Saturday, February 28, 2009
But he was "just born that way"
Everyone has their sexual attractions....... some like tall blonds, some like short brunettes, some are chubby chasers.
You have people who are attracted to members of the opposite sex and people who are attracted to the same sex.
So it's all good; all tastes are normal and natural. Right?
So why are we coming down on this dude who happens to take a liking to dead chicks.....
You have people who are attracted to members of the opposite sex and people who are attracted to the same sex.
So it's all good; all tastes are normal and natural. Right?
So why are we coming down on this dude who happens to take a liking to dead chicks.....
On many nights over 16 years, Kenneth Douglas engaged in his own personal macabre workplace party.He often brought drugs or alcohol to work and sometimes had sex with women.
At least three of those women were dead, Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters said Thursday.
But if Douglas is to be believed, he could have had sex with as many as "over a hundred" bodies in the 16 years he worked as night attendant at the Hamilton County morgue.
"I am sure there are more (victims). I'm certain of it," Deters said Thursday in announcing new indictments against Douglas.
"This guy's just a pig. I can't explain why someone would do something like this. ... This is off-the-charts weird."
Now why is this weird? I thought we established a long time ago that all things sexual are just a matter of preference but now we're going to make it illegal.
In addition, if you follow the no God line, these corpses were nothing more than piles of protoplasm. So why is this guy doing something illegal? Isn't it the same thing as having sex with a mound of Silly Putty?
Or is it that maybe some sexual prudes out there are just hating on necrophiliacs because they don't understand that guys like Kenneth Douglas were "just born that way"?
Liberal hypocrisy du jour II
Bono, The Edge, now The Boss.....
The Boss is owning up to a mistake. In an interview with Sunday's New York Times, Bruce Springsteen says he shouldn't have made a deal with Wal-Mart. This month, the store started exclusively selling a Springsteen greatest hits CD.Some fans were critical because Springsteen has been a longtime supporter of worker's rights, and Wal-Mart has faced criticism for its labor practices.
Springsteen told the Times that his team didn't vet the issue as closely as he should have, and that he "dropped the ball on it."
You mean to tell me your team didn't know how liberal you are and, as a liberal, you probably despise Walmart? Bruce you either have a absolutely clueless team or you are lying.
I'll tell you what Bruce, I'm going to support your cause. I've heard the CD and I promise not to put money in Walmart's pockets by buying it.
Liberal hypocristy du jour
Bono is upset because people are criticizing the band's move to the Netherlands to avoid Irish taxes....
U2 SINGER Bono says he was “stung” and “hurt” by criticism of the band moving part of its business to the Netherlands to lessen its tax burden.In an interview in The Ticket today, he speaks about the band’s 2006 decision to move part of its business out of Ireland following the Government’s decision to put a cap on the amount of tax-free earnings available to artists.
U2’s move was criticised by politicians and some development groups. “We pay millions and millions of dollars in tax. The thing that stung us [about the criticism] was the accusation of hypocrisy for my work as an activist,” the singer says.
I'm whipping out the world's smallest violin for Bono and the band.
Narcissist of the year
Just how much of a narcissist is The Messiah?
More...
When Barack Obama met with TV anchors at a White House lunch last week, he assured them he likes being president. "And it turns out I'm very good at it," he added.
More...
Four more years of Bush
From the AP
More...
Suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent Ali Al-Marri is now facing criminal charges, but the Obama administration is refusing to rule out the future use of indefinite detention for terrorism suspects picked up in the United States. The administration urged the Supreme Court Friday to dismiss al-Marri's challenge to the president's authority to detain people in the U.S. indefinitely and without charges
More...
Battle of victims
In what should be a surprise to no one, the democratic party is a conglomeration of a series of perceived victim groups.
Workers victimized by owners
Blacks by whites
Woman by men
Old by young
Young by old
Polar bears by people
So if you see yourself as the perpetual victim in life, the democratic party is a home to you.
Except what happens when one victim group victimizes each other; who wins?
The WSJ on the fight in the democratic party.....
