28-acre beachfront Blue Heron Farm in woodsy Chilmark, the dozens of U.S. Secret Service agents, communications officials, top aides, drivers, and U.S. Coast Guard personnel with him will be covered by taxpayers as with every other presidential vacation.

And he dismissed the criticism of vacationing presidents. "I think all this 'Why is he taking a vacation?' stuff is ginned up by the media," he said. "I don't think any American will fault him for getting away, especially if he comes back with some fresh ideas on how to create jobs."

Sure - every president needs to take some time off now and then, but how much time?

According to FactCheck.org:

A four-day holiday weekend in Chicago in February where the president played some basketball and treated First Lady Michelle Obama to a Valentine’s Day dinner date.

An eight-day stay with his family at a rented house on Martha’s Vineyard in August.

A trip out west to the U.S. states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Arizona that combined both business and pleasure. The president held town hall meetings on health care during the trip. And he went fly fishing and took trips to Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Canyon with his wife and two daughters.

An 11-day stay in Hawaii where the president and his family celebrated Christmas and New Year’s Eve.

Some of the president’s recent predecessors, however, have spent more days — either entirely or partially — away from the White House "on vacation" during their first year in office.

President Reagan, in 1981, spent all or part of 42 days away from the White House "on vacation" at his home in Santa Barbara, Calif, according to Knoller. President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, also spent three or four days around New Year’s Day each year in Palm Springs, Calif., at the home of philanthropist Walter Annenberg. (In 1993 the late Mr. Annenberg founded the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which is FactCheck.org’s parent organization.)

President George W. Bush spent even more time away from the presidential mansion in the nation’s capital than Reagan. Of the 77 total "vacation" trips the former president made to his Texas ranch while in office, nine of them — all or part of 69 days — came during his first year as president in 2001, according to Knoller.

Ah, yes. But there's a major difference: both Reagan and Bush "vacationed" at their homes on property they owned. They didn't spend millions of taxpayer dollars renting properties at which to vacation. And don't forget that trip to India that Obama turned into a "working" family vacation - where he rented out an entire 600+ room luxury hotel. Or the vacations that Michelle Obama has taken, say, to Spain... or to Oregon... or to Vail... South Africa... You get the idea. Luckily, I'm not the only one who's talking about it.

Oh, yeah... I wonder if all those rounds of golf - 75 rounds to date - Obama's been playing lately count as vacation days? Probably not. Those were on weekends, after all.

I guess what's most frustrating is that all this comes in the middle of a recession and economic hardship for the rest of the country. It's also a time when the president is lecturing us about cutting back and doing without things like, oh, vacations. It's his job to not only follow his own advice, but also to set the tone and example for the country. But just like everything else, he'sa master at saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. In fact, just a few months ago, he said ""If you’re a family trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, you might put off a vacation." But this is the same guy who said in the exact same speech that the government, like ordinary Americans, has to live within its means." And any rational-thinking American can see what utter bullcrap that turned out to be during the debt ceiling debate.

So in the past three years he and his family have managed to waste tens of millions of dollars on vacations. But when you compare that to how much money was wasted on "stimulus spending," I guess that's a drop in the bucket.

Wow. What A Win!

From CNS News:

The bill to increase the federal debt limit that has been put before Congress today would increase that limit by up to $2.4 trillion, which would be the largest increase in the debt limit in U.S. history by a margin of half a trillion dollars, according to records published by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service.

Up until now, the largest increase in the debt limit was the $1.9 trillion increase passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on Feb. 12, 2010. That law increased the debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.

So not only did we just increase the debt limit, we did it by a whole lot. Boehner not only gave Obama and the Democrats exactly what they wanted, he did it by a record margin. Wow, sounds like a clear victory to me.

Can we please have an election, already? There seem to be more clowns that need to be swept out of office.

Why Am I A Terrorist?

Why am I unreasonable - nay, a terrorist - for wanting my government to live within its means? And by "live within its means," I mean don't spend more than it takes in?

This entire debt limit debate is ridiculous. It treats the symptom with a procedural gimmicks but completely ignores the cause - out of control government spending. The government has an obligation and a duty to be diligent with and respectful of the taxpayer money that we send, unwillingly, to Washington. They spend like drunken sailors and then only want more and more and more.

