Friday, February 7, 2014

Wards of the State

All your children are belong to us.

Silly, silly parents. You have this outdated notion that your children belong to you. They don't. In this special version of the same -- including a presidential attempt to marginalize those who disagree with him -- Paul Reville, former Massachusetts Secretary of Education restates the same.

Because they attend government schools, your children belong to the government. Yes, you love, feed, house, and nominally guide those children toward adulthood, but the government -- that nameless, faceless collective of local, state, and federal "educators"  -- gets to decide what they learn and how they learn 180 captive days of every year.

What's better than that type of thought channelization? They actually mine the children for data to support future government programs.

It all works out nicely for the powers that be.
And that, by no means, includes you or those small people you quaintly refer to as your children.







Who's to Blame?

Big Pharma : Statin Explosion :: Lobbyist : Farm Bill.

What is the pull to blame those who have successfully pedaled their wares over those we have chosen to help guard our well-being? We pick and pay our doctors and congress for the very purposes of helping us determine our course of action based on their expertise. I'm growing weary of their failures and apparent aversion to follow things through.

I can change my doctors; I cannot change congress. But I leave you with this point:

If congressional votes (those actions that determine the well-being of this country) could not be bought, lobbyists would not exist.

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Three Good Things (weekend edition)

1. Baked sweet potatoes loaded with butter.
2. Secretariat, the horse AND 2010 movie (I have deemed that this counts as only one).
3. Driving the long way home so we could enjoy the rest of this song in the convertible.



Yes, I'm going to totally ignore the fact that my blog has been languishing for many months and post what I want, when I want, and not you, nor any of your dismissive non-comments can stop me.

Have a lovely day!

Friday, June 14, 2013

Colorblind Man's Bluff



Object of the Game:  To remove green dots from the field before they randomly eat the other dots. Remove all green dots from the field before they eat the other dots and you win.

How to play: In the field of colorful dots, it is your job to protect all other color dots from the destructive green dots. Once you spot a green dot, you have two options of play: you may either destroy it or immobilize it by separating it from the other dots.  

Immobilize: Place marker on top of dot and drag to the perimeter.

Destroy: Place marker on top of dot and click once.

Hazards: It is sometimes necessary or desirable to immobilize non-green dots if they are preventing further pursuit of the green dots.  If you immobilize more than five non-green dots without destroying any green dots you lose your turn.

At any time, any of the dots may change to any other color. While the chance that any particular dot will turn green is small, the pool of green dots comes primarily from the blue dots.  Among the other color dots, any dot that has been immobilized is also more likely to become green.

There are already other dots at the perimeter. These have been immobilized for other threats against the general dot population.

If you should destroy a dot that is not green, you lose.

Professional Level of Play:

Remove all factors that may aid in identifying the green dots. Cast a wide net and wait until they start eating the other dots.

Begin:



Extended play: If the green dots begin eating the other dots at an alarming rate, you may immediately begin to drag all the other dots to the perimeter (immobilize them) so that you can more readily spot the green dot activities. Although you are immobilizing the other color dots, this is considered “protecting” them.  

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Mass Data Dis-Integration Bureau

Welcome to a tiny glimpse into your future, the rest of America.

Here in Massachusetts, we've been lucky enough to beta-test the individual mandate of Obamacare. Unlike what you've been told, however, it isn't simply a matter of carrying insurance, or even of proving that you carry minimal creditable coverage; that proof needs to be transferred from the government-mandated form you receive from your insurance provider -- at what cost, I can only imagine -- to the government-mandated IRS form. It's just a little exercise in toleration for you.

So, what's the problem with a little more paperwork if it means that everyone in this wealthiest of nations gets access to excellent healthcare, right? Oh. Then, that everyone gets access to decent healthcare? Oh. Then, that everyone gets access to a company that bargains with providers for mandated services? Oh, I mean, then . . . who gets what for my hassle, exactly?

But it's simple enough, right? I mean, we're not trying to get away with anything here. We appreciate the fact that we can pay oodles of money to hedge against the possibility of going bankrupt over potential health issues. We really do. But we did before Obamacare was an epithet.

So why does the IRS need to know? Well, the magic of universal healthcare only works through government force, and the IRS is the agency through which government forces everyone. Equally. Right?

What's worse than being forced to pay for everyone's misnamed "health care" coverage? As we recently discovered, the IRS needs to know not only about the existence of your coverage, but also that you can repeat this information wherever and whenever asked by them. But say you're a dependent and the people who claimed you as such already provided the IRS with your SS# and your proof of your coverage? So what! Before your tax return is processed "you will be assessed a Health Care penalty which could be as much as $1260.00 per taxpayer" if you don't resubmit that same information already submitted to them within 30 days of the IRS receiving your request for a return of your money that you overpaid to the government according to their own inscrutable formulas.

Now breathe.

Inasmuch as I enjoy reading a threatening letter from the IRS to my first-time filer teenage daughter, the fact that this was from the Data Integration Bureau of the Massachusetts IRS, and my daughter's data was already filed (by SS#) as having MMC (oh yes, I can use that acronym now because after much upset including research and yelling, we've learned how to be fucking financial forensic attorneys in order to understand what my daughter did wrong in reporting her $6K of earnings), is simply the icing on this bureaucratic shit cake. (I am still also free to say that. The last time I checked, anyway.)

So, there is a lesson in there, people.

Be careful what you ask the government for, because you, your children, their children, and so on, will reap the benefits of your institutionalizing government power grabs for the foreseeable future.

And then some.

Oh, and while I may be able to sleep better at night knowing my daughter is financially covered for catastrophic health problems, no one benefits from twice-tracking her coverage except maybe the bureaucrats who spend their days threatening teenagers with the force of the federal government behind them.

Friday, May 3, 2013

Life of Why



As we continue to ask why, to look for some small amount of justice to the heinous, random murder of innocents at the Boston Marathon, we seem to want to skip the initial act as if it were an accident or metaphysically given. By striving to ignore the overwhelming evidential link between terrorism and the religious choice of Islam we do ourselves a grave disservice. We prefer to think there is a magical tale of why behind each horrific act done to glorify the name of Mohammed rather than because it is prescribed in the Koran and fomented among its adherents within and without mosques.    

No, not every mosque is a hotbed of Islamic totalitarianism through violent jihad, just as not every fundamentalist Christian church lays out plans to kill abortion providers. But it is those who fully attend to their medieval religious duties, those who are fed the idea that liberalism and individual freedom are evil, those who see themselves as soldiers of mystical, murderous rot who are urged – no, entitled – to kill innocents in what they see as their fight to spread their religious zeal among those who reject it.

It is these murderers who must be excised by their own religions.

And so it goes with God.

And so it shall continue to go until this religion of peace—or any religion which inspires organized murder of innocents in its name—is understood and identified as the enemy of civilization it continues to reveal itself to be. 

Don’t ask why they do it -- they do it by choice; ask why we choose to ignore what inspires that choice over and over again.

Monday, April 22, 2013

MSM Connects the Dots