Workers victimized by owners
Blacks by whites
Woman by men
Old by young
Young by old
Polar bears by people
So if you see yourself as the perpetual victim in life, the democratic party is a home to you.
Except what happens when one victim group victimizes each other; who wins?
The WSJ on the fight in the democratic party.....
This is the Democratic Party's moment, its power now greater than any time since the mid-1960s. But do not expect smooth sailing. The party is a fractious group divided by competing interests, factions and constituencies that could explode into a civil war, especially when it comes to energy and the environment.Broadly speaking, there is a long-standing conflict inside the Democratic Party between gentry liberals and populists. This division is not the same as in the 1960s, when the major conflicts revolved around culture and race as well as on foreign policy. Today the emerging fault-lines follow mostly regional, geographical and, most importantly, class differences.
Gentry liberals cluster largely in cities, wealthy suburbs and college towns. They include disproportionately those with graduate educations and people living on the coasts. Populists tend to be located more in middle- and working-class suburbs, the Great Plains and industrial Midwest. They include a wider spectrum of Americans, including many whose political views are somewhat changeable and less subject to ideological rigor.
So here's what you can expect in a battle between a northwestern union logger and a spotted owl.
That owl is going to win.
Between a union oil platform worker and a manatee.
Manatee
Between a union oil driller in the arctic and a polar bear.
Sorry, bear wins.
Those upper west side quiche eaters didn't vote for Obama just because he likes arugula. They voted for him because he doesn't give a hoot about some gun clinging UAW hunter who's worried about NAFTA.
more....
Friday, February 27, 2009
Who did they vote for? #449
There's nothing more ridiculous in life than smug, arrogant rich kids who's parents pay $60,000 a year for them to be a smug arrogant douche bags at NYU (or Antioch for the matter).
Some give these cry babies a juicy box.
Watch the video and tell me who these little twerps voted for this past November.
Being charitable
Obama wants to eliminate a tax deduction on charitable donations for people making $250,000 plus.
Still, the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years."Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.
Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it's impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear - less philanthropic giving.
"This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they've behaved in the past," he said. "We've already seen a drop in giving as a result of the economic collapse. On top of that, this will just reduce the amount of giving."Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.
First off, don't we already know that rich, greedy, people never give to charity?
None the less, let me make sure I have this right. Let's say that as a result of this law change, charities receive 1 billion less than they would have with the deduction. The gain in tax receipts will be about $333 million (33% of one billion).
But somehow the charities will be better off because the government will be giving them a billion, 667 million they don't have? HUH?
Are these people in the same universe of common sense?
Look, I believe in the flat tax. None the less, why would you take away deductions for people who give to charity if you want to encourage generosity and discourage greed? These people are not only socialists but they are ignorant as well.
Sorry, maybe that's redundant.
Where's mine?
Yesterday was a rough one for me. Somehow, people seem to think I'm a therapist as opposed to a CPA. Although for some of these folk's tax situations, I can see why they'd need therapy.
None the less, I was struck by a conversation I was having with the daughter of one of my clients.
The mother is now in a nursing home. So I started my meeting with the daughter (by the way she drives a Prius with a rainbow sticker in the back) by asking how her mother was.
"She's doing a great job spending my inheritance."
So as our meeting starts, her first question of me was how to shelter her mom's assets so that medicaid will pick up her nursing costs, which now run about $100,000 a year.
I referred her to an attorney who specializes in Medicaid law.
But the whole day, it bugged me about the implications of her comments.
1) That her mother was spending her inheritance for her own medical care. Her inheritance is no more hers than it is mine. Her mother's money is her mother's money. Period.
2) That somehow her mother shouldn't pay for her own health care but Medicaid should pick up the tab.
3) That when and/if medicaid starts paying, who do you think pays medicaid? If you guess you and me, you would be correct. So somehow people should expect you and me to pay for what they won't pay for. Sounds like a deal doesn't it.
While I'd like to rip this woman a new a-hole, the fact remains. Why shouldn't she expect someone else to pick up the tab for what ails her?