And for all you liberals out there whose favorite refrain in all this is that Congress approved X number of debt limit increases under Bush, let me tell you this: there was a lot of outcry about Bush's spending from conservatives during his term, as well. This isn't a new issue.

We have a problem in that Congress treats all money that comes in as its own and falls all over themselves to spend it, many times multiple times over through accounting gimmicks. What we need is to force Congress to do something they obviously won't do themselves: have some discipline. We need an amendment to the Constitution that requires Congress to balance the budget every year. And we need representatives (and Presidents) who aren't afraid to tell people no. Why must budgets increase every year? Our household budgets certainly haven't, especially in the past few years. So why do government agencies feel entitled to more money than they got the year before and then bitch and moan if they are limited to only a three percent increase?

We need to put a hard stop to all unnecessary government spending, and we need a very narrow definition of what is necessary. The National Parks Service paying to cut down trees in Yosemite isn't necessary - it's a luxury. New post office buildings aren't a necessity - they are a luxury, especially for an agency that is bleeding money. We need to shelve any and all plans on building Biden's bullet train. People are getting around just fine now without it. And we need to put a hard stop on all legislation that will force massive government-imposed overhauls of appliances and light bulbs and fuel economy regulations and such until we as a country can afford to do so. Those kind of projects are not for rainy days, they're for when we're doing well and have expendable incomes in the first place. We must stop government extravagance (read: waste) at every level.

I think it would be good for everyone - difficult, but good - if every single government agency had to trim its budget by 15 percent. Make do without. Sacrifice. Maybe don't get new computers this year or send its members to a conference. Or maybe they make do in that 15-year old building for a few more years before they build a new one. After all, we're in a recession. Why not recede the government budgets, also? When the country is down, it's not the time for new spending - it's time for belt tightening and doing without. The majority of Americans are doing it in their personal budgets, and its time that the government - especially Congress and the White House - do it, too. The example needs to flow from the top down. And by the top, I mean Congress and the President, Vice President, etc. Democrat and Republican.

And while we're at it, let's get a reign on foreign aid while we're struggling. I have no problem with it resuming when we're back on our feet, but now, when we have no money, is not the time to be handing out money. If we were any other country, it would be the other way around - we'd have our collective hand out. But to my knowledge, we haven't done that yet.

If we don't take some hard actions, we're doomed as a country. We need responsibility, accountability and discipline. And we need it now, not in accounting gimmicks and reductions in spending over 10 years.

Unfriended

Here's what's wrong with all the "I'm cleaning out my Facebook friends list, so if I don't hear from you, then you'll be unfriended" type posts I've been seeing a lot on Facebook:

A lot of people don't check Facebook every minute of every day. In fact, some people go days or weeks (and sometimes months) between Facbook sessions. Those people won't see your ultimatum in time and will just get the "unfriended" boot. And then, one day, they will realize that they haven't been seeing your posts lately and look you up, only to find that they've been unfriended. There are not many ways to hurt someone quicker than finding out that you're no longer someone's friend. It feels like you've been cut out of their life, culled.

I've been unfriended a couple of times by a couple of people I thought were my friends. I'll be honest - it hurt. A lot. And it turns out that one of them unfriended everyone from work. It's not that they didn't want to be Facebook friends with me, it's just that they cut everyone in a particular category out with the intention of adding them back in later one at a time. It was a shotgun approach to weed out a couple of bad "friends." But imagine my shock when a friend - both on Facebook and off - said in a passive aggressive way "you don't have value to me anymore, at least not enough to be a friend on Facebook." And that's the only conclusion I could reach because I wasn't given any notice of what this person's true intentions were. It was just one day - gone.

And here's the thing: Facebook is the perfect place to have casual friends. In fact, it's what it was built for. It's a great place to passively keep up with an acquaintance or someone you met at a conference or a long-ago friend from high school or someone at work who works on the other side of the building who you know from running into them in the break room. Facebook doesn't require an active connection.

So feel free to clean out your friends list. But PLEASE just go through and weed out the random contacts and people you really only intend to never hear from or speak to again. If someone is - or has ever been - a real-life friend, then leave them on. It's not hurting anything or anyone (unless it's a college friend who's gone freaking nuts and is just really annoying). But please try to think of the real-world equivalent of your Facebook "un-friend."

In the real world, if you told someone that you didn't want to be their friend, it's a pretty hurtful thing. You would never do it casually. So don't do it on Facebook, either.