How to Slim Down a Population
We hear day in and day out how fat we're getting to be as a society. No one seems to have any idea how to prevent that.
Your friendly Ostrich Killer to the rescue!
Here's my plan: At every entrance to every food store or restaurant in America, we place a 'price factor' machine. Here's how it would work: there would be a scale and a vertical ruler. The customer would enter through this machine and be automatically weighed and measured. Depending on his / her weight compared to a healthy norm, he / she would be issued a 'factor' tag. Then they would shop.
At the checkout counter, when their purchases have been rung up they would surrender their 'factor' tag to the checkout person. The factor would be multiplied against the total price rung up.
For example, let's say your Ostrich Killer got a 'factor' tag value of 1.1. At the checkout counter my purchases ring up to $10. I surrender the tag; multiplying $10 times 1.1, my cost would be $11. Or if I had a 'factor' tag value of 1.5, my cost would be $15.
So the fat would be able to afford less food. The skinny would be able to afford more food. Who loses?
Okay, I know. Too simple. So I'm going back to sleep.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
OPRAH ENDORSES OBAMA
"I've never endorsed anyone before," she says. "I'm endorsing him because I know him personally and know what he stands for." Those quotes are really paraphrases. If you want exact quotes, google for 'oprah endorse obama' and get them yourself.
Okay, that out of the way, let's examine her endorsement.
First, she knows him personally. Okay, that's fine. Not sure why it's enough to make her finally come out and endorse someone officially, but still. She's entitled to back someone she knows. If someone I knew and liked ran, I might do the same.
Next, though, she 'knows what he stands for.' Okay, Oprah. What, specifically, does he stand for? You didn't mention anything. Let us know. Don't be nebulous and evasive. Stand up! Speak out! Tell us which of his stances on what issues especially resonate with you. Share your insights with the rest of us. After all, it isn't quite sufficient (except, perhaps, to members of your book club) to simply say that you like what he stands for. That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement to critical-thinking voters, who might want a little more meat on the bleached bones of a non-specific statement.
Okay, by now it's clear to everyone that I don't hold Oprah's political acumen in high regard. Her business sense, yes. Politics, no.
Lastly, let me pose a question: Is it mere coincidence that the only viable black candidate on the Democratic ticket ever receives the endorsement of the world's most widely known black woman? Lest I be labeled a white racist for even raising the question, let me propose a mental model: Let's say that Jesse Jackson is running and has won a primary or two. He's viable. He's gonna get votes. In this model, does Oprah endorse him? You decide.
Let's cut to the chase. If your answer is 'probably,' doesn't that mean that Oprah's criteria for qualification includes skin color? Think about it. All these years, all these white candidates. No endorsement. Along comes ONE viable black candidate, and she endorses.
Do you believe in coincidences? If so, I have this bridge in Brooklyn I'm trying to unload at a reasonable price.
Okay, I'll say it. If it looks racist, and walks like a racist, and talks like a racist, then it's possible that it is a racist. Oprah, honey babe, you've been called out. At the very least we have the appearance of racism. At some point you're going to have to produce some reasonable justification for your sudden eagerness to endorse a political candidate who happens to share your skin color.
Sayin' it like I see it, your friendly Ostrich Killer goes back to sleep . . .
Oh, and visit my e-Novels site. Review my novels, and buy them. Best stories you'll read this year! Not only that, you'll help keep me able to post stuff like this from time to time! Win - Win!
"I've never endorsed anyone before," she says. "I'm endorsing him because I know him personally and know what he stands for." Those quotes are really paraphrases. If you want exact quotes, google for 'oprah endorse obama' and get them yourself.
Okay, that out of the way, let's examine her endorsement.
First, she knows him personally. Okay, that's fine. Not sure why it's enough to make her finally come out and endorse someone officially, but still. She's entitled to back someone she knows. If someone I knew and liked ran, I might do the same.
Next, though, she 'knows what he stands for.' Okay, Oprah. What, specifically, does he stand for? You didn't mention anything. Let us know. Don't be nebulous and evasive. Stand up! Speak out! Tell us which of his stances on what issues especially resonate with you. Share your insights with the rest of us. After all, it isn't quite sufficient (except, perhaps, to members of your book club) to simply say that you like what he stands for. That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement to critical-thinking voters, who might want a little more meat on the bleached bones of a non-specific statement.