After all, her taxes are going to pay for kids she had no say in. Her tax dollars are being used to bail out banks she didn't manage. Her tax dollars are going to bailout yahoos who bought bigger better houses than she lives in.
So in fairness to her, why shouldn't she be able to get some feed at the trough like every other dead beat American out there?
This is the problem when government takes the very first dollar from one person to give to another. I don't care what benevolent purpose you have in mind, you have just established a moral relativism that's it's OK to steal from one to give to another as long as you can justify it as a better cause. From that point on, you now have a system where people are moving money from one to another and the people who aren't in the loop feel like they're out in a game of Musical Stimulus Chairs; even though they're the ones who fund it.
Watching everyone run to the trough of "free" government money, aka stimulus, is disgusting and really unbecoming of an American. Is it too late to turn back the clock when every American used to care for themselves and their families or are we in the middle of an overdose of stimulus gluttony that will ultimately ruin, what used to be, a great country?
None the less, I was struck by a conversation I was having with the daughter of one of my clients.
The mother is now in a nursing home. So I started my meeting with the daughter (by the way she drives a Prius with a rainbow sticker in the back) by asking how her mother was.
"She's doing a great job spending my inheritance."
So as our meeting starts, her first question of me was how to shelter her mom's assets so that medicaid will pick up her nursing costs, which now run about $100,000 a year.
I referred her to an attorney who specializes in Medicaid law.
But the whole day, it bugged me about the implications of her comments.
1) That her mother was spending her inheritance for her own medical care. Her inheritance is no more hers than it is mine. Her mother's money is her mother's money. Period.
2) That somehow her mother shouldn't pay for her own health care but Medicaid should pick up the tab.
3) That when and/if medicaid starts paying, who do you think pays medicaid? If you guess you and me, you would be correct. So somehow people should expect you and me to pay for what they won't pay for. Sounds like a deal doesn't it.
While I'd like to rip this woman a new a-hole, the fact remains. Why shouldn't she expect someone else to pick up the tab for what ails her?
After all, her taxes are going to pay for kids she had no say in. Her tax dollars are being used to bail out banks she didn't manage. Her tax dollars are going to bailout yahoos who bought bigger better houses than she lives in.
So in fairness to her, why shouldn't she be able to get some feed at the trough like every other dead beat American out there?
This is the problem when government takes the very first dollar from one person to give to another. I don't care what benevolent purpose you have in mind, you have just established a moral relativism that's it's OK to steal from one to give to another as long as you can justify it as a better cause. From that point on, you now have a system where people are moving money from one to another and the people who aren't in the loop feel like they're out in a game of Musical Stimulus Chairs; even though they're the ones who fund it.
Watching everyone run to the trough of "free" government money, aka stimulus, is disgusting and really unbecoming of an American. Is it too late to turn back the clock when every American used to care for themselves and their families or are we in the middle of an overdose of stimulus gluttony that will ultimately ruin, what used to be, a great country?
Street Cars for everyone
So what does the city of Cincinnati see as it's greatest priority in spending billions of federal loot.
With their nose at the trough, they're looking for money on street cars.
With their nose at the trough, they're looking for money on street cars.
Mallory covered a range of topics during the 45-minute address, from recycling efforts to the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence to the need for a more accurate Census in 2010 (Cincinnati's "true and accurate population," he said, is 378,259, not the current official count of around 331,000).But the mayor was the most animated and forceful by far while talking about what he considers an imperative - pushing ahead on the the controversial $185 million streetcar project, which he said will have a "dramatic and lasting impact on the future of Cincinnati."
Anybody who doesn't heed the "All aboard!" on streetcars, Mallory implied, is simply a "naysayer." It was an unequivocal statement from the mayor, full of fight.
OK Mayor Mark; call me a naysayer. But let me ask this question... The city of Cincinnati had street cars at one time all built and running the routes your plan has. Why did all those wonderful, delightful street cars go away?
Maybe you or one of these trolley car lackies can put a comment on this blog as to why the original system is gone and why this new one is going to be so much better.
