Showing posts with label Liberal Elite. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Elite. Show all posts

Monday, September 24, 2012

Obama refers to death of US Ambassador & three other Americans as a " bumps in the road"

How clueless and moronic can this man get??? He is the PRESIDENT of our country and he has referred to the death of our Ambassador to Libya and three others ( including two former US NAVY SEALS) as a " bumps in the road.." - REALLY ???

This inept and careless POL needs to be voted out of office. Please - I implore you to vote him out as a nation cannot endure another 4 years of this level of ineptitude.

From Twitchy.com:

Callous: Obama refers to murdered Americans in Libya as “bumps in the road” September 24, 2012 by Twitchy Staff

Yep. That’s how unreality-based President Obama referred to the bloody mess in Libya and the American casualties of this administration’s deadly dereliction of duty on 60 Minutes earlier tonight.

Here's another quote from the Village Idiot of Chicago:

" But I was pretty certain and continue to be pretty certain that there are going to be bumps in the road because-- you know, in a lot of these places-- the one organizing principle-- has been Islam. The one part of society that hasn't been controlled completely by the government. There are strains of extremism, and anti-Americanism, and anti-Western sentiment."

My teenage daughter has a greater grasp of world affairs than this clueless half-wit.

Here's the link to a more indepth article on the Weekly Standard website:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-calls-recent-middle-east-violence-bumps-road_652971.html

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

The $50 Lesson

Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home fromwalking their dog. During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grew up.
 
She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, Liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"
 
She replied... "I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people."
 
Her parents beamed with pride!
 
"Wow...what a worthy goal!" I said. "But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that!" I told her.
 
"What do you mean?" she replied.
 
So I told her, "You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I'll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house."
 She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked,

"Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

I said, " Welcome to the Republican Party. "

Her parents aren't speaking to me anymore.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

The HYPOCRISY of the LIBERAL MEDIA knows no bounds

If you read this blog, you know I am big about the definition of words as the definition is important.

Today's word is:

hy·poc·ri·sy - Noun:The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

As in MEDIA HYPOCRISY.

The idjits who sit in the ivory towers at the NY Times and other bastions of LIB stupidity will condemn Ann Romney for wearing a $990 shirt, but lavish praise on the First Lady for wearing a $6800 outfit.

Pathetic. The worst part is they think you and I are stupid and will not catch on to the way they try to scam us.

Both Presidential Candidates are Millionaires.  Both have more money than common sense.  Both are far above the majority of average Americans.

To think the Media can be so partial and basically be cheerleaders for one candidate and condemn another is the surest sign that things are not what they should be in reporting.

The Journalists who act this way are lying to you.  I see it, and others see it.  They should be ashamed to show their faces as things have gone downhill for what passes as reporting the news.

Edward R. Murrow must be spinning in his grave. 

VOTE and show the idjits in the media you know that they are liars.  Buck the system and put the liars on the losing side as that is the best way to show them you know their game is up.


Ann Romney slammed for $990 Shirt, Michelle Obama praised for $6,800 jacket
By Hollie McKay
Pop Tarts
Published August 01, 2012

Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”

Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.

The price-tag? $6,800.

This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”

“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.”

Glenn Selig of The Publicity Agency concurred.

“The media will not stay quiet on the issue because wealth remains a big issue with the Romneys. It is not his fault that he's wealthy, but the media is portraying it as a liability,” Selig said.

Dan Gainor, VP of Business and Culture for Media Research Center in Washington DC, said it’s “just the latest example of a consistent media theme that somehow Romney is too wealthy and out of touch because he's a millionaire. Except of course that Obama is also a millionaire. “

Some also highlighted the apparent hypocrisy on Twitter. “And you thought the Romneys were out of touch?” tweeted one, while another wondered who had to pay for the almost $7,000 dress, and another balked that the “jacket would put a lot of food on the table of one of the 25M unemployed people in USA.”

Not everyone’s nose was out of joint, however. Media commentator Jenn Hoffman told FoxNews.com that “Americans need to face the fact that with our current system, politicians need to have money. That is how they get into the office in the first place. If you are near the White House, you have access to serious cash and much of that cash is spent on honing your image.”

Mark Joseph, producer of “Wild Card: The Promise & Peril of Sarah Palin,” added that “Mrs. Romney's wardrobe expenses are certainly fair game, but so are Mrs. Obama's, and political reporters have got to do a better job of being even-handed."

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

CLUELESS NY TIMES STAFF might have to take pension downgrade...The horror.



Take a listen to the bucketheads at the NY TIMES whine about the possibility that they might have to take a reduction in pension benefits. The horror !!


Here's a bite of reality for you Mr. Media-Elite. Welcome to the new economy that the Democrats & dear leader Mr. Obama have given us...Share YOUR wealth Mr. Newspaper Elite !!. Here is what the rest of us have known for the past three years as we watched the DEMS spend us $5 TRILLION dollars further into debt.


Granted, the other side is not much better but they haven't figured out how to wreck things like Pelosi, Reed and Obama did in three years. These ingrates will get their pensions, just not a life-time of their full salary. That is reserved only for Municipal workers, State & Federal employees. The rest of us will have to get by on working in normal retirement age, add in what little social security is left and anything else we can do.


To work for a major newspaper and to act this clueless/entitled/elite is the sign of how badly the media does it's job. If they couldn't figure this crap out until now, how much other shite they write about is wrong also ?


Russel Mead lays it out in true Schadefreude...enjoy.


To quote John McClean from DIE HARD, " WELCOME TO THE PARTY PAL..."






At The NYT: Clueless Blue Deer Meets Onrushing Truck
Russell Mead - PJ Media


Schadenfreude alert: readers, and especially those who don’t much like the New York Times, should make sure they are not eating soup or holding hot liquids before viewing the video below. Uncontrollable gales of laughter stemming from excessive levels of schadenfreude may cause spilling and staining.


New York Times staffers, like suffering proles all over the world, belong to a labor union, and over the years the union has negotiated a very comfy defined benefit retirement plan. The staffers love the plan.


But economic reality is intruding. Times management, perhaps reading the coverage in its own pages about the companies and cities going bankrupt due to unsustainable union-bargained pension systems, wants to make a change. It wants to offer a defined contribution plan, instead. Workers and the company pay into a 401(k) plan, workers invest it, and when they retire, that is the amount they have towards their income.


It’s an entitled blue deer, meet onrushing truck kind of moment. The Guild is talking about a strike, and an array of Times staffers, including some famous bylines that are well known in news circles, worry aloud that the new plan could make them eat cat food and sleep in boxes on the street in old age. (Or late middle age, anyway; not one staffer talks about working past 65.)


Nobody in the video talks about the changes in the news business that threatens to drive the Times into a deep dive. Nobody talks about the prospect of future significant staff cuts if costs can’t be contained. None of them discuss the incongruity between their own naive sense of entitlement and what is going on in the cities, companies and countries they cover.


They just want the money.


Some writers allude to the prospect of leaving the paper if the pension change goes through, but a quick check of the newspaper business suggests they don’t have all that many options. Certainly with the exception of a handful of superstars the New York Times would have less trouble replacing its current staff than the current staff would have in replacing their jobs. And if those new jobs are in journalism, good luck finding a company with a generous defined benefit pension plan.


I sympathize with the Times staff about living in tougher economic conditions, but that is what people are adjusting to all over the world; I’m not sure what gives them an exemption. Newspaper reporters of all people should have seen this coming long ago, and have made savings and retirement plans on the assumption that their defined benefit plan would be going the way of the passenger pigeon and sooner rather than later.