Okay, by now it's clear to everyone that I don't hold Oprah's political acumen in high regard. Her business sense, yes. Politics, no.
Lastly, let me pose a question: Is it mere coincidence that the only viable black candidate on the Democratic ticket ever receives the endorsement of the world's most widely known black woman? Lest I be labeled a white racist for even raising the question, let me propose a mental model: Let's say that Jesse Jackson is running and has won a primary or two. He's viable. He's gonna get votes. In this model, does Oprah endorse him? You decide.
Let's cut to the chase. If your answer is 'probably,' doesn't that mean that Oprah's criteria for qualification includes skin color? Think about it. All these years, all these white candidates. No endorsement. Along comes ONE viable black candidate, and she endorses.
Do you believe in coincidences? If so, I have this bridge in Brooklyn I'm trying to unload at a reasonable price.
Okay, I'll say it. If it looks racist, and walks like a racist, and talks like a racist, then it's possible that it is a racist. Oprah, honey babe, you've been called out. At the very least we have the appearance of racism. At some point you're going to have to produce some reasonable justification for your sudden eagerness to endorse a political candidate who happens to share your skin color.
Sayin' it like I see it, your friendly Ostrich Killer goes back to sleep . . .
Oh, and visit my e-Novels site. Review my novels, and buy them. Best stories you'll read this year! Not only that, you'll help keep me able to post stuff like this from time to time! Win - Win!
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
The Trouble with the U.S. Constitution
First, let me make clear that I stand at the front of the line of admirers of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. They did a magnificent job. Most of what they framed still works beautifully today.
But they couldn't have foreseen the changes technology has brought us: transportation technology and communication technology have combined to emperil the future of the United States of America.
The U.S. Constitution assumes that America can survive the occasional bad choices that an electorate might make. In their time, when reaction times were measured in years instead of hours, that was true. It is no longer true. A bad choice at the polling place can doom the country. If enemies perceive - and perception is reality, don't forget - that we are unwilling or even reluctant to do what's necessary to protect ourselves or even our interests, they will exploit that.
They will know immediately of our errors. We, on the other hand, have migrated our decision-making from 'who's best for America' to 'who's most attractive on TV.' Can you imagine, in this day and age, a Herbert Hoover being elected? Or a Teddy Roosevelt? They'd fail the 'video byte' test immediately, despite their true qualifications.
An ugly, plain-spoken candidate is automatically a non-starter. Today's candidate must have good hair, bright teeth, an attractive spouse, no history of marital issues, the ability to speak in PC, and a pleasing voice. This says far more about out culture than it does about the candidate.
A lot of good can be said for not hearing or seeing the candidate, of having to read their thoughts instead of listening to them.
The U.S. Constitution makes removal from office a difficult task. Rightly so. But in this day of instant news, global perceptions, and the ability to strike through high-speed transportation systems, can America survive the occasional mistake? More importantly, will enemies resist the temptation to strike?
Let me make clear who I mean by enemies. Domestically, an enemy is someone who would expand the role of government beyond Constitutionally permitted boundaries. Those include anyone who proposes an 'entitlement' program. Nothing in the Constitution permits the Federal Government to serve as a charity clearing house. Nothing permits them to take money from one person and give it to another, just because they need it. Alex deToqueville observed that the 'noble experiment of democracy' is doomed the day the electorate discovers that they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers. That day is long, long past. And in the end, he will be proven right. Think of welfare, of the ADA, of government oversight of health care, of jobs programs, of any sort of government handout. All of these take money from earners and give it to the non-earners. Can you think of a more effective recipe for stifling innovation and ambition?
Yes, I'm advocating that in this country, people should be allowed to starve to death. If their families and neighbors want to help, fine. But not on a federal, hold-a-gun-to-our-heads-and-make-us-pay basis, which is what a tax is.
Globally, an enemy is any country that would prefer we not exist, or who would like to put us into their harness. Let them detect weakness, or lack of resolve, or 'understanding', and it's over.
