MSNBC MORONS PART 2

Lawrence O’Donnell, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, etc...are desperately trying to have it both ways.

On the one hand, they want it to be the case that George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin was unlawful, so that they can blame the authorities for not arresting and prosecuting him.

On the other hand, they want it to be the case that the shooting was lawful, so they can blame a law (stand your ground) written by Jeb Bush... for allowing the shooting. Of course this begs the question, "Is there any ill in the world that MSNBC won't blame on a member of the Bush family?"

So the establishment lapdogs at MSNBC are once again inconsistent; no surprise there. But which way should they resolve this inconsistency?

Well, here’s the actual text of the stand-your-ground provision, which actually seems pretty reasonable to me:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(Read the entire law here, including some not-so-nice bits, such as the 14th-Amendment-violating exception concerning self-defense against police officers and please explain how this law is a problem...or applicable in this case)

So unless Zimmerman a) was attacked by Martin, and b) had a reasonable belief that Martin posed a serious danger to him (two conditions that, from the evidence thus far available, do not appear to have been met – and certainly the critics clearly do not believe either condition was met), the stand-your-ground provision offers no defense of his actions.

Of course it is entirely possible that local Florida authorities have been misapplying this law, and indeed that they MAY have been doing so with racist motivations. That wouldn’t exactly shock me. But in that case, the problem lies not with the stand-your-ground law but with the authorities. Either way, it has nothing to do with this law. 

It also has nothing to do with politics. It's fucking amazing how every newsworthy incident becomes a political football. Why is our President weighing in on this story? His inconsistency is a topic for another post, but I'll leave with with this thought. In November of 2009, after Nidal Hasan decided to go batshit, killing 13 and wounding 29 soldiers at Ft Hood...while screaming "ALLAHU AKBAR!!!", Obama cautioned us "...we shouldn't be so quick to judge".  Interesting. 

                                                HEAD MORON AT MSNBC

The commercial seems like a parody, but that sure looks like Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC’s “Last Word.” In the spot O’Donnell mocks politicians who say that “government can’t create jobs.”

“The government created your job!” O’Donnell fires back, smiling triumphantly.

Imagine: In a battle of wits with a phantom politician, O’Donnell lost. Of course he doesn’t know it.

On the off-chance this is not a “Saturday Night Live” bit, let’s take a closer look.

First—I don’t even know where to start—it’s so ridiculous. How about this? The claim that government can’t create real jobs is not refuted by the existence of politicians. Must that really be explained?

Perhaps O’Donnell would applaud a proposal to make every adult American a member of Congress, paid a salary drawn on the Federal Reserve. Unemployment would vanish overnight.

But maybe that wouldn’t satisfy him. He might want at least some people working to make useful things. What do politicians make? Besides messes, that is.

But what things? Here’s where it gets tricky. Alas we live in a world of scarcity. People making widgets can’t also be making wudgets (a similar but not identical product). Should the government create widget-making jobs or wudget-making jobs? Neither? Some of each? How many? And how would the program administrators even go about making the decision?

In a freed market a process exists for answering those questions. Prices generated by free consumer purchases and producer competition for inputs guide decisions about what to make, how to make it, and in what quantities. In contrast, government “job creation” is like flying in a heavy fog without instruments: Prices are absent.

It has to be said yet again: In economic terms a “job” is not mere physical or mental exertion for which one gets paid. As someone once put it, “A thing cannot have value, if it is not a useful article. If it is not useful, then the labor it contains is also useless, does not count as labor, and hence does not create value”  Think POLITICIANS!!!!

Karl Marx said that. Yes, Mr. O’Donnell, Karl Marx understood that exertion aimed at making things no one wants is not real labor. When I say “things no one wants,” I don’t mean intrinsically useless things. In a world of scarcity, if we consumers believe we have enough widgets but not enough wudgets, then efforts to produce more widgets at the cost of wudgets are counterproductive no?  Inputs are transformed into things we want less badly (if at all) than other things those inputs could have been transformed into. Value is destroyed when it could have been created.

Admittedly it is technically wrong to say, “Government cannot create jobs.” We must concede there is some SLIM chance that a government program could finance a project that would have been undertaken in the freed market. But it would be pure luck, and we couldn’t know for sure it had happened even after the fact because government, which procures its resources at the point of a gun and doesn’t have to offer its “services” to consumers free to say no, faces no market test.