If anything, their feelings of regret and chagrin should be tinged with at least a soupçon of relief. In the end, a defined benefit plan is only as solid as the company behind it, and given the turmoil on today’s media landscape it’s not at all clear where the Times will be or how it will be restructuring its debt 20 years from now. The good thing about a defined contribution plan is that you don’t lose the money if your ex-employer goes broke.


For readers, this is a fascinating and revealing glimpse inside the Times bubble. I am not sure which is more disconcerting; the deeply embedded sense of blue entitlement so palpably on display or the poor political judgement that led the union brass to think that releasing this video to the public would be good PR. Either way it serves as a powerful illustration of just how fundamentally out of touch many of the people working at America’s most famous newspaper have become.


I like and admire many of the people who write for the Times. Some of them I have known for years and, happily, the judgment and sensibility behind this video doesn’t characterize everyone who works there. But I suspect that most viewers around the world are going to find this video funny and revealing rather than heartfelt and convincing.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Rich LIB POLS & Celebrities seek political gains by supporting the OWS crowd....Can you say " Hypocritical"?

An enlightened and thoughtful overview of the OWS issue - On one hand, OWS says that the 1% are the issue - simultaneously, you have POLS & other LIBS like Micheal Moore (Millionaries all) saying they support the OWS goals.

None of the rich LIB supporters are putting their $$$ where their mouths are...They only like that the OWS causes havoc and unrest. None of the LIB celebrities is willing to give out their own money or change their lifestyles...They just want to protests to continue as they are trying to make political gain off of the unrest.



If you spent $100K for a degree in ancient civilizations and feel upset that you can't find a job with that degree, you obviously made a poor choice in spending 4 years studying a subject that has very limited career opportunities. We all make choices and we all need to be responsible for our own decisions.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON makes some good points.....well worth reading.


Occupy What?
November 4, 2011 - 11:35 am - by Victor Davis Hanson

Playing With Fire - PJMEDIA

Occupy Wall Street follows three years of sloppy presidential name-calling — “millionaires and billionaires,” slurs about Las Vegas and the Super Bowl, profit-mad, limb-lopping doctors, introspection that now is not the time for profits and at some point we should cease making money, spread the wealth, punish our enemies, and all the old Obama boilerplate. Someone finally got the message about the evil 1%.

When Ms. Pelosi and President Obama voice support for the protestors, we enter 1984. Does that mean that the Pelosis now pull their millions out of Wall Street, that the First Family eschews the 1% at Martha’s Vineyard and Vail? That Obama turns his back on Wall Street cash, and, for once, accepts public funding for his 2012 campaign? Postmodern class warfare is an insidious business, and hinges on its advocates not looking in the mirror.

No wise politician should invest in the bunch like those rampaging in Oakland. Their nocturnal frolics are a long way from Woody Guthrie’s Deportee, the Hobos’ “Big Rock Candy Mountain,” and the world John Steinbeck fictionalized. It is the angst of the wannabe class, overeducated and underemployed, which chooses to live not in Akron or Fowler, but in tony places like the Bay Area or New York, where annual rents are far more than a down payment on a starter house in the Midwest. Being educated, but broke and in proximity to the wealthy of like upbringing and background, are ingredients for riot.

I saw videos of youths burning things in Oakland, but was told that it “was a small minority” and atypical of the protest. Not long ago I saw no clips of anyone spitting at black congresspeople wading into the Tea-Party demonstration, but was told they did and that it was typical of tens of thousands of racialists on the Mall.

But Some Are Less Equal Than Others

I don’t think the protests are really much over the Goldman Sachs bailout, or jerks like revolving-door Budget Director Peter Orszag starting back up at Citigroup, or Solyndra crony capitalism. Apparently, most middle-class and upper-middle class liberals—many of them (at least from videos) young and white—are angry at the “system.” And so they are occupying (at least until it gets really cold and wet) financial districts, downtowns, and other areas of commerce across the well-reported urban landscape. As yet there is no definable grievance other than anger that others are doing too well, and the protestors themselves are not doing at all well, and the one has something to do with the other. I am not suggesting union members and the unemployed poor are not present, only that the tip of the spear seems to be furious young middle class kids of college age and bearing, who mope around stunned, as in “what went wrong?”

Then there is a wider, global phenomenon of the angry college student. In the Middle East, much of the unrest, whether Islamist, liberal, or hard-core leftist, is fueled by young unemployed college graduates. Ditto Europe in general, and Greece in particular: The state subsidizes college loans and the popular culture accepts an even longer period between adolescence and adulthood, say between 18 and 30 something. Students emerge “aware,” but poorly educated, highly politicized, and with unreal expectations about their market worth in an ossifying society, often highly regulated and statist.

The decision has been made long ago not to marry at 23, have two or three kids by 27, and go to work in the private sector in hopes of moving up the ladder by 30. Perhaps at 35, a European expects that a job opens up in the Ministry of Culture or the elderly occupant of a coveted rent-controlled flat dies.

Students rarely graduate in four years, but scrape together parental support and, in the bargain, often bed, laundry, and breakfast, federal and state loans and grants, and part-time minimum wage jobs to “go to college.” By traditional rubrics—living at home, having the car insurance paid by dad and mom, meals cooked by someone else—many are still youths. But by our new standards—sexually active, familiar with drugs or alcohol, widely traveled and experienced—many are said to be adults.

Debt mounts. Jobs are few. For the vast majority who are not business majors, engineers, or vocational technicians, there are few jobs or opportunities other than more debt in grad or law school. In the old days, an English or history degree was a certificate of inductive thinking, broad knowledge, writing skills, and a good background for business, teaching, or professionalism. Not now. The watered down curriculum and politically-correct instruction ensure a certain glibness without real skills, thought, or judgment. Most employers are no longer impressed.

Students with such high opinions of themselves are angry that others less aware—young bond traders, computer geeks, even skilled truck drivers—make far more money. Does a music degree from Brown, a sociology BA in progress from San Francisco State, two years of anthropology at UC Riverside count for anything? They are angry at themselves and furious at their own like class that they think betrayed them. After all, if a man knows about the construction of gender or a young woman has read Rigoberta Menchu, or both have formed opinions about Hiroshima, the so-called Native American genocide, and gay history, why is that not rewarded in a way that derivatives or root canal work surely are?

Class—family pedigree, accent, clothes, schooling—now mean nothing. You can meet your Dartmouth roommate working in Wall Street at Starbucks, and seem for all appearances his identical twin. But when you walk out the door with your environmental studies degree, you reenter the world of debt and joblessness, he back into the world of good money. Soooo unfair for those of like class.

Then there is the sad hypocrisy of the Occupy Wall Street mess. Are Oprah and George Soros enemies of the people? Are the criteria that one must both be rich and right-wing to exempt a John Kerry, Warren Buffett, or Nancy Pelosi? Multimillionaire Michael Moore dresses like a buffoon, spouts his usual silly Flint, Michigan, shtick, and earns an indulgence? Are former New Jersey Governor Corzine and the BP and Goldman Sachs execs, who were so eager to fund Obama’s campaign, also class insects? Why not an occupy White House for near three years of 9.1% unemployment, an occupy Hollywood for John Depp’s $50 million last year, or occupy the LA Lakers gym for obscene basketball salaries? Why not occupy Sacramento for the $200,000 plus retirement pensions from a bankrupt state? Or for that matter, why not occupy dad’s house?

And then there are the sloppy rubrics “millionaires and billionaires.” A software engineer who makes $150,000 a year, and has a $850,000, 1200 sq. foot bungalow in Menlo Park (= one million in net worth) is to be in the same category as those worth 1000x more—or even a Bill Gates or Jay Rockefeller? The young radiologist who brings in $250,000, but pays the full tab for his two kids at USC and Occidental ($100,000 per year) is analogous to the late billionaire Steve Jobs, or is he that much better off than the DMV supervisor at a $65,000 salary, with less taxes, and whose three kids are all on state grants at CSUs? We need a government Department of Assessing Net Worth to factor in locale, entitlements, dispensations, cost of living, and housing to adjudicate who is what.

