So Is Obama's Platform Just a Big Middle Finger to the US Citizenry at This Point?

Let me understand this, Obama decides that a guy who defended a cop killer is the best guy to pick for Civil Rights division of the DOJ? I suppose there could be a case for a guy like this but really, this guy he defended is a cop killer. He defended him by choice. "Tragic loss of Faulkner" Debo says of the murder of the cop. Really? Tragedy is a terrible thing that just happened. Murder is an evil act. Do you not know the difference? Wait, he's a leftist. Of course he doesn't know the difference.

I understand that someone has to defend the bad guy. But do you have to go to rallies supporting him?

I mean why is the left always supporting the shittiest among us? This asshole is who you hang your hat on? Good luck with that. I'm hopeful that this is one more nail in the leftist ideological coffin.

A Game that will Change Your Perceptions

Literally.

It's all about "forced perspective." Something that looks small because it's in the distance or big because it's very close. Changing the perspective can create interesting puzzles. I was lamenting the lack of originality, well I'm more than happy to identify it when I run across it.

There is no such thing as "Trickle-down Economics!"

The only plausible trickle-down theory

From Thomas Sowell:

New York's new mayor, Bill de Blasio, in his inaugural speech, denounced people "on the far right" who "continue to preach the virtue of trickle-down economics." According to Mayor de Blasio, "They believe that the way to move forward is to give more to the most fortunate, and that somehow the benefits will work their way down to everyone else." 

If there is ever a contest for the biggest lie in politics, this one should be a top contender. 

While there have been all too many lies told in politics, most have some little tiny fraction of truth in them, to make them seem plausible. But the "trickle-down" lie is 100 percent lie.
...
Years ago, this column challenged anybody to quote any economist outside of an insane asylum who had ever advocated this "trickle-down" theory. Some readers said that somebody said that somebody else had advocated a "trickle-down" policy. But they could never name that somebody else and quote them. 

Mayor de Blasio is by no means the first politician to denounce this non-existent theory. Back in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama attacked what he called "an economic philosophy" which "says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else." 

Let's do something completely unexpected: Let's stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we "give" something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place.

We as conservatives have tried to defend the idea of trickle down economics but the truth is we've been manipulated into trying to defend something that doesn't really exist. Sowell's point is that the high taxes we push hurt the economy. By reducing the amount of money we take from people, particularly the high-income earners, the left has successfully misrepresented that as "giving more to the rich."

Giving something to someone involves a net gain to that person. I have 100 dollars. You give me 5 dollars, I now have 105 dollars. That's giving something to someone. When government taxes 20 dollars from my 100 dollars, I have 80 dollars. Let's say they decide to reduce the tax rate to 10 dollars so instead of 80 dollars, I have 90 dollars. Did they "give" me anything or just decide not to take as much? What we say is that since I have a bit more left after the government took theirs, I can spur more economic activity. The left has twisted this idea into something they call "trickle down economics" whereby I am given more by the government--in their definition-- because they didn't take as much as they would have.

And we fell for it. The idea is sound but the trickle-down theory is non-existent. A buzzword they defined and successfully got us to try to defend. We should be turning it back on them: Why do you insist on taking more from people, especially when all you do is waste it? It's always about not giving the govenment more, it's ALWAYS about the left losing money and losing power.

Reality and Fantasy and Why I am So Bored

So Han and I carpool together most mornings being that we work about 60+ miles away from our respective homes. With an hour or so to kill, we tend to get into lengthy conversations. Both of us have a passion for pop-culture entertainment and movies in particular. I was lamenting that looking at the upcoming release schedule, very little was getting me excited. Most everything that comes out is some sort of adaptation of something that came before, be it a comic book movie, a sequel, a remake or whatever. It is rare to be original.

Is this anything new? I'm not certain but I look at my childhood and I see such iconic characters being created from Captain Kirk and the various imagery from Star Trek, to Star Wars, Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, John McClane, TRON, Alien, Predator, Superman (Christopher Reeve), and probably many others I'm forgetting. Lots of TV too has stuck with us as well. What's iconic these days? Jack Sparrow perhaps but really, what will resonate decades later the way Star Wars did?

There is so much being thrown at us these days, I have to wonder if perhaps the talent pool is being spread too thin. For every Breaking Bad, there are 20 Honey BooBoos. And that brings us to the reality tv boom.

If you're like me, you hate reality tv. But why? It's fake, it's not really "reality." Well neither is film. No movie is real either. So why do we accept the movies but not reality tv? Many, many people love reality tv and accept what they see. I believe that movies (not all movies, but most movies) come from a place of sincerity. The emotions on the screen are real to the characters but faked by the actors. But a reality is created within the framework of the movie that reflects the emotions of those who wrote it. This is called art.

Reality TV's character's emotions are in fact real. (Again, not all but) I believe most people on a reality tv show are really feeling what they are showing on the screen. But the situation they willingly put themselves in is crass exploitation. There is nothing sincere about the situation but because the emotions are real, people fall for it as reality. I find the manipulation offensive. It's also incredibly fucking cheap.

Sports are the original reality tv show as the situation (a football game) is not real but a situation set up by owners for the players to compete in. Winning and losing creates real emotions in the athletes, as opposed to a movie about a football game where none of the actors really care about winning the game. Sports is well defined and the activity is not a life decision like the Bachelor or MTV's "16 and Pregnant."