Voters in the day of our Founding Fathers had fresh knowledge of tyranny and the importance of their votes. They thought about national issues. Today voters often choose based on a single issue - abortion, terror, flat tax, government spending, homosexual marriage, etc. - and ignore other issues that may be of greater importance to the nation as a whole. We are a nation, I'm sad to have to report, of the globally and politically illiterate.
Which brings me to voter qualification. I propose nothing new here, you've heard it before. A qualified voter would be a citizen, a high-school graduate, and be either employed and supporting his family or wealthy, and have served his country honorably in federal service in some manner for a period not less than two years. Anyone else would enjoy the benefits of citizenship, but would not be allowed to vote or hold office. In short, only those who've shown an interest in their country would be allowed into the political process.
I guess that the sort of thinking that your friendly Ostrich Killer has shown above is a clue why he is not in public office - who, you might well ask, would ever vote for a guy who thinks like that?
Indeed.
First, let me make clear that I stand at the front of the line of admirers of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. They did a magnificent job. Most of what they framed still works beautifully today.
But they couldn't have foreseen the changes technology has brought us: transportation technology and communication technology have combined to emperil the future of the United States of America.
The U.S. Constitution assumes that America can survive the occasional bad choices that an electorate might make. In their time, when reaction times were measured in years instead of hours, that was true. It is no longer true. A bad choice at the polling place can doom the country. If enemies perceive - and perception is reality, don't forget - that we are unwilling or even reluctant to do what's necessary to protect ourselves or even our interests, they will exploit that.
They will know immediately of our errors. We, on the other hand, have migrated our decision-making from 'who's best for America' to 'who's most attractive on TV.' Can you imagine, in this day and age, a Herbert Hoover being elected? Or a Teddy Roosevelt? They'd fail the 'video byte' test immediately, despite their true qualifications.
An ugly, plain-spoken candidate is automatically a non-starter. Today's candidate must have good hair, bright teeth, an attractive spouse, no history of marital issues, the ability to speak in PC, and a pleasing voice. This says far more about out culture than it does about the candidate.
A lot of good can be said for not hearing or seeing the candidate, of having to read their thoughts instead of listening to them.
The U.S. Constitution makes removal from office a difficult task. Rightly so. But in this day of instant news, global perceptions, and the ability to strike through high-speed transportation systems, can America survive the occasional mistake? More importantly, will enemies resist the temptation to strike?
Let me make clear who I mean by enemies. Domestically, an enemy is someone who would expand the role of government beyond Constitutionally permitted boundaries. Those include anyone who proposes an 'entitlement' program. Nothing in the Constitution permits the Federal Government to serve as a charity clearing house. Nothing permits them to take money from one person and give it to another, just because they need it. Alex deToqueville observed that the 'noble experiment of democracy' is doomed the day the electorate discovers that they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers. That day is long, long past. And in the end, he will be proven right. Think of welfare, of the ADA, of government oversight of health care, of jobs programs, of any sort of government handout. All of these take money from earners and give it to the non-earners. Can you think of a more effective recipe for stifling innovation and ambition?
Yes, I'm advocating that in this country, people should be allowed to starve to death. If their families and neighbors want to help, fine. But not on a federal, hold-a-gun-to-our-heads-and-make-us-pay basis, which is what a tax is.
Globally, an enemy is any country that would prefer we not exist, or who would like to put us into their harness. Let them detect weakness, or lack of resolve, or 'understanding', and it's over.
Voters in the day of our Founding Fathers had fresh knowledge of tyranny and the importance of their votes. They thought about national issues. Today voters often choose based on a single issue - abortion, terror, flat tax, government spending, homosexual marriage, etc. - and ignore other issues that may be of greater importance to the nation as a whole. We are a nation, I'm sad to have to report, of the globally and politically illiterate.
Which brings me to voter qualification. I propose nothing new here, you've heard it before. A qualified voter would be a citizen, a high-school graduate, and be either employed and supporting his family or wealthy, and have served his country honorably in federal service in some manner for a period not less than two years. Anyone else would enjoy the benefits of citizenship, but would not be allowed to vote or hold office. In short, only those who've shown an interest in their country would be allowed into the political process.
I guess that the sort of thinking that your friendly Ostrich Killer has shown above is a clue why he is not in public office - who, you might well ask, would ever vote for a guy who thinks like that?
Indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)