Are we back to reckoning relative rather than absolute wealth? Mr. Victor Hanson is poor and mows his own lawn, and Donald Trump has 1,000 gardeners? My Accord has fake leather seats and those in Leonardo DiCaprio’s Mercedes are real hide? My 140-year old frame house is worth only $150,000 in Selma, and something that looks just like it is worth a million in Palo Alto? Is the roof better on that account?

The whole point of globalization was to extend the simulacra of the aristocratic class to the common man. It succeeded brilliantly. Go to Wal-Mart and get fitted with “outdoor wear,” walk out and to the untrained eye (like mine) it looks about the same as the stuff at ten times the cost at REI or Eddie Bauer. I spoke at a financial group of zillionaires not long ago. Afterwards a young woman complimented my garish “black and gold watch band.” I replied, “A great deal at Walmart at $19.00.” What great wealth brings today is not elemental advantage, but optional delight in the sense of flying private rather than coach, six homes instead of one, a week in Tuscany rather in Pismo Beach. In absolute terms, not all that much; in terms of highly aware younger people, cosmically unfair! I was riding my bike the other day: a farm worker emerging from an almond orchard was on his iPhone, not unlike the ones I see in Occupy Wall Street clips. Weird world.

These are upside down times. The EU that was to be our model is in shambles. The supposedly white right-wing champions a Herman Cain, with deep South baritones and youthful experience with Jim Crow. Yet both are considered suspect, while a Hawaiian prep school, Ivy League graduate, with contrived black cadences, is the better representative of the African-American experience. Never have Americans’ prospects seemed brighter—vast new energy reserves, an unmatched military, disarray in Russia, the Middle East and Europe—and never have been Americans been more conditioned and readied for decline. In such surreal times, we see the anguish of the upper-middle class at Occupy Wall Street, championed by multimillionaires, whose overt liberalism is offered as some sort of exemption.

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

The American People didn't drop the ball. The feckless President did and it is about time he takes responsibilty.

The NY TIMES is such a repository of self righteousness, it's amazing that the smell coming from their HQ isn't mistaken for a Pig Farm.

Exhibit A - OPED by Nicholas D. Kristof titled " Did WE Drop the ball on Unemployment?"

The NY TIMES lists the following on Mr. Kristof's Bio -


"Mr. Kristof grew up on a sheep and cherry farm near Yamhill, Oregon. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard College and then studied law at Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship, graduating with first class honors."

Well I am unsure what he learned at either Oxford or Harvard BUT I can tell you this -

WE (as in the American People) didn't drop the ball on unemployment, HE (as in the feckless idiot in the White House) dropped the ball. The average working man had the ball dropped on him.

While the fool that was elected in 2008 spent the better part of the last 2 1/2 years diddling around with Nancy Pelosi's vision of America, the average American has been taking it in the neck...The PRESIDENT dropped the ball. CONGRESS dropped the ball.

One of the key tennants of LEADERSHIP is when you are in charge, you take RESPONSIBILITY for what happens when you are in charge. RESPONSIBILITY is a word that has never been in the President's dictionary as he is CLUELESS about what needs to be done. That is why we are in the mess we are in. He and his minions wasted 2 1/2 years blaming everything on anyone else. Mr. Kristof is one of those media cheerleaders that propped up the President in getting elected, and he was wrong then, and he is wrong now.

Mr. Kristof, with all due respect, get a clue. WE (the American people) didn't drop the ball. The feckless & ineffective pol sitting in the White House screwed up and he needs to be adult enough to own up to it. And he DOES NOT deserve a 2nd term to further muck things up. He can go back to Harvard or Chicago and charge $100K a speech for anyone dumb enough top listen to whatever comes out of his empty head.


Op-Ed Columnist - NY TIMES
Did We Drop the Ball on Unemployment?
Nicholas D. Kristof

WHEN I’m in New York or Washington, people talk passionately about debt and political battles. But in the living rooms or on the front porches here in Yamhill, Ore., where I grew up, a different specter wakes friends up in the middle of the night.

It’s unemployment.

I’ve spent a chunk of summer vacation visiting old friends here, and I can’t help feeling that national politicians and national journalists alike have dropped the ball on jobs. Some 25 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed — that’s more than 16 percent of the work force — but jobs haven’t been nearly high enough on the national agenda.

When Americans are polled about the issue they care most about, the answer by a two-to-one margin is jobs. The Boston Globe found that during President Obama’s Twitter “town hall” last month, the issue that the public most wanted to ask about was, by far, jobs. Yet during the previous two weeks of White House news briefings, reporters were far more likely to ask about political warfare with Republicans.

(I’m an offender, too: I asked President Obama a question at the Twitter town hall, and it was a gotcha query about his negotiations with Republicans. I’m sorry that I missed the chance to push him on the issue that Americans care most about.)

A study by National Journal in May found something similar: newspaper articles about “unemployment” apparently fell over the last two years, while references to the “deficit” soared.

When I’m back on the family farm in Yamhill, our very closest neighbor is one of those 25 million. Terry Maggard worked on a crew detecting underground gas, electrical or cable lines, and after 15 years on the job he was earning $20 an hour. Then at the outset of the recession in late 2008 his employer fired him and the other old-timers, and hired younger workers — who earned only $9 or $10 an hour.

Terry has been knocking on doors everywhere, including at McDonald’s, but nobody wants a 56-year-old man. “The only call I got in two years was one asking if I could be a French chef,” he recalled, laughing. “I said ‘Oui.’ ”

Mais non, the chef’s job did not come through. So although Terry earns some money breeding Pomeranians, his wife is now the main income earner. She worries that her job at a community college may be in jeopardy as well, and their standard of living has plummeted.

“It’s been a 100 percent change in my lifestyle,” Terry said. “I used to grill rib-eye steaks on the barbecue. Now I grill hot dogs. And I can’t tell you the last time I went out for a meal.”

My next neighbor beyond the Maggards is Elmer McKoon, 64, who used to work full time in construction, and more recently as a janitor. His company slashed the staff in 2008, but a kind boss kept Elmer working one night a week so he could keep his health insurance.

Another friend, Jeff, who was fired this year after 28 years in his job, notes that the biggest impact isn’t the economic hit but the psychological one. Jeff, who didn’t want his full name used for fear it would hurt his job hunt, said he wakes up and feels a stab in his gut as he realizes that he has nowhere to go that day — and has lost his family’s health insurance as well.

“I don’t have the career that I know, and if someone gets sick then I’m homeless as well,” he said.

Unless more people are working, paying taxes and making mortgage payments, it’s difficult to see how we revive the economy or address our long-term debt challenge. While debt is a legitimate long-term problem, the urgent priority should be getting people back to work. America now has more than four unemployed people for each opening. And the longer people are out of work, the less likely it is that they will ever work again.

President Obama is saying the right things lately about creating jobs. But he is saying them far too meekly, and his jobs agenda seems anemic — while the Republican Congress is saying the wrong things altogether.

There are no quick fixes to joblessness, but Washington could temporarily make federal money available to pay for teachers who are otherwise being laid off. We could increase spending on service programs like AmeriCorps that have far more applicants than spots.

We could extend the payroll tax cut, which expires at the end of December. Astonishingly, Republicans in Congress seem to be lined up instinctively against this basic economic stimulus. Could the Tea Party actually favor tax reductions for billionaires but not for working Americans? Could we have found a tax increase the Republican Party favors?

Mr. Obama, with 25 million Americans hurting, will you fight — really fight! — to put jobs at the top of the national agenda?