Persistent high unemployment does not demonstrate a need for government to create jobs. On the contrary, it demonstrates a need for government to get out of the way so the market process can undergo the correction called for by the earlier government-induced boom, which itself was an unsustainable jobs-creation program. Politicians (read--Liberals) aggravate an already bad situation when they generate a tax and regulatory environment in which anything can happen. 

Obamacare vs the Supreme Ct is on deck. 

                                                     THE MANDATE

                                                      

  

                                                                                                                                                                 To recap, under Obamacare all employers will be required to arrange for “health insurance” for their employees. Coverage MUST include various disease-preventive health services and women’s contraception at no charge. No premium-sharing, no copays, no deductibles – nothing. 

The Department of Health and Human Services, which has ominous rule-making power under Obamacare, exempted Catholic churches (as employers) from this rule because Catholicism teaches that contraception is sinful. However, HHS did not exempt Catholic institutions whose mission (the government says) extends beyond religion, namely, colleges, hospitals, and charities. Those institutions would have to pay (nominally at least) for their women employees’ birth-control products and services.

This led to Ms Fluke's testimony on Capitol Hill where she..well...whined that her University (Georgetown..a Jesuit University which might be exempt from this ridiculous mandate) will not cover her birth control. Watching her testify I couldn't help but wonder....do I say it?.....should I go there?.....ok..I honestly did question what guy on this planet would..ya know...make her need birth control.   Enter Rush Limbaugh who calls her a slut and it's ON!!!!!!  

Of course through all the phony outrage (where was this outrage when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a "dumb twat"? CLICK HERE if you'd like to hear the response to that attack)  the core issue of the debate has been lost in all the hyperbole of a news media which is, at best. unreliable in delivering the news.

One of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard from the Libtards is the idea that Insurance companies always prefer to cover contraception above maternity costs and/ or the costs of medical complications from pregnancy, miscarriage, or abortion, as contraception is much, much cheaper than the alternatives. The insinuation being that insurance companies allegedly would save money because they wouldn’t have to pay for medical services associated with having children. That makes the false assumption that if the insurer were not providing free contraception, women would have to do without. Target charges less than $15 /month for the pill for those who aren't covered. Seems like an easy solution. If one dared to claim that the cost is still prohibitive, one may properly ask how that could justify forcing others to pay? Also, if we accept that the insurance companies make the calculation re: costs for pregnancies vs paying for contraception, isn't it fair to ask if the individual might make that same calculation?

 It’s amusing to watch advocates of free contraception cite, as evidence for their position, polls showing that women overwhelmingly support no-cost contraception. Since when have people not wanted free stuff? I think I just saw a poll showing that men overwhelmingly are in favor of a free trip to the playboy mansion. Duh. 

Women have managed to obtain birth control up until now (we’re repeatedly told that nearly all women, including Catholics, have used it), and low-income women can resort to Planned Parenthood if necessary, which already gets TAXpayer money (which is not to say it should). Speaking of TAX payer money...as i read in NRO 2 weeks ago "... any man in need of free condoms only needs to download the free “NYC Condom” app to their  iPhone, BlackBerry, or Android smartphones and have its GPS service direct them to the nearest provider of free contraception with devastating accuracy. Never has a society been so precisely and easily led to safe sex. (One might well ask whether someone who can afford a smartphone and its monthly bills is genuinely in need of an app that locates “free” — i.e., paid for by taxpayers — condoms, but then this is 21st-century America, and New York’s mayor is Michael 

Bloomberg, so such small questions are unavoidably consumed by bigger ones. BTW...The NYC Condom program’s not-so-subtle slogan is “Grab a handful and go,” .""..paid for by the taxpayers of NYC. 

Now onto the nature of insurance itself.......

Insurance arose as a way for individuals to pool their risk of some low-probability/high-cost misfortune occuring in their lives. Car insurance, life insurance, home insurance , flood insurance all have similar characteristics. The purchaser of those products basically pay a premium...a losing bet for the most part...in exchange for a good nights sleep.  Health insurance has turned into something else altogether over the decades and IMO Obamacare takes us further down the wrong road. What I heard from Ms Fluke's testimony was somebody who wanted more service than she was willing to pay for. She's not a "slut"...she's an entitled Libtard.  So who pays for it? More on that below. 