Obamunists
David Limbaugh on the Obamunists
Remember when liberals were wringing their hands and accusing President George W. Bush of being a dictator and a king? Of course, that was breathtakingly absurd, but what's really ironic is that these people actually want a king, provided they get to pick him.More...As Barack Obama feverishly presses forward with his socialist agenda, one wonders whether any act of executive overreaching might cause the compliant, nay, conspiratorial Democratic congressional majorities to pause or, better yet, to resist.
I think not. Every assault Obama inflicts on the budget is met by Congress with: "Thank you, sir. May I have another?"
I realize liberals take umbrage at the pejorative terms "Marxist" and "socialist," but in invoking them, my purpose is neither to exaggerate nor to provoke. If the terms bother you, could you please tell me how Obama would be behaving differently if he were a socialist or Marxist just elected in this country?
Better yet, given the policies Obama and Congress are cramming down our throats, please tell me why you even mind those terms? Why not wear them proudly?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Volker on Team Obama
At Jake Tapper.....
"There is an area that I think is, I don't know, shameful is the word," Paul Volcker said this morning at a Joint Economic Committee hearing. "The Secretary of the Treasury is sitting there without a deputy, without any undersecretaries, without any, as far as I know, assistant secretaries responsible in substantive areas at a time of very severe crisis. He shouldn't be sitting there alone."
Volcker is chair of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
"Now various things have contributed to this, I guess, inlcuding vetting procedures, but it really is an unfortunate situation."
Democratic corruption du jour
Today's corruption du jour.
Tax evasion....
More....
Tax evasion....
The son of embattled Sen. Roland Burris is a federal tax deadbeat who landed a $75,000-a-year state job under former Gov. Rod Blagojevich five months ago, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.
Blagojevich's administration hired Roland W. Burris II as a senior counsel for the state's housing authority Sept. 10 -- about six weeks after the Internal Revenue Service slapped a $34,163 tax lien on Burris II and three weeks after a mortgage company filed a foreclosure suit on his South Side house.
A spokeswoman for the Illinois Housing Development Authority indicated Wednesday there was nothing improper about Burris II's employment by the agency, whose mission includes overseeing mortgage programs for low-income home buyers and anti-foreclosure initiatives.
More....
Another victim of the financial collapse
It's really a shocker to find media outlets going down the toilet. Especially when they fire out these Pulitzer type essays......
Once again, I'm still waiting for a newspaper profile of someone who I actually sympathize with.
And, once again, I'm still waiting for a reason to think that all newspaper shouldn't go by the way side.
more here if you can keep your lunch down....
See the tall, gregarious young man in the Eighteenth Street Lounge, moving easily toward a group of receptive women as the floor vibrates with reggae music? He's dressed in a sharp Hugo Boss suit, and he knows that the minimum for a table is $240.But he's not offering to buy the drinks. And the suit? He bought it a year ago, when he had a six-figure salary.
Dating in the time of the pink slip means feeling the squeeze of the drastically reduced paycheck, the sudden sting of the layoff. From investment bankers to real estate developers to construction workers, no job means no buying rounds of $15 martinis for a pretty woman and her girlfriends. No hosting parties in the bachelor loft. And often, no idea how to present one's new self on the dating market.
"It's been incredibly stressful for me," said Neil Welsh, 27, the guy in the suit, who until last year was marketing director for a booming real estate company. "I was so used to using my financial situation to leverage my dating."
For many affected by the recession, dating is the least of their worries. But the market crash has had a particular impact on young adults who developed their dating skills in fat times, the twentysomethings who spent lavishly to show that they could afford the finer things. Now, with national unemployment rates at 8.8 percent for people 25 to 34, they are looking for more creative ways to attract partners -- and reassessing what all that big spending really meant.
Once again, I'm still waiting for a newspaper profile of someone who I actually sympathize with.
And, once again, I'm still waiting for a reason to think that all newspaper shouldn't go by the way side.
more here if you can keep your lunch down....
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Biden
Check out this video of Joe Biden.
How this idiot ever got into elected office says a lot about the collective intelligence of voters.
How this idiot ever got into elected office says a lot about the collective intelligence of voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)