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Ted, White & Blue.....Or how to make a Liberal Weenie Scream....

On a regular basis, I like to post something like this just to hear the sound of the Liberal Tree-huggers screaming....Ted is like a cartoon character but he does actually make sense....not that I would support all the things TED does but the man makes a few good points here and there....

So for all you Lefty Looney Liberal, (Progressive)Spotted Owl tongue kissing, Al Gore loving, Prius driving Greenie, PETA worshipping, Nancy Pelosi SF Voting, Obama supporting freaks -


This bit of "Ted, White & Blue" is for just for you !


NUGENT: You have the right to remain stupid
Fedzillacrats are oblivious to self-evident truths
By Ted Nugent

The Washington Times
July 13, 2011

You have the right to remain stupid, and what you say and do can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, the court of public opinion is expanding into a stupid-is-as-stupid-does joke. And it has a president and gang of thieves in the United States government to represent it.

So goes the sheeping of America. Welcome to Euro II.

With the level of dishonesty, fraud, abuse of power, corruption, rampant irresponsibility, downright criminal behavior and vehement refusal to be accountable, our government has clearly lost its collective mind - and its soul.

The brain-dead, zombielike nonsense blurting out of Democrats' pie holes is mind-boggling as they feebly attempt to rationalize raising the debt ceiling, scrambling mindlessly to explain how increased runaway, criminal spending on gluttonous, wasteful, superfluous stuff is a good thing.

"Honey, we're in debt up to our asses. Let's go shopping and increase our gluttonous indulgences. Yeah, that's the ticket."

Is there a Dr. Phil or an Oprah to counsel psychotic bureaucrats? Somebody has to put a halt to this insanity as quickly as possible. We the people of the Tea Party are trying with all our might but there must be somebody in government that can stop this. Somebody?

The separation of legislative, executive and judicial branches of government has turned into one big gang of complicit goons, scratching each other's backs and scheming to increase their own dishonest assault on we the people. Oh, how they have forgotten their oath to the U.S. Constitution. Oh, woe are they.

A nasty, unclean gaggle of Americans read the nonstop reports of mass graves in Mexico, the mountains of dead bodies, the unending exhuming of slaughtered innocents and decapitated citizens and public officials at the hands of evil drug cartels, then nonchalantly purchase another load of the mind- and life-destroying dope that these subhuman heathens peddle. You have to be on dope in order to fail to admit how your illegal or "medical" marijuana consumption creates wanton death and mayhem in your own communities and country. Thanks for nothing, idiots.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and their complicit gang of America-hating snake-oil salesmen represent the most clear and present economic raping and pillaging in our country's history. Instead of ending the tragedy, the perpetrators are given bonuses and hired by our already-criminal-infested government. And they call it "creating jobs." Mao Zedong and Al Capone would be proud.

In the American West, where inhabitants have been raising hell for 20-plus years about how grizzly bears pose a serious and constant threat to people's lives and livelihoods, inept, ignorant bureaucrats enforce dangerous policy by calling these overpopulated bears an endangered species. A hiker gets killed by a grizzly again and these geniuses respond by reminding people to whistle and bang on pots and pans.

In the middle of a war on terror, invaders infiltrate our southern border with impunity and instead of living up to their oath to protect America, soulless Fedzillacrats erect signs on American soil not warning the invaders to leave but rather warning American citizens to stay out of the invaded territory. Meanwhile, the feds sue Arizona for enforcing American laws.

Charlie Rangel, Tim Geithner, Tom Daschle and God knows how many other criminal tax cheats get caught red-handed, and none of them are brought to anything resembling justice. Are you kidding me?

Former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and current Mayor Rahm Emanuel, along with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, forbid their subjects to protect themselves but charge their subjects higher taxes to pay for their own heavily armed security detail.

Texas rightly decides to execute a convicted murderer-rapist of an innocent little girl and the president and secretary of state side with the murderous, rotten-to-the-core United Nations goons instead of with their own country. Are you kidding me?

I end up in a state-of-the-art emergency room at a Canadian hospital with a serious blood-gushing dog bite and wait 6 1/2 hours to see a doctor. In Waco, Texas, I wait less than a minute. Our fearless community-organizer-in-chief wants to fundamentally transform American health care into Canadian health care - unless, of course, you qualify for a crony-payoff waiver of this diabolical scam shoved down the throats of we the people. Are you kidding me?

Food stampers increase their fraud and criminal abuse of an already-failed welfare slavery system, and our numbnut politicians let President Obama increase it fourfold. Are you kidding me?

Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven write the ultimate America-hating guideline on how to bring down the greatest quality of life in the history of mankind, and the Obama administration puts their ideas on the fast track in broad daylight, yet no one stops him. Are you kidding me?

Unions continue to demand more compensation for less productivity or quality control. The list of jobs Americans are not willing to do gets longer by the day as soylent-green foreigners continue to kick our butts because they don't allow such a list. Are you kidding me?

With another glaring, smoke-and-mirrors defiance of the pledge to government transparency, the No. 1 cop in America, aided and abetted by the vehemently anti-gun president, knowingly breaks the law and his oath to the Constitution by running illegally begotten guns to Mexican murderers, then tries to blame legitimate American gun dealers. Nothing like a good backfire to spotlight the cockroaches.

I could go on, but I'm getting sick to my stomach, as are an increasing number of American citizens sickened by the flagrant criminality of our government. I would like to go on record that the U.S. government is now more offensive and in violation of self-evident truths and God-given individual rights and liberties than the British government was in 1775.

Make note, bureaucrats. We have had enough, are completely fed up with the insanity and we officially put you on notice: You're fired. When we go to the polls in 2012, we are committed to give most of you a good dose of what unemployment feels like. And from now on, you will have to create your own jobs because governments - especially a bloated, criminally abusive government like we have in America today - is unforgivable, unsustainable and will not be tolerated any longer.

I would highly recommend you all seek treatment for your allergies to logic, truth, good will, decency, accountability and the American Way. If you don't get help soon, God only knows what will become of you.

Ted Nugent is an American rock 'n' roll, sporting and political activist icon. He is the author of "Ted, White and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto" and "God, Guns & Rock 'N' Roll" (Regnery Publishing).

Saturday, May 14, 2011

The New Me Generation or what I call " The REVENGE OF THE HIPPIES"

The enclosed article covers something that many of us have been trying to head off since we noticed that the way the younger generations has been educated changed from what we experiecned in school.

I was raised by parents who lived through the Great Depression. We were raised to appreciate the things we had and to work hard. Nothing was going to be given to us, we had to earn it and it made us much more self-supporting and dedicated to our families and communities.



The article speaks about people borm after 1970. In many cases, the parent of these kids were former HIPPIES. The HIPPIES were counter culture and they advocated, " Do your own thing, do what feels good, do what you want.." and other nonsense. They had no care for society or their fellow man, it was " all about me"... Liberals adore this crappola, and the rest of us get sick each time we hear it.

Well now, we are facing what I call, "THE REVENGE OF THE HIPPIES ". They were rejected by society and now, they have found a way to pay us back in spades.

Many of these malcontents decided to go into education as they didn't want to work in corporate America and teaching gave them a prime platform to continue to talk nonsense about " self-esteem" and "it's all about you.." Well many of these idiots succeeded in spawning a new "ME Generation" formed due to their parents and teachers telling them since birth that " it is all about you...you're special, you're great ", even while the kid wasn't....arrrrrrrggh.

Read the enclosed article and when you run into one of these new "ME Generation" fools at the retail establishment you are patronizing or elsewhere, you can thank the HIPPIES for what they have dumped on the rest of us. The most self-centered group of narcissistic malcontents imaginable... We'll be dealing with these half-wits for a long time.


