Oldest Human Footprint...We know this how?

1.5 million years ago is a long time. In fact, you can't even count that high. In fact, it's so long ago that Carbon 14 has decayed at different rates since then.

So why am I supposed to believe this "oldest human footprint" is 1,500,000 years old?

The article completely glosses over anything resembling science, and simply asks us to believe on faith. As a natural doubter, I require--nay, I DEMAND--more in a news story.

Now tell me we're only a couple trillion in debt. Now show me how we're not much farther in debt. I require more information. The problem is, nobody knows how much government spends on anything.

FARTHER Left? Wha? How? Only one way--Police at your door.

Score another for Karl Marx & Joseph Biden, er, Stalin.

Union thugs and bloggers are apparently trying to push the Democratic Party "farther left."

The article, coming from a typical lefty-news-source, is absolutely devoid of any pertinent information as to how that could possibly occur.

It is unimaginable that the party who seeks to tax prosperity, penalize hard work, reward the lazy, fund the stupid, and generally cater to half-wits with a cradle-to-the-grave mentality could possibly get farther left.

If the far left of the spectrum is Karl Marx, the only thing the Democrats haven't openly espoused is outright ownership of all our possessions.

I can't imagine what could get the (D) Party farther left! Openly socialist, openly anti-capitalist, openly anti-success, openly pro-lazy, admittedly pro-redistributionist, the only wiggle room to left is to send the police to your home to confiscate your property.

And since the article is conveniently lacking information, the thought probably occurred to the International Herald Tribune, as well; they couldn't think of any way to get farther left, either.

Manly Men are Conservatives; Girly Men are Liberals Part I

I made a point on Paul Zimmerman's blog that there's no such thing as a manly liberal. Here are a few reasons why:

Manly Man: A manly man, when faced with a problem, immediately sets out to solve it.
Girly Man: A girly man asks what society or the government can do to solve his problem.

Manly Man: Gets a job, contributes to society
Girly Man: Fears real responsibility, craves titles

Manly Man: Uses logic to make decisions
Girly Man: Feels a lot. Is generally a very feely type of person. Relies on his feelings rather than rational thoughts.

Manly Man: Provides for his family
Girly Man: Leaves his family and asks the government to provide for them

Manly Man: Knows not to do stupid things without suffering consequences
Girly Man: Sues a lot, and demands warning labels

Manly Man: Knows right from wrong, and will act on his beliefs
Girly Man: Asks what is currently considered "wrong," and by whose standards. May or may not act on those beliefs

Manly Man: Does not need extended periods of time to determine his stance on any issue
Girly Man: Will defer to intellectual liberals and/or the media to decide his position

Manly Man: Does not seek approval of others before acting
Girly Man: Needs input and committees and polls before taking action

Manly Men: John Wayne, George Washington, Bruce Willis, Ronald Reagan
Girly Men: Barney Frank, Barak Obama, Sean Penn, Michael Moore

A manly man doesn't truck with "roommates" who get in trouble for running male prostitution rings out of his apartment (Frank); a manly man doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator in a quest for power (Obama); a manly man doesn't "hang" with the enemy (Penn); a manly man doesn't, well, you name it for Moore.

A manly man has core beliefs that involve forging his own path, creating his own wealth, and not taking handouts. A manly man knows right from wrong, seldom changes his positions, and only does so when proven definitively wrong.

A manly man does not ask his neighbors to pay for his medicine--he gets another job if he has to. He doesn't ask his kids to pay for current spending packages; he lives a harsher life if he has to, to ensure that his kids are better off.

He instills these values in his kids so they can make a better country. He doesn't teach them guns are bad, moral relativism is good. He doesn't tell him that evil doesn't exist and government can solve your problems, and he doesn't tell them that morality is relative.

Oh, and a manly man should have callouses, and not be afraid to bleed defending his family and what he believes. I once made a bumper sticker that read, "Moral Relativism is for Weenies," and it's darn true.

We're also not afraid to wear kilts, because, after all, it is the ultimate in freedom garments.

Founders go Tea-Bagging, or, Puget Protest: Caffeinate the Sound!

Who's ready for some old-school tea-baggin' here in the Pacific Northwest in honor of our roots?