It shouldn’t be necessary to point this out, but coming of child-bearing age and choosing to use contraception is not an insurable event. It’s a volitional act...a choice.  It may have positive consequences for the person taking the action and society at large, but it is still a volitional act. It makes no sense to talk about insuring against the eventuality that a particular person will use contraception. Strictly speaking, contraception has nothing to do with insurance. (Neither does Viagra ...the idea that my premiums are higher than they need to be because some men can't get a fucking erection is offensive to me) 

 Unfortunately, we don’t speak strictly about health insurance. One reason we don’t is the tax code.  Compensation for labor in the form of employment-based health insurance does not count as taxable income. (Money spent independently on health insurance does count.) The tax code thus creates perverse incentives to 1) depend on one’s employer for medical insurance, 2) shift income from liquid cash to restricted insurance benefits, and 3) define uninsurable events as insurable. Would someone care to explain how well-baby care can be insurable? So we have taxation to thank for yet another feature of the modern world: the corruption of language. In the medical realm "insurance" no long means insurance. 

Instead it’s a game by which we get other people to pay for stuff. Well, that’s not quite accurate. It’s actually a game in which we pretend that other people pay for stuff. Contraception, mammograms, colonoscopies, and well-baby care are not free. They require labor and resources for which the owners wish – not unreasonably — to be compensated. Someone HAS to pay. If employers are compelled nominally to pay for the coverage, does anyone seriously doubt that employees will actually pay through lower cash wages?  Employers are not charities. So even without a copayment, we all know deep down that we as workers pay for the coverage.  (Which by the way is likely to be more expensive than the services would be in a freed market, since insurance companies will charge overhead and more for their trouble. Also subsidized demand raises prices...if you disagree with that point, you haven't been paying attention to the relationship between Sallie Mae and rising tuition rates) Nevertheless, the truth is so obscured that people can pretend they’re getting something for free.

So the government-generated system treats us like children, and alas most of us seem happy to be treated that way. What a pity. You might be able to imagine how I feel about entitlements.

It was great to see Al Sharpton on "Meet The Press" yesterday to lecture everybody about civility. Maybe I can do an entire post about how is civil disobedience caused the death of two young adults in Crown Heights, Brooklyn in the early 90's. That incident on top of his criminal behavior during the Tawana Brawly fiasco should eliminate him from being involved in any civil discussion anywhere on this planet...but no...he has his own MSNBC show and gets to spew his nonsense every night. It was disappointing to see him on "Meet The Press" and go completely unchallenged about his past by any of the others on the panel. Peggy Noonan needed to step up in that spot, and failed.

The phony outrage the Left has shown regarding Rush's comments is transparently inconsistent given the misogynistic statements made in the recent past by Bill Maher (called Sarah Palin a "dumb twat" while a guest on his show said about Michelle Bachman .."I just hope that Marcus Bachman (Michelle's husband) fucks her angrily, because that's how I would."  Louis CK makes derogatory remarks about Sarah Palin, and even worse, Sarah Palin's child who has downs syndrome, and we NEVER HEAR A FUCKING PEEP!!!!  Let me be clear...I don't care what ANY of these people say about anybody. They are entertainers, and saying crude and rude shit gets ratings. Same with Rush....but if you are truly outraged by what Rush said, you HAVE to be outraged by these other comments....or you have to ignore it all. Can't have it both ways.

Of course all of this phony outrage obfuscates the fact that there are real issues that are NOT being discussed. Why would the left want to discuss a Country going broke, $5 gasoline, 9% unemployment, a War in Afghanistan that is still not going well, Iran's nuclear ambitions etc....?  Why discuss any of that when we can pretend to be offended by a stupid comment that Rush Limbaugh made last week?

"Jessie is a friend,
Yeah, I know he's been
A good friend of mine
But lately something's changed
That ain't hard to define
Jessie's got himself a girl
And I want to make her mine"

Uh oh. Rick Springfield has a problem. His boy is dating a girl he wants to bang. What to do?

Couple of thoughts came to mind when watching this. 

1) Does anybody know a guy named "Jessie"?  Why did that name go out of style. In fact, if I ever had a Son that name has just gone to the top of the list.. "Jessie Hochberg"...i only hope he ends up with a girl that his best friend wants. 

2) Why did Jessie spray paint "Jessie's Girl" on that brick wall? 

3) At 1:05 you see Rick in his suit with some white sneakers. It's fucking astounding that in the 80's that look was totally OK. 