The New Me Generation

The crop of talented recent graduates coming into today's workforce is widely seen as narcissistic and entitled. And those are their best qualities.
By Jake Halpern - Boston Globe magazine


Nicole Mirabile, who is just 15 years old, has a clear vision of her future, and it doesn't involve a boss. The prospect of working at a Fortune 500 company – and landing the sort of well-paying job that Americans once regarded as
the benchmark of success – holds zero allure for her. "It would be hard compromising with a lot of different people whom I might clash with," she speculates. Mirabile, a sophomore at North Quincy High School, would be far happier running her own company. "I have the time, I have the brains, I have the patience to do it, and I am not going to give up if I fail once," she vows.

Alan Chhabra, who is 31 years old, shares a similar sensibility even if, as it turns out, he does report to a boss. Chhabra works at Egenera, a computer-server manufacturer based in Marlborough, but he is not the sort of fellow who puts too much stock in old-school notions of corporate protocol. As he puts it, "I have no problem knocking on the door and walking into the CEO's office or the CTO's office on a whim – interrupting their schedule – and saying, 'I need to talk to you.'" Chhabra says that ever since he was a kid, he has been "knocking heads with basketball teachers, track coaches, teachers, and girlfriends. If I felt that I was right, I wouldn't back down."

What do Alan Chhabra and Nicole Mirabile have in common – besides a great deal of chutzpah? They are members of the so-called Entitlement Generation, the upstarts at the office who put their feet on their desks, voice their opinions frequently and loudly at meetings, and always volunteer – nay, expect – to take charge of the most interesting projects. They are smart, brash, even arrogant, and endowed with a commanding sense of entitlement. And since a new crop is graduating from Boston's high-powered colleges and universities every year, chances are, one may be heading to your office soon.

Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University, says that this includes virtually everyone born after 1970. According to Twenge, these young people were raised on a daily regimen of praise and flattery from their baby boomer parents and from teachers who embraced a self-esteem-boosting curriculum that included activities like the Magic Circle game. Never heard of it? In this game, one child a day is given a badge that says "I'm great." The other children then take turns praising the "great" child, and eventually these compliments are written up and given to the child for posterity. This constant reinforcement, argues Twenge, is largely responsible for those young co-workers who drive you nuts.

At the University of South Alabama, psychology professor Joshua Foster has done a great deal of research using a standardized test called the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI). The NPI asks subjects to rate the accuracy of various narcissistic statements, such as "I can live my life any way I want to" and "If I ruled the world, it would be a better place." Foster has given this personality test to a range of demographic groups around the world, and no group has scored higher than the American teenager. Narcissism also appears to be reaching new highs, even within the Entitlement Generation, among American college students. Another national study involving the NPI, conducted by Twenge, shows that 24 percent of college students in 2006 showed elevated levels of narcissism compared to just 15 percent in the early 1990s.

All of this would seem to suggest that this generation, which is flooding into the workforce, will create chaotic, unpleasant, and utterly unproductive work environments that will drive many a good business directly into the ground. But there's another very real possibility. It may be that this much-reviled generation will revitalize the economy and ensure the prosperity of America for years to come. Painful as it sounds, in the not-too-distant future, we may owe a debt of gratitude to these narcissists.


The concept of narcissism is an ancient idea that dates to Greek mythology. According to legend, Narcissus was a beautiful Grecian youth who fell madly in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. Unable to avert his eyes from the image of his own face, Narcissus knelt too close to the water, fell in, and drowned.

Michael Maccoby is a psychoanalyst, anthropologist, and business consultant based in Washington, D.C., who works with CEOs who want to become more-effective leaders. He is also the author of Narcissistic Leaders: Who Succeeds and Who Fails. Maccoby has spent the last seven years writing and arguing – quite convincingly – that what the American economy needs right now is a generation of brazen, brash, narcissistic innovators. Within the business world, Maccoby's theory is something akin to blasphemy. For the last five or six years, the bible of corporate management has been another book, titled Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap . . . and Others Don't, by Jim Collins. In his book, Collins studies the inner workings of 11 mega-companies – including Wells Fargo, Gillette, and Walgreens – and determines that truly effective CEOs are often actually "self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy." Maccoby, for his part, argues that such CEOs may get the job done in old-fashioned companies that focus on retail, manufacturing, and cutting costs, but that businesses that rely on innovation, new technology, and globalization require far bolder leaders who can take risks, shrug off conventional wisdom, project confidence, formulate hyper-ambitious plans, and charm the pants off investors and underlings alike, so that they, too, will make a leap of faith and believe in the next cold-fusion-powered car or the iPod that pays your bills and runs your household.

"Generally, it is very rare that people accept new ideas," Maccoby says. It takes a person with "strategic intelligence" to push a new idea successfully. Such a person must have foresight, the ability to partner with others, and the charisma to motivate an entire organization to succeed. This, Maccoby says, is "productive narcissism." When a person with this combination of traits emerges – and arguably this will happen fairly often when you have an entire generation of young narcissists – great things can happen.

Take the example of Yael Maguire, the 32-year-old chief technology officer of ThingMagic, a Cambridge-based company he cofounded in 2000 that designs and manufactures radio-frequency identification systems, commonly known as RFID. "I think we are an entitled generation, but by feeling entitled, we also feel empowered to do great things," Maguire says. "I grew up thinking if you were confident in yourself and you took a chance, you could do whatever you wanted. The thought of working my way up the corporate ladder had absolutely no appeal to me."

Interestingly enough, one of the pivotal moments in Maguire's career hinged on his not listening to superiors. One day, when Maguire was in grad school studying quantum computers at MIT, he began chatting with a protein biologist about a hypothetical device that could detect whether a given protein was binding with a receptor. Such information is vital in drug research. Maguire became fascinated by this challenge, even though, he says, "I didn't know anything about biology other than what I knew from high school." He designed a device using technology that is traditionally used in wifi. This device, Maguire boldly proclaimed, could determine whether the protein was present. The biologist and Maguire's fellow students were skeptical. So he built the thing, and, sure enough, he was right.

It is precisely this style of thinking that has enabled Maguire, as CTO, to pioneer new technology. And now that he's at the top of a 50-person company, he says he plans to keep hiring other young, passionate, "freethinking types" – the sorts of upstarts who won't be afraid to tell him, on occasion, that he is dead wrong.

Just a few miles due south, roughly a dozen teenagers – including 15-year-old Nicole Mirabile – have gathered in a dreary classroom at North Quincy High School in the hopes of figuring out how they might launch highly successful start-up companies of their own. The students are participating in a program known as Biz Camp that is sponsored by the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship. At the front of the classroom is Jacky McDonough, director of business partnership for My Turn, Inc., a youth development agency. McDonough seems to embody the iconic Whole Foods customer – willowy figure, sandals, and flowing hair.

"We cannot reiterate this enough," McDonough says to her students, who range in age from 15 to 18. "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." To demonstrate her point, McDonough smiles, puffs up her chest, and says with gusto, "CATS ARE VERY SPECIAL!" She then pauses a moment, steps backward, slouches, and says quite meekly, "Cats are very special." The students in the classroom nod their heads comprehendingly. A few scribble down notes.

"So," says McDonough, "can anyone tell me what role confidence plays in starting up a business?"

A shy giant of a boy at the back of the classroom raises a hand sheepishly and then begins to talk. "You get your confidence . . ." McDonough interrupts and tells him to show his confidence. The boy stands up, nods his head, and begins again. "You get your confidence by knowing what you are going to do," he says. "You have all your ideas, and if you are confident, nothing is going to stop you. You are going to succeed, no matter what."

"Without confidence, you can't take risks," adds another student, who takes the initiative to stand up on his own. "And in a business, you have to take risks."