I'll be glad to shed down to loincloth or kilt and caffeinate Puget Sound with fellow business owners, believers in individualism, and men who believe Americans are born to do it for themselves. In fact, I wonder if utilikilts.com could manufacture us some authentic disestablishmentarianism gear for the event!

They could get some exposure (yes, both meanings intended), and we could get some locally-produced garments while we thumb our noses at evil liberals everywhere!

The Tea Party was about taxation without representation. If the Sons of Liberty thought it was bad to be taxed without representation, they should see how bad taxes are WITH representation.

Idiot liberals across the Northwest and the country have elected themselves nannies so they don't have to make their own decisions in life.

The problem is that they're dragging those who actually produce for the economy down with them.

I've asked it before, but here it is again--Why do those of us who DO remember history have to suffer at the hands of idiots who DON'T remember history?


Tune in tomorrow, when I expound on a recent comment I made on Paul Zimmerman's blog about manly men vs. girly men (conservatives vs. liberals).

Don't Listen to Fox, Bobby--You Rocked It!

I watched Fox News, hoping to get "fair and balanced." Instead, it was "dump-on-Jindal." The entire panel, including Krauthammer, erred in giving the speech victory to Obama over Jindal.

They come from a typical, liberal establishment viewpoint of style over substance.

True conservatives see through the hype, the BS, and the skin color, and only hear the words. It's as on The Matrix--we don't see the code anymore--we see the actual content.

Juan Williams? What the heck? Juan said Jindal's stories were too simplistic. I've never heard such tripe. The simpler the story, the more potent its impact. Ask Reagan. Ask Christ.

Jindal's speech hit all the points that trouble conservatives:
1) Republicans of late suck-they've been in favor of big government, big spending, and have lost the ability to lead since Hastert.

2) American individuals, not goverment, are in the best position to stabilize and grow the economy.

3) Americans, not bureaucrats, can get work done

4) The GOP better have a come-to-Jesus meeting and review the ideals that attract conservatives, or there's going to be a huge split, and we'll end up with the Libertarians, the Constitution Party, and the GOP all trying to defeat the Deocratic Party, who will have an enormous lazy, worthless, leech class voting for them every time.

Two More Quickie, Topical Quotes

For the soft-handed, pseudo-intellectual, wimpy leftists, from one of your own--

Keynes:

"It is a mistake to think that businessmen are more immoral than politicians."


For the hard-working men of action, from one of our own--

Theodore Rex:

"To preach hatred of the rich man...[is] to mislead and inflame to madness honest men."

"Bad government results from too much government" - Wise Words from Pres. Jefferson

Sometimes I get wordy. When working on my MBA, I remember classmates bemoaning 20-page papers; my only bemoanment was how to keep the papers that short.

Brevity is, however, the soul of wit. I believe it can also be the soul of wisdom. If it can be made short, it can carry mre weight. Simpler is better.

Thomas Jefferson:
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Every generation needs a new revolution.

Beam Me Up, Galty, or, Socialists are Spitting Loogies on the Founding Fathers

I've always been an optimist. Ask anyone who knows me--I have always believed that the only thing between me and anything is my own abilities and motivation. Now I've been told that people born of affluence are already far ahead (unfairly), and I'm at a disadvantage. Poppycock, I'd reply.

If anyone can become a millionaire (and thousands do every year, many who have started with naught), I can too. I'm only limited by myself.

Until the masses elected Obama, gave the keys to the economy to Pelosi, Reid, and Frank, and decided it was a good idea to saddle the US with many trillions of dollars of debt.

Ask anyone in Argentina who lived there in the 1930s how much better it was after Evita & husband took power. Ask Russians how much better after everything was nationalized. Ask economists how great it was that Roosevelt extended the Depression with his socialist programs, planned by his Brain Trust who actually visited and loved Stalin.

We know that big government is the problem, and bigger government and more government spending makes the problem worse. This is something we know.

With the debt we're now under and the lies spread by socialists in D.C., I have a hard time fathoming a bottom to the stock market, an end to high taxes, and an end to entitlements.