Now a sports movie is telling a story and the characters in that movie do feel emotions in the reality of the story. In actual reality, the audience feels the emotions of the characters. That's what art is supposed to do, generate an emotion. The actors don't really feel the thrill of victory, the characters do and then we do by watching the story unfold.

Reality TV is us being voyeurs to other people's lives. People who put out their emotions for everyone to see, things that should be private and mean something more than entertainment for the masses. This is the dictionary definition of pornography.

The Bachelor puts 25 ladies in a room to fight over one man and we get to watch every bit of the courtship in contrived settings. Some ladies are picked by the producers to create drama. Some are really hoping to find love. This is not for our entertainment and yet there it is, for all of us to peek in on and giggle.

Again, the emotions of these people are REAL, but the situation is manufactured and it appears that it is supposed to tell a story like real art does. But we don't interpret anything, we just are peeping Tom's into their lives. People confuse the emotions they are seeing on the screen with actual drama with sincere writing, characters, and plotting. I hope that people will wise up but I doubt it.

So I look into the future and I see a dearth of talent and movie studios with no guts to take chances on stories that need the big budget but have no preconceptions or familiarity. Avengers, Iron Man, Star Trek, all properties we know about. But creating something new and iconic? The writers are all spread out amongst 2,376 tv shows and internet videos. The studios seem to latch on to proven winners and all we get retreads in the theaters and reality garbage on TV. It's depressing.

And I am so bored.

Candace Cameron Bure Creates Controversy... because it says so in the story

Oppression, apparently.

Not because I can actually find any controversy. According to the Wonderwall, Candace Cameron Bure has a marriage that seems to work for her and she's happy with it.

In her book, the former child star wrote, "My husband is a natural-born leader. I quickly learned that I had to find a way of honoring his take-charge personality and not get frustrated about his desire to have the final decision on just about everything. I am not a passive person, but I chose to fall into a more submissive role in our relationship because I wanted to do everything in my power to make my marriage and family work."

So I guess this is controversial even though the only stories I could find was people reporting what she said and telling us how it was controversial. No one seemed to call her out on it but the story is consistently reported as her "defending" her views. Because obviously. She's a nut and she knows she's outside the mainstream and needs to defend her life. She has to justify it because eyebrow raising reporters writing the story were displeased.

But I can't find outrage. She isn't saying what people SHOULD do, she's saying what SHE does. That's it. It needs no defense. There is no controversy in her choice of life. It is reporters who are telling us there is a controversy. That she "defended" her choice because WE ALL KNOW that it's indefensible. I looked up and down google and could find this story reported ad nauseam with the same tone: Weirdo Candace Cameron Bure has become a weak minded mormon who only does whatever her wife beating husband tells her to do. She's a 50's throwback or something. Take this quote to start the story:

In Candace Cameron Bure's household, her husband is the one in charge.

Is that what she said? Does it mean she gets nothing and is a slave? Perez Hilton believes so.

 The actress has been married for 17 years to hockey player Val Bure and she's kept her love alive because she "submits" to his will. 

She insists: "I am not a passive person, but I chose to fall into a more submissive role in our relationship because I wanted to do everything in my power to make my marriage and family work." 

Sooooo you just always listen to what your husband says? That's the key to a happy marriage?!?!

Well yeah Perez. But she also has a husband that listens to what she says. She has a 17 year marriage still going strong. She's happy. But not the way Perez and the rest of the left approve of. So she must be ostracized, ridiculed and missrepresented. No surprise there. She is doing movies, she's doing interviews, she appears to be outspoken, she wrote a book... where is the submissiveness interfering with her life exactly? Where is her husband keeping her from doing anything she wants to do?

She has a strong core set of values, strong beliefs and they sustain her. Take Lindsay Lohan, Brittany Spears, and the rest of the train wrecks that are working their way towards cautionary tale. What right does anyone have to look down on Cameron-Bure exactly? For having a good, strong life?

Maybe the leftists need to get one.

#Chiefs break my heart... again.

Man oh man. The Chiefs can be summed up thusly: As soon as I start to buy in, as soon as I start to believe, they will figure out how to lose and break my heart in the most painful way possible. That's called being a Chiefs fan.

Happy New Year! *Cough cough cough*

Well on Saturday I started to get a tickle in my throat and by Monday I had 101 degree fever. Consider also that my normal temp is not the boilerplate 98.6 but rather a cool 97.8, getting up to 99 degrees is like most people getting to a hundred. So when I break a hundred degree fever, needless to say I'm not dancing to the tune "Hot Blooded." I'm a delirious wreck. Fortunately I was able to get to the clinic before Jan 1 so I got to use my insurance one last time as Blue Cross and my employer intended. I've resolved to never get sick again. I also plan to live forever but one step at a time.

Han posted his first post and damn it's a good one. I love me a good burn to another arrogant liberal gasbag. Let him know he's doing good. As for this year, I hope to break this blog out to the conservative mainstream and hopefully add two more voices to enact some change in this country. Whatever we can do change some minds out there, we will continue no matter what. Thanks to all of you (ok both of you) regular readers and please comment or issue feedback. I do plan to renovate the page a bit and I will probably get a real domain name. Keep reading and here's to the total collapse of liberalism in 2014!