"Beautifully said!" exclaims McDonough. "Let's give them a round of applause!" The students applaud politely.

During a break in class, I have a chance to speak with Mirabile. She is dressed in blue jeans and a magenta T-shirt. From the start, Mirabile appears to be the prototype of the self-assured, self-empowered teen. "I am always confident in myself because it will lower my self-esteem if I'm not," she says. Mirabile quickly adds that she doesn't let failure or naysayers get to her. "Even if I do badly in a class, I know I can do better next time." When I ask her what the chances are that her dreams will come true, she answers without batting an eye: "I would say about 85 percent."

At first glance, Biz Camp may seem like just another self-esteem program, encouraging young people to be overly confident and self-centered. But unlike the Magic Circle, where kids are praised for being inherently "special," the Biz Camps teach skills along with self-confidence. On a nuts-and-bolts level, the hope is that students like Mirabile will learn what it takes to make it as an entrepreneur. On a deeper level, however, the hope is that this program will encourage her to hold onto that brash self-confidence well into her 20s and 30s, when – professionally, at least – she'll need it the most.

Management professor Edward Roberts, who has been teaching at MIT's Sloan School for decades, argues much like Maccoby that high-octane self-confidence is a prerequisite for entrepreneurs today. "Think about it," he says. "As an entrepreneur, you need serious chutzpah to overcome the negatives that are thrown at you on a regular basis. And you need the stamina to overcome failure. If you do something risky, you will fail. So what do you do once you fail? Do you give up? Or do you come back and say, 'Damn it all. I am going to try again!'" One might argue that this country has always needed a base population of cocky entrepreneurs. But according to Roberts, we've never needed these types as badly as we do at this very moment. "If you went to the huge corporations and asked, 'Where are you opening new labs?' the answer would uniformly be India, China, Russia – but not the US," he says. "And if all of these companies are going overseas, what are we left with? From my perspective, we have nothing left to the US economy other than start-ups and entrepreneurship."

The good news, says Roberts, is that America remains an idyllic incubator. "Studies show that in many societies – like France, for example – once you fail, you are damned, and society will shun you," he says. "This isn't true in America. American laws are very supportive of entrepreneurs. You can go bankrupt here, and you start with a clean slate. We have a much more forgiving set of attitudes." What we need now, Roberts says, are waves of young people who are willing to push their own ideas and who aren't afraid of failing. Like them or not, he concludes, the young, brash kids with the grandiose plans are our future.

Tom Hadfield, who is 24 and a senior at Harvard, is the very embodiment of Roberts's young, hyper-confident entrepreneur. At the age of 12, Hadfield started an Internet company from his bedroom in Brighton, England – Soccernet.com – which ESPN purchased just a few years later for $40 million. "No one ever knew I was a kid online," Hadfield says. "All I needed to do was spell properly, so I had Mom buy me a dictionary."

Hadfield actually made very little money on the sale of his website – the profit went mainly to his investors – and as he puts is, "My parents still have a mortgage on their house." But this hasn't discouraged him in the least. Since then, he has started several new businesses, managed a global environmental education program, and started an initiative to raise awareness of the genocide in Darfur. When I finally tracked him down for an interview, I reached him on his cellphone in Zambia, where he was running a philanthropic project funded by the Goldman Sachs Global Leaders Program. "We came here with these naive, grandiose plans to set up a micro-financing program, distribute anti-malarial bed nets, teach English, organize health education – and do it all in one summer," he says. "A lot of people would have said that it was naive when I was 12 to set up an Internet website like Soccernet.com – but luckily I didn't listen." Hadfield believes that such an attitude can also create problems with "people who were born before 1975," who are "generally running the treadmill, trying to pay mortgage payments, and buy a JetBlue ticket to take their one vacation a year."

"Our naivete enables us to try things that previous generations haven't tried in the history of humanity," he says, "But it often builds resentment among the older managers, who resent these young self-important kids who arrive on the scene and want to take the fast track without putting in their time."

Twenty-year-old Lilly Deng, a junior at Harvard, was raised in Collegeville, Pennsylvania, by a single mother who worked multiple jobs. Deng's saving grace, she says, was a teacher who taught every student to "realize the genius in their inner self." This teacher left her feeling so empowered that Deng, who longed to be a nationally ranked debater, wrote every single lawyer in the Collegeville phone book asking for sponsorship. Deng soon found a patron, traveled to debate tournaments, distinguished herself repeatedly, and launched a program that teaches the fundamentals of debating to hundreds of kids from 30 different schools in eight states. For her part, Deng doesn't seem too surprised by her success. "I never thought anything was impossible," she says.

In recent years, aspiring Harvard entrepreneurs have had quite a bit of inspiration as they've witnessed fellow students get rich quickly by starting companies like Facebook and Sparknotes. Last year, two undergraduates – Mike Segal, who is now 19, and Travis May, now 20 – cofounded the Harvard Entrepreneurial Forum. The club started off as an informal gathering of four or five students; by the end of the school year, it had more than 200 members.

According to Segal and May, many of their classmates are no longer interested in working their way up the corporate ladder. What's more, says May, "people want to do something that makes them famous and rich or creates some change in society."

"People like their own ideas," adds Segal. "And I think that's why so many people are unhappy at their office jobs. Because when they ask themselves, 'Who am I doing this for?' the answer is not for themselves, but for the greater good of the corporation. And ultimately people lose touch with their egos and themselves. Entrepreneurship is the diametric opposite. I think it is just egomania, but in the best sense possible."

This isn't a Harvard-only phenomenon. In the basement of a barbershop in Jamaica Plain, entrepreneurs Tony Martinez, who is 24, and his partner, Eliu Hernandez, also 25, have established what they call the international headquarters for their business, Created by Us Airbrushing. Right now, "international" is a bit of a misnomer, as is "headquarters." The space, which is only accessible via a trapdoor behind the barbershop's cash register, is essentially a cramped, dingy cellar furnished with a stereo, a fan, a fax machine, and a great deal of airbrushing equipment.

But never mind that. Martinez and Hernandez have grand plans, great talent, and a very interesting product. They sell customized hats, sneakers, and hoodies with made-to-order designs. That way, anyone – from a boarding-school kid at Milton Academy to a punk rocker in Berlin – can go online and order the sort of street apparel that used to be the exclusive domain of urban American hipsters.

Hernandez, who does most of the actual airbrushing, in some ways couldn't be more different from the members of the Harvard Entrepreneurial Forum. He joined the Army instead of going to college, serving in Afghanistan. But his outlook sounds familiar: "One thing that I can be grateful about is that my confidence kept me a little ignorant, maybe even a little arrogant," he says. "If you start looking at everything that could go wrong – and think about that all day long – you will never do anything!"

According to both Hernandez and Martinez, their unflappable self-confidence has been the only thing keeping them afloat during a rocky start-up period. It is not that they feel entitled to greatness as much as that they feel entitled to a shot at greatness, just like the other members of their generation.

But even productive narcissism is not an entirely good thing. Far from it. Michael Maccoby is the first to admit this. He says that narcissists tend to be oversensitive to any kind of criticism and are often incapable of learning from others. What's more, they frequently bully subordinates and don't care at all about the feelings of others.

The greatest danger, however, is that narcissists are so sure of themselves that they ignore the advice of others – and even the dictates of common sense – and arrogantly blunder their way into serious trouble. Foster, at the University of South Alabama, has seen this scenario play itself out many times. In one study, subjects were asked to play a game in which they earned points by answering trivia questions correctly. Before answering a question, subjects were allowed to wager a certain number of points. "In the study, we had many highly narcissistic people who would get all these questions wrong, and yet they were still willing to wager that they would get the next one right," says Foster. "Narcissists have this view of themselves as being so excellent that they say, 'To hell with the data. Things are going to work out for me!'"