4) So Rick just can't understand why Jesse's girl doesn't dig him. The 1:50-2:10 mark is really creepy. Rick washes his face...and I'll quote .."And I'm lookin' in the mirror all the time,

Wondering what she don't see in me.."  He then proceeds to break the mirror with the neck of his guitar. I wish there was some more footage of Jesse's girl in the video to really analyze if she was worth all of this. She looked cute, but not worthy of shattering your bathroom mirror with the one thing that actually will get Rick laid--his guitar.

5) The guitar solo that follows is pretty good...I was surprised. 

Anyway, I wish there was a sequel to this video. In the real world it could have gone one of two ways.

A) Rick ends up meeting Jesse's girl's Sister, who is even hotter and Jesse gets all pissy about this. A fight ensues where Jessie hits Rick Springfield over the head with his guitar while the Sisters realize that these two dudes are both insane. Everybody ends up single and miserable.

B) Rick ends up with Jessie's girl,  and then finds out what every man ends up finding out about a woman he lusts after...namely..she's not worth it. He ends up miserable.

The moral of the story seems obvious. 

1987 

My #1 guy (no homo) reminded me of an unforgettable video from 1987. This gave me a little time to reflect on that time in my life. The Mets had just won the World Series in Oct '86 and Dwight Gooden and Daryl Strawberry seemed like sure-fire Hall of Famers. As 1987 began I was entering my last semester of College (I tried to get back for a 6th year but the old man had had enough) and the music scene was pretty solid. SO it's safe to say that 1987 was the peak of Daryl's, Dwight's and my life...but we are not alone. U2 released the Joshua tree in March of 1987. I remember this clearly because my girlfriend at the time, Lisa, while listening to "With or Without You" asked me a weird question..."Is this Neil Diamond?"  I would suppose that in staying with the theme of this post, the peak of my relationship with Lisa was about 1 second before she asked that question....all downhill from there. Whitney releases her 2nd album which included "I Wanna Dance With Somebody", "Didn't We Almost Have It All", and "So Emotional"...Whitney peaked a couple of years later with THIS RENDITION of the "Star Spangled Banner". Guns and Roses released "Appetite for Destruction", Michael released "Bad" which included his greatest song "Man in The Mirror", George Michael released "Faith" in the Fall....and I remember this clearly as I went back to college for a visit of my #1 guy, who brilliantly decided he needed a 5th year of schooling as well, and the song "Faith" came on at the Cash In  and all hell broke loose. Well, things have changed quite a bit since 1987...some of the people mentioned above are dead, some have been checked into rehab, and others are just a little more on edge (me) than they were then. In the meantime there was one un-fucking-forgettable video that may be the absolute epitome of this theme. David Coverdale, lead singer of Whitesnake, wrote a song in 1982 that didn't quite catch on at the time, but David Coverdale is no dummy. He started dating Tawny Kitaen in 1987, who at the time might have been the hottest girl on the planet.  So David, being no dummy, had an idea. He must have thought that tune he wrote in 1982 didn't get a fair shake, and he knew putting his hot girlfriend in a video might get it noticed, and also serve the duty that every guy kind of wishes for...to know that he has the girl that every guy in the world wants to bang. Anyway, it was a wild success as he achieved both of his goals.   Let's watch this

The split on the hood of the car at the 1:00 mark was just the beginning. the tongue in the ear at 1:38 wasn't bad either....too many great images to even mention so let's skip to the end. The 4:25 mark is clearly the peak of this video, and of both of their careers. Firstly, as a voyeur, witnessing David Coverdale getting dragged into the backseat by this woman so she can have her way with him,  is the stuff that dreams are made of....but upon viewing that part of the video again, I could swear that David C was STILL driving that car...which could mean that the car crashed a couple of seconds later...and with it their careers. Fast forward a couple of years and this beautiful woman is married and divorced to David C, she then in 1997 marries professional baseball player Chuck Finley, but they divorce after SHE was charged with domestic violence. Yes, she kicked HIS ass. I wonder how that went over in the clubhouse for Chuck. Nov of 2006 she is charged with possessing 15 grams of cocaine...years later ends up on Celebrity rehab, and unfortunately looks like absolute shit. Please google a recent picture of her as I don't know how to post one...but it's really disheartening.

Anyway, 1987 was a great great year....