Today Obama made a speech and used the word "crisis" something like 20 times. I just saw it on TV. Socialists aren't even trying to hide the fact that they're manipulating people anymore--it's right out in the open. His plan calls for exactly this:

1) Take money from responsible people
2) Give it to irresponsible people

Atlas Shrugged seems more like a how-to guide for producers now, rather than a cautionary tale of what could happen with unbridled socialism in a previously capitalistic society, and I can't for the life of me see any Republicans who are able to take a stand, point out the obvious, and take back this country.

The optimist inside me says we are on the brink of collapse; the realist in me says the Democrats have hacked up a huge loogie and spat it out upon our founding fathers, productive tax-payers, and every single person who lost his life in defense of our Republic.

My heart wants to believe we can pull out of it, we can cancel every stupid government program and end the nonsense.

My brain believes we're already free-falling, unaware of it. My brain says that nobody's going to buy our debt. My brain says the math just isn't there--that soon the problems our government created in the first place will give them an excuse to nationalize the banks, our means of production, take assets from the wealthy to distribute to the "lesser fortunate," and penalize profits (they're already demonized), completely destroying a company's capacity to plan for future downturns and expansions.

Can someone please tell me that my heart still has reason to believe we can fire every single idiot in D.C. and take back our Republic?

With apologies to Michael Stipe, it's the end of the world as we know it

But I'm not sure I feel so fine.

Many are advocating a one-world government, including Kissinger, the Chinese, and many in the UN.

Many are advocating a global banking system.

Economies across the globe are in serious trouble, and most are looking to their governments for a bailout, which demonstrates their complete lack of understanding of economics.

And here's the icing on the cake: According to World Net Daily, whose figures seem to make sense, America owes more than the GDP of the entire planet: $65.5 trillion. That's $65,000,000,000,000.

That's what happens when simpletons promise their voters the world in order to get votes, and the voters blindly leave it to future generations to somehow come up with the money to fund the ill-conceived programs. And why does no one seem panicked about it? Is it just too huge to get the brain around? And I already told you what the problem is--the average voter was educated by the schools built by the politicians who either don't understand the issue or are pure evil--there's no middle ground here.

I'm trying to think of a way America--and the world--won't completely implode economically under so monumental a debt. I'd rather not have to dip into my Spam rations, but an impending collapse seems inevitable.

Paul--you got anything? How can we keep from not just sinking into a depression, but completely destroying any hope of digging out again?

At the hands of those who refuse to learn from history, the rest of us are being forced to repeat it.

Indigenous People Herded for Socialist Purposes

I was browsing some news stories and found a picture of some "indiginous" people marching against Capitalism at the World Social Forum. What the heck is a "World Social Forum," you ask?

Good question. Seems to be simply another anti-capitalism group. They appear to be unable to boil their purpose down to anything easy to put into a couple cohesive sentences, or propose any viable alternatives to the things they apparently dislike.

They've been meeting in South America for a few years, probably because of all the big-name economic thinking and stellar examples of progress that come from south-of-the-border.

What made me look at the story was a striking picture of these "indigenous" people, faces painted, and I knew immediately what emotional slaves (liberals) would think:

Indigenous, face-painters good
White invaders bad.

Never mind that the Spanish really don't fall into the "whitey" category, but few liberals trouble themselves with details like that. "European" should be vague enough for such generalizations, and should be used in the future.

At any rate, while attractive in their paint and all, is the picture, labeled as shown below, seems to suggest wisdom in an ancient lifestyle.

• • 
  Facing forward Indigenous people march against capitalism in The Week in Photos on Yahoo! News.

What it doesn't do is ask why those who believe "indigenous" people to espouse superior values don't join that lifestyle. Is it the human sacrifice? The lack of technological progress? The lack of grocery stores and plumbers and doctors? With assets behind their warped beliefs, why not simply start a grand socialist experiment on an island, or a secluded corner of Cuba? Soros could subsidize the whole experiment, but plenty of others could ante up and put money juxtaposed to mouths. Or should an experiment like that not require capital?

Perhaps the economy could run on hugs, soybeans, and goodwill.

I admire indigenous people as much as the next capitalist, but I'll be darned if I'd like to live like my Dutch or Viking ancestors.