In this regard, narcissism poses quite a conundrum. On the one hand, we need plenty of young entrepreneurs who are willing to believe in themselves in the face of skepticism from their peers, mentors, and society at large. But we also need these upstarts to be correct in their beliefs. It does a society no good to invest in young narcissists who, in betting on themselves, squander resources as they come up with wrong answers again and again. The key, it would seem, is to identify the upstarts with the most potential and then – despite whatever personal qualms we may have with them – allow them to run with their ideas.

This is precisely what the management at servermaker Egenera decided to do with Alan Chhabra. Chhabra was, by his own admission, neither the easiest nor the most diplomatic of employees. "I think that at another company, after some of the heated moments that I had, the bosses might have said, 'This isn't working out, Alan. It is time for you to go,' " he says. But that's not what happened. According to Rachael Jacobson, who works in Egenera's HR department, the company recognized Chhabra's value, and saw that he constantly needed new challenges. In a new division, he was given wide latitude to help get operations off the ground. The division's goal was to encourage clients to buy not just servers but also long-term customer-service programs. Perhaps the biggest challenge was that Chhabra had to persuade prospective clients to stop using the services of heavyweights like HP and IBM. He says: "Basically, I had to meet with CTOs who had 3,000 to 4,000 people working for them and had an IT budget of $10 million to $50 million and – within five minutes – I had to convince them that what they'd been doing for the last five to 10 years was wrong and that they should start buying Egenera." And this is exactly what Chhabra did. According to the company, Chhabra and the division helped Egenera undergo an important and profitable transformation.

Of course, there are people – perhaps even within Egenera – who can't stomach the notion of promoting someone as strident and nervy, someone as entitled, as Chhabra. It doesn't look as if they'll get relief any time soon. "Kids definitely feel entitled when they get out of school nowadays," he says. "They have been groomed, they've been told that they are the best, and they've seen people from this same generation make millions of dollars just before them. They think, 'I want to be the next Google, Amazon, or eBay. After all, these companies were founded by young people. Now it's my turn.'"

Jake Halpern, born in 1975, is the author of Fame Junkies. Send comments to magazine@globe.com.

© Copyright Globe Newspaper Company.

Monday, February 21, 2011

The NY Times declares "Blogging is Dead"....Really ? I have two words for the NY Times, and they ain't "Happy Birthday"

The vaunted NY Times has an article today titled " Death of Blogs " which basically states that Blogging is passe and the youngsters are more influenced by Facebook and Twitter. Like I care about Facebook ( I don't) and/or Twitter (tweet away, not something I care about either)

I have a message for the NY Times, it is two words long and it ain't " Happy Birthday ".


To the Editors of the NY Times, I can only quote Col. Nathan Jessup (from A Few Good Men) about what I expect from them and the rest of the establishment media:

" I can deal with the bullets, and the bombs, and the blood. I don't want money, and I don't want medals. What I do want is for you to stand there....and with your Harvard mouth extend me some ....courtesy."


I was going to write a long elegant piece here about how they can all take a flying leap but one of my fellow Bloggers did a much better job and saved me the time.

To the editors of the NY Times, I say YOU are the ones who don't matter anymore. That is why your newspaper is going down the tubes. I like reading the daily paper but the Internet relegated the newspapers to the dustbin 10 years ago....

So read on my Blog Fans.....I enjoy writing my daily thoughts and highlighting ideas/concepts/thoughts that I feel are worth sharing, and based on the number of people who read this milblog (10-12K per month), you do also. I write this for my own personal satisfaction and don't care if the youth demographic doesn't get it....I'm not writing for them.

I am glad to have you along and once more to the NY Times......Retire...and get out of the way.

The New York Times declares blogs are dead
From JrDeputyAccountant.com

I'm not surprised the NYT would go out on a limb and let out a premature death call on the blogosphere's heartbeat, attempting to reign in those unruly readers who have defected to bask in the wild wonderland that is blogging. Really?

Blogs were once the outlet of choice for people who wanted to express themselves online. But with the rise of sites like Facebook and Twitter, they are losing their allure for many people — particularly the younger generation.

The Internet and American Life Project at the Pew Research Center found that from 2006 to 2009, blogging among children ages 12 to 17 fell by half; now 14 percent of children those ages who use the Internet have blogs. Among 18-to-33-year-olds, the project said in a report last year, blogging dropped two percentage points in 2010 from two years earlier.

Former bloggers said they were too busy to write lengthy posts and were uninspired by a lack of readers. Others said they had no interest in creating a blog because social networking did a good enough job keeping them in touch with friends and family.

Really?

As one such dinosaur who still blogs, I don't even know where to begin with this NYT piece. Maybe I'm too busy to write a lengthy criticism of everything wrong about this article or just another lazy blogger who can't bring myself to do any research or make any valid points outside of my own opinion. Maybe the bile is rising in my throat so quickly that I can't sit by my laptop long enough to pound it out. Hopefully the future gets here soon so I can get that WiFi-enabled toilet bowl I've always wanted.

Since when do 12-year-olds define an entire ecosystem? My bread and butter as a blogger comes from advertising revenue, including my gig at Going Concern (which consists of advertising I, thankfully, do not have to get my hands dirty with), and last I checked, I wasn't writing for 12-year-olds. In fact, if any 12-year-olds are reading this I respectfully request that you ......go over to Club Penguin or Justin Bieber's myspace page so the grown ups can talk amongst ourselves. Does the NYT write for 12-year-olds?

Don't answer that.

NYT continues:

Defining a blog is difficult, but most people think it is a Web site on which people publish periodic entries in reverse chronological order and allow readers to leave comments.

Yet for many Internet users, blogging is defined more by a personal and opinionated writing style. A number of news and commentary sites started as blogs before growing into mini-media empires, like The Huffington Post or Silicon Alley Insider, that are virtually indistinguishable from more traditional news sources.

Blogs went largely unchallenged until Facebook reshaped consumer behavior with its all-purpose hub for posting everything social. Twitter, which allows messages of no longer than 140 characters, also contributed to the upheaval.

No longer did Internet users need a blog to connect with the world. They could instead post quick updates to complain about the weather, link to articles that infuriated them, comment on news events, share photos or promote some cause — all the things a blog was intended to do.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to put my Internet eggs in Facebook's diabolical basket, regardless of what the social mediatards say. Facebook, in this blogger's humble opinion, is for connecting with people I actually know, most of whom don't care about economics or my opinion thereof. Twitter, on the other hand, is a medium of communication to advance my blogging goals, not the be all end all of the conversation. As NYT obviously figured out, there is a limitation on Twitter that doesn't apply to the blogosphere.

I refuse to believe that NYT actually believes blogs are dead and am a tad disappointed that they didn't try harder to sway public opinion if the goal is to get their former readers back to NYT and away from those dirty, nasty blogs.

Maybe the oversharing livejournal blog is dead and if that's the case, we're just as thrilled as the NYT but let's be sure we differentiate the livejournal blog from the independent writer who uses opinion to reflect on news that matters to said independent writer. Too bad hackery is alive and well, NYT. The attempt to demonize the competition is so obvious it's sad. I, for one, am not at all deterred by the New York Times pointing its shotgun at me telling me to get off the porch. It's a big porch and we all own it....

ROGER THAT.

Monday, January 31, 2011

FED JUDGE - "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void"


AWWWW - The White House gets another message from the Judiciary that YOU CANNOT compel people to purchase a commercial product they don't want to buy....Basically, OBAMACARE is UNCONSTITUTIONAL......Game Over OBOTS.....

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.


You were stupid to force this stuff on the American public with PELOSI saying things like " We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.." ARE YOU F^&king kidding me???? What rational person could support any law that the lawmakers have not reviewed the law before it is passed????

I am glad that the "checks & balances" worked......awesome news.


Now, how long before this rulling is carried over to the State of Massachusetts and the State Law gets over turned also.......How's that " Hope & Changey thing" working for you now ????


US judge deals new blow to Obama health reform
By Lucile Malandain (AFP) 01/31/11

WASHINGTON — A second US federal judge Monday declared President Barack Obama's health care law unconstitutional, sparking a fierce new showdown with Republicans who vow to repeal the historic reform act.

The Obama administration immediately pledged to appeal and branded the ruling by a Florida judge as an "outlier" from the judicial mainstream, warning that health care costs would soar if it was allowed to stand.

But Republicans crowed that the ruling was one step closer to the outright repeal of a law that has been a Democratic dream for decades but that conservatives say will explode the deficit and kill jobs.

US District Judge Roger Vinson said a key provision of the law known as the "individual mandate" exceeds Congress's regulatory powers by requiring Americans to either purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void," Vinson said in his ruling, the latest step of a twisting legal battle likely to end up in the US Supreme Court.

"This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications."

Vinson agreed with governors and attorneys general from 26 US states that consider the provision unconstitutional.

But the Justice Department quickly said it would appeal Vinson's ruling, and consider all options -- including a stay of the verdict pending appeal -- to ensure the health care law can go into force.

The health care law, which passed last year, is the most sweeping piece of social legislation since the 1960s, reins in insurance company abuses and brings America as close as it has ever been to universal coverage.

"Today's ruling... is a plain case of judicial overreaching," Stephanie Cutter, a senior political assistant to Obama, said in a White House blog post.

"The judge's decision puts all of the new benefits, cost savings and patient protections that were included in the law at risk."

In December, Judge Henry Hudson of the Eastern District Court in Richmond, Virginia, found that the mandate usurps federal authority and violates the Commerce Clause, a key component of the US Constitution.

Some 12 federal judges have already struck down challenges to the law, and two have upheld the legislation.

Republicans pounced on the latest ruling, seeking fuel for their campaign to overturn the reform -- a vain hope for now, as Obama could wield a presidential veto in the unlikely event a repeal law cleared Congress.

Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the court's decision proved the health care law was a "massive overreach" and exceeded congressional authority.

"We should repeal this health spending bill and replace it with commonsense reforms that will actually lower costs, prevent unsustainable entitlement promises and make it easier for employers to start hiring again," he added.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called the ruling a "major victory for the American people and job-creators all across the country."

Obama's Republican foes have claimed the health care law includes rationing for end of life care, would add to the massive deficit and will kill jobs as employers struggle to pay for what they say will be rising premiums.

The new Republican-led House of Representatives has already voted to repeal the health reform law, which reins in insurance firms and seeks to offer near-universal care to Americans for the first time.

Opinion polls have found the US public deeply divided over the health law, with roughly one in five in favor of outright repeal and the rest divided between strengthening the law and rolling back parts of it.

Copyright © 2011 AFP.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Recalculating....

I like the new commercial where the guy who plays "mayhem" pretends to be the guy's GPS and sends him the wrong way.....The guy yells out " recalculating..." right before he sends the guy off in the wrong direction......

I think the MEDIA needs to stop doing the same thing....

Friday, December 31, 2010

The Mid-Term Elections of 2010 - The year voters saw the left's unvarnished agenda and said " NO"

I have to agree as the Wall Street Journal calls this one spot-on....The Voters saw it too and that was why POTUS described the mid-term elections as a "shellacking"


WSJ REVIEW & OUTLOOK
DECEMBER 31, 2010
The Liberal Reckoning of 2010
The year voters saw the left's unvarnished agenda and said no
.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent out a press release last week headlined "111th Congress Accomplishments." It quoted a couple of Democratic Party cheerleaders calling this the greatest Congress since 1965-66 (Norm Ornstein) or even the New Deal (David Leonhardt), and listed in capital letters no fewer than 30 legislative triumphs: Health Care Reform, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a Jobs Package (HIRE Act), the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Food Safety, the Travel Promotion Act, Student Loan Reform, Hate Crimes Prevention, and so much more.
What the release did not mention is the loss of 63 House and six Senate seats, and a mid-December Gallup poll approval rating of 13%. Never has a Congress done so much and been so despised for it.

While this may appear to be a contradiction, it is no accident or even much of a surprise. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party had been waiting since the 1960s for its next great political opening, as we warned in an October 17, 2008 editorial, "A Liberal Supermajority." Critics and some of our readers scored us at the time for exaggerating, but in retrospect we understated the willful nature of that majority.

Democrats achieved 60 Senate votes by an historical accident of prosecutorial abuse (Ted Stevens), a stolen election (Al Franken) and a betrayal (Arlen Specter). They then attempted to do nearly everything we expected, regardless of public opinion, and they only stopped because the clock ran out.

The real story of 2010 is that the voters were finally able to see and judge this liberal agenda in its unvarnished form. For once, there was no Republican President to muddle the message or divide the accountability. The public was able to compare the promise of 8% unemployment if the government spent $812 billion on "stimulus" with the 9.8% jobless result. They stood athwart liberal history in the making and said, "Stop."

Note well, however, that the Democrats still standing on Capitol Hill remain unchastened. In her exit interviews, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she would do it all the same way again, and her colleagues have seconded her lack of remorse by keeping her as their leader despite their November thumping. Her consolation to defeated Democrats was not to invite them to the House caucus meeting when she denounced President Obama's tax deal with Republicans.

Note, too, that the organized left and its media allies are also beginning to rewrite the story of the 111th Congress as an historical triumph. The same people who claimed that ObamaCare was a defeat because it lacked a public option are suddenly noting it will put 32 million more Americans on the government health-care dole. It won't be long before liberals and the press are defending the 111th Congress's every achievement as historic.

There is a lesson here both about modern liberalism and for Republicans who will soon have more power in Congress. For today's left, the main goal of politics is not to respond to public opinion. The goal is to impose the dream of an egalitarian entitlement state whether the public likes it or not. Sooner or later, they figure, the anger will subside and Americans will come to like the cozy confines of the cradle-to-grave welfare state.

This is the great Democratic bet with ObamaCare. The assumption is that once the benefits start to flow in 2013 the constituency for "free" health care will grow. As spending and deficits climb, the pressure for higher taxes will become inexorable and the GOP will splinter into its balanced budget and antitax wings. A value-added tax or some other money-machine will pass and guarantee that the government will control 40% to 50% of all economic resources.

If the price of this bet was losing control of the House for a moment in time in 2010, Mrs. Pelosi's view is so be it. You have to break a few Blue Dog careers to build a European welfare state. Liberals figure that as long as President Obama can be re-elected in 2012, their gamble will pay off and the legacy of the 111th Congress will be secure. The cheerleaders will write books about it.

The lesson for Republicans is to understand the nature of their political opponents and this long-term bet. The GOP can achieve all kinds of victories in the next two years, and some of them will be important for economic growth. But the main chance is ObamaCare, which will fundamentally change the balance of power between government and individuals if it is not repealed or replaced.

While repeal will no doubt founder in the Senate in the next two years, Republicans can still use their House platform to frame the debate for 2012. They can hold hearings to educate the public about rising insurance costs and other nasty ObamaCare consequences. And they can use the power of the purse to undermine its implementation.

***
The difference between the work of the 111th Congress and that of either the Great Society or New Deal is that the latter were bipartisan and in the main popular. This Congress's handiwork is profoundly unpopular and should become more so as its effects become manifest. In 2010, Americans saw liberalism in the raw and rejected it. The challenge for Republicans is to repair the damage before it becomes permanent.

Copyright 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved