Wednesday, October 12, 2011
I've been occasionally checking in on some of the footage of the post-pubescent children who constitute the "occupy Wall Street" mass mooch-ins that are infecting various cities in America this week. Originally, I wasn't planning to dignify them with my valuable typing time, but then I started to wonder...could these human parasites actually survive in the world they want to create? I doubt it.
Let's assume for the sake of discussion that their vague-yet-hilarious demands were met, and suddenly the "rich" were forced to hand over their wealth for equal distribution among those unwilling to work for a living. With profit now off the table, there would be no reason for anyone to continue advances in industries including, but not limited to health care, energy, transportation, security, housing, or even food production. What's the worse that could happen? Right?
Obviously I don't claim to know what such a future would look like in any accurate detail, but logic demands a scenario somewhere between the Great Depression and Orwell's "1984".
Could a person solely dependant on others, live and thrive in a world that would in all likelihood demand resourcefulness, personal motivation, and testicular fortitude? Could this particular brand of riff raff meet those standards? It seems to me that having a personal philosophy that leads you to believe you have some claim or entitlement to other's wealth would make you a pretty successful thief or gang leader in a Road Warrior-esque, post revolution, progressive/anarchistic utopia. Except for one little problem. These over-feminized, hyper-sensitized, vegetarian, latte swillers don't have enough muscle, backbone, or sufficiently thick skin to last a week in the future of their own creation.
In fact, it's more likely that if these "men" were lucky enough to survive the riots, viral epidemics and famine in the early years of lib-topia, they would never be able to escape being gang-raped by marauding bands of motorcycle gangs. After all, a true "progressive" would never carry a gun to protect themselves. And a true "liberal" wouldn't even think of hunting deer for meat. I simply assume that an un-armed, physically weak nineteen year old boy with green hair, "skinny jeans" and a Che Gueverra T-shirt, might be at a slight dis-advantage in the food chain of the future.
Just what does a parasite do when there is no more blood, or no more host? What do those who depend on hand-outs do, when there are no more hand-outs to take? Who do you steal from once you've made everyone poor? Once you kill the cow, where do you get your milk?
Oh well, I've never accused the left of being "forward thinkers". I guess they better just hope that "Bubba the biker" has a gentle side.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
One of the bonuses of being a truck driver is that I get to meet a wide cross-section of people every day. Inevitably, this exposes me to many varying opinions relating to any given subject. One such subject has risen in popularity lately with the announcement that Chastity Bono is going to be a contestant on "Dancing With the Stars". As expected, and according to plan, the resulting controversy about her appearance on the show sparked headlines and commentary from pretty much everyone in the media, as well as some of my co-workers.
You can safely assume what some of the more common thoughts on Chastity might be, but the theme I find most interesting comes from the "unsure" crowd. These are your friends or relatives who know that there's something wrong, but can't quite put their finger on it, let alone explain it. Thankfully, I'm here to do the heavy lifting on this one.
The reason there's a problem with Bono's appearance on the show is not so much that she's gay...it's because she's a fraud. The last time I checked, with the exception of actors playing a role, undercover police work, or Halloween costumes, pretending to be something you're not is a form of deception. And also the last time I checked, deception was something that was supposed to be frowned upon. I can assume Bono was the producer's choice because Bernie Madoff is currently...indisposed.
You see, Chastity Bono is no more a man than I'm a seven foot tall black guy. Sure, I could have my skin dyed, or take melanin injections, but would that change the fact that my family tree hails from parts far north of Africa? Does "feeling" like I should have been born a seven foot tall black man justify having femoral extensions implanted into my legs to make me taller? What does it say about the ethics of any doctor who would do such a procedure?
What if I decide that I "feel" like a police officer? Does that give me the power to arrest someone?
There are many accomplices taking part in this fraud. Starting with Chastity, a woman pretending to be a man, then having the audacity to expect and demand that everyone play along. Then, anyone who enabled or played along with the charade. This list includes anyone who refers to her as "him" or "Chaz", and ends with any member of the medical profession who had a hand in the mutilation of her body.
It's very simple folks. You play the hand you're dealt in life. If you're dealt a penis, you live life as a male, because that's what you are. If you're dealt a vagina, you live life as a woman. To do it any other way is to live a lie.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get ready for my NBA tryout.
Monday, August 8, 2011
First, I'm not dead, I'm a Dad... and a husband. Since my last post, life has dealt me some interesting hands that have kept me from my blogging duties. Not to worry though, aside from a hale storm/tornado giving our house a good ol' fashioned ass whoop'n, and a work schedule that went into hyper drive at around the same time, everything has been going pretty well at the Roadhouse...house. And thanks to taking the time to research my choice in homeowners insurance policies when I bought our home ten years ago, the storm damage was well covered and since fixed.
I've written often about how being a conservative is not always easy. Let's face it, part of the mass appeal of liberalism is that it requires little in the way of intellect, foresight, reason, or personal ambition. On the flip side, conservatism is based in the idea that an individual is duty bound to pull his/her own weight, handle his or her own problems and do everything in their power to not put themselves in a position where they would need to depend on or mooch off of others. As expected, actually living this philosophy usually means some type of work and/or sacrifice.
Case in point; recently, we had a major problem with Mrs. Roadhouse's car. As opposed to taking it to the dealership, or "certified" mechanic, I opted to fix it myself. After all, that's what a conservative would do. Especially one who actually knows what those things under the hood do.
No do-it-yourself car project would be complete without a trip to ye-old auto parts store. For many shade tree mechanics, a parts store is also a place to socialize and catch up on local gossip. On this day, another local guy came into the shop as I was waiting for my parts. The conversation turned to what new venture he was starting, as he is known to be involved in various different enterprises. He told the guys behind the counter that he was getting into raising honey bees. I was not really paying attention to any of this until he proudly proclaimed that the government was going to give him $1000.00 per hive.
At that moment he had inadvertently pressed my "on" button. I calmly turned to him and said "I think you meant to say that WE are going to give you $1000.00 a hive...right?" as I motioned to everyone in the store. While looking at me as if I just grown a second head, he asked me what I meant. I reminded him that the government can not spend one plug nickel on anything, until it takes it from someone else first. I suggested to him that by rights, everyone in that store would be entitled to some of the honey from the hives we would be helping to finance, and we would be anxiously awaiting our first jar. Un-amused, he took his quarts of oil and left the store.
This incident, coupled with our government's child-like understanding of free market principals and the actual role of government supports my theory that nothing is going to change for the better in America until we break our addiction to Uncle Sam's ever-helping hand being expected to wipe our ever-dependant rear ends.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
One of the great things about the Internet, books, magazines and newspapers is that they are a permanent record of opinions, ideas, and things that happened in the past. In recent weeks, I have come tho the conclusion that the Obama administration has either forgotten this, or they are simply to arrogant to care.
After September 11, 2001 I, like many others here in America became fixated on the news and what was happening around the world. Speaking for myself, that hasn't changed. Though I don't watch the news to the extent I did nine years ago, which lead to the FOX NEWS icon being permanently burned into the bottom left corner of my TV screen, I still pay close attention to what's going on out there. And though I don't have the photographic memory of my lovely wife, I do recollect a few things from recent years. One such thing is the war in Iraq.
From nearly day one, the media amplified the talking points of the anti-American left. We were treated to daily doses of screeching pacifists comparing President Bush to Adolph Hitler, and the invasion of Iraq to imperialism. We were told that going to Iraq was going to create more terrorists. We were told that despite the broad coalition of countries who were helping, it was still a "unilateral" invasion. We were told that despite the finding of mass graves, known use of weapons of mass destruction, the invasion of Kuwait, attempted assassination of a sitting President, support of terrorism, and active attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein was no threat to the United States.
Flash forward to today and the "whatchamacallit" we're doing in Libya. Don't get me wrong, you will never hear me complain about Mohmar Quadafi being taken out of power...but. Where are the accusations of being "bogged down in a quagmire"? Why no cries of this being an "illegal invasion"? Where is Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan? Who's whining about "exit strategies" now? Where are those ever-pennywise Democrats that were so concerned about cost of the war in Iraq now? Are fighter planes and missiles free now?
Personally, my issue regarding Libya is less about the total and absolute hypocrisy from the left, and more about the apparent "let's see what happens if we do this" approach we seem to be taking there. It's one thing to help the townsfolk fight back against an infamous street gang such as the "Bloods". But what if there was a pretty good chance that most of those "townsfolk" were actually made up of of members of the "Crips", and/or "MS-13"? Imagine being that U.S. fighter pilot who's job it is to take out Quadafi's forces, but you know in the back of your mind that in all likelihood, you're actually helping the Taliban, or Al Queda take over another Middle Eastern country. On top of that, you can also assume that according to our justification for going to Libya, we'll be going to Syria, Yemen, Darfur, and every other totalitarian society on the globe in the next few months as well. After all, it wouldn't be fair to only pick on Libya, when so many other countries treat their people so much worse. Right?
Such moral dilemmas are part of the reason I have so much respect for our military. Following orders that you know are going to bite you in the ass later is just one of many indignities our military are forced to put up with. If it were me in that fighter plane, I think I'd be tempted to just say "screw it" and pull the eject lever. That's the difference between someone serving in the military, and a civilian puke like me.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
When I sat down this evening in hopes of pounding out a brilliant think-piece about America's latest bout with Libya, I realized immediately that it just wasn't going to happen...at least not tonight. I did make a half-hearted attempt, but putting such massive amounts of hypocrisy, incompetence, and short-sightedness into one article was going to take more time and patience than I happen to have tonight. For now, "ROADHOUSE ON LIBYA" will have to wait. In the meantime, I offer the following substitute.
In recent months, it's been hard to miss the growing trend of anti-bullying messaging in the media and throughout my daughter's school. When President Obama referenced bullying in one of his many "let's talk about this so you won't focus on my total lack of competence" speeches last week, I knew I had to address the topic. And as usual, I will be taking a road less traveled on the issue.
Let's face it, being bullied is no fun. Yes, I do speak from experience. The effect it can have on your dignity and self esteem can be devastating and emotionally crippling. On the other hand, being bullied can be a lesson in life that you will draw on for the rest of your days. The choice is almost always that of the "victim".
As with most problems in life, liberals are under some weird impression that lots of your money, legislation, regulation and public service propaganda campaigns will somehow magically end bullying. Even if bullying could be ended with the wave of a hand, Jedi mind trick style, I think it is in our children's best interest if we take a minute to ask if bullying actually should be stopped.
Consider this. What lesson does a child take away from a scenario where he/she is bullied, and an all-powerful third party steps in and saves the day? Did the child learn self-reliance and the value of knowing how it feels to overcome adversity? No, he/she learned how to be totally dependent on some other person or group, reinforcing and solidifying his/her low self esteem.
Now, what lesson does the same child take away from being allowed or even forced to handle the bully on his/her own terms? Win or lose, the child will never be 40 years old, still living with the regret of not at least trying to stick up for themselves.
Personally, being bullied was probably the most influential factor in shaping my personality to this day. I don't even remember how many months I suffered, fearing my bus ride to middle school because of my bully. Thankfully, I had parents who were wise enough to push me into standing up for myself. So one day, shortly after he started his daily routine of pushing me around, my bully was met with a fist in the face, resulting in his blood on the bus floor. From that day on, he never bothered me, or anyone else on that bus again.
As far away as that day is now, I still reflect back on that particular bus ride whenever I have a challenge to face in my adult life. Call it survival of the fittest, call it natural selection, or call it the school of hard knocks, but my bully has saved my self esteem and maybe even my life many times over in the decades since that encounter. Looking back, I realize that being bullied was probably the best thing that ever happened to me.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Since the devastating earth quake and resulting tsunami, followed by impending nuclear disaster in Japan, there have been many lessons to be learned. As a distant observer nestled in my comfy country home hear in America, I have the luxury of picking and choosing what to take away from the tragedy in Japan. I could focus on the many political angles, or question the wisdom of building nuclear plants in known earthquake zones. I could focus on the media's complete and total incompetence in their reporting of the situation in there. Or I could simply distract myself from the devastation with basketball brackets and trips to Rio DeJinerio (like some people have chosen to do).
Rather, I am going to stick with my usual ROADHOUSE BLOG m.o. of seeing things just a little bit differently than most folks. Regardless of any religious or theological tendencies you may or may not have, there is one lesson that you are duty-bound to learn from what's happening in the land of the rising sun. The lesson is a simple one: You (we) just ain't "all that".
While you were considering the long term global effects of what particular type of light bulb you were going to purchase, there were tectonic plates beneath your feet considering what particular day they are going to shift, causing your entire house to be swallowed by a massive undiscovered fault line.
While you were wringing your hands at the checkout line because you had to decide which method of grocery bagging would have the least effect on the mating habits of some obscure species of field mouse in the year 2053, a nearby body of water was contemplating surging across the shoreline, destroying everything you ever loved.
The point is, you can worry about whatever unproven, fraudulent, over-hyped, yet-to-actually be witnessed, future faux-disaster you want to. But just remember this, as we learned last Friday, your recycling bin will not save you from twenty million gallons of water and debris rushing toward you at 100 mph. There is no natural disaster that will be impressed that you drive a Prius.
In short, we are small. As a species, we are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, that we are really not in a position to waste time preparing for theoretical dilemmas. Considering the size, scope, and longevity of Mother Nature, it seems to me that we would be better off spending our time, money, and energy preparing for things we actually know can happen. Maybe the climate will change to an un-sustaneable level because I bought the wrong light bulb, maybe it won't. But in the meantime, I know for a fact that there will be volcanoes, floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, droughts, and swarms of angry man-eating locusts sometime between the end of time, and the next thirty seconds. Maybe we should concentrate on some of that.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
I've been watching the events in Wisconsin for the past few weeks, and I am reminded of the fact that we have a long way to go in the fight to fix our educational system. On full display for everyone to see is a broken public school system run by the same people we are supposed to entrust our health care to...our government.
Rather than put my own personal spin on ground that's been well traveled over past couple of weeks by bringing up the cowardly democrats who fled like rats to avoid doing their job, or connecting the dots from President Obama to the labor unions, or whining yet again about the unfair coverage and blatantly bias coverage by the media of Governor Walker's fight to balance his state's budget, I'm simply going to boil this all down to a philosophical discussion. How's that for a run-on sentence?
Ask yourself the following question; Do the rights offered in this country apply to every citizen, or only the well connected? To ask me, you would hear me tell you that our rights apply to everyone, to ask a union representative, you would hear a well worded tap dance designed to distract you from the fact that he/she believes that the rights of a union member overrides and usurps that of an employer or the amount of money that employer has to work with in their budget during any given fiscal year.
Much like the big kid who would threaten "swirlies" unless you forked over your lunch money, unions threaten "strikes" unless you fork over wages and/or benefits that the free market would not otherwise provide under normal circumstances. At this point, the typical union member would proudly say, "Exactly, unions raise the standard of compensation for workers!". OK, but what happens when that artificially inflated level of compensation can no longer be afforded by the employer? Answer: Your employer either shuts it's doors, or bills the tax payer for a bailout as in the case of GM and Chrysler.
Worse yet, the difference between the car industry bailouts and what's happening in Wisconsin is the fact that in the case of the auto industry, the divide is between "labor" and "management". Labor being guilty of bullying their way to compensation packages that would eventually bankrupt the manufacturer while inflating the price of the car, and management being guilty of letting them, and then having the nerve to assume the tax payer should foot the bill. Yet in the case of Wisconsin, the divide is between labor being guilty of bullying their way to compensation packages that would eventually bankrupt the state while harming the quality of the children's education, and the tax payer being guilty of earning a paycheck and trying to provide for their family in the middle of a government induced recession. It's ironic that in both disputes, the tax payer is the one expected to fork over the cash.
As a conservative, I am duty bound to accept the rights of all people, even if the rights of others might not be in my best financial interest. That means I realize that when I pursue a particular job, it is the right of the employer to offer the terms of the job, and it is my right to accept them or not. It is my right to go elsewhere in search of employment, and it is the employer's right to offer an unreasonable compensation package that will result in him/her not being able to find quality employees, ultimately resulting in failure of his/her business. So says the free market.
For me to come to the negotiating table with a third party who's sole purpose is to win me "extras" that this particular job would not usually entitle me to, says a lot about me. It says that I can not stand on my own two feet, and that I have trouble navigating life without some powerfull third party holding my hand. It also says that I am starting from an adversarial position regarding my future relationship with my employer. It also tells you that I am not very forward thinking, because I do not recognize the exponential costs of my demands, and their inevitable result...unemployment. So says liberalism.
Lost in the haze of the Wisconsin debate are thousands of kids who are not being taught, by teachers who routinely claim that they teach because they "love children and love to teach". I guess that's as long as they pull down a salary and benefits package that would be the envy of any truck driver on the interstate.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Last week, while playing with my son, the phone rang. The caller ID read: "PA SENATE". Ever the pessimist, I almost didn't answer it, assuming it was some sort of robo-call, or plea for donations by someone's lower tier staffer. The curiosity got the best of me, so I answered it. As it turns out, it was actually my State Senator Rich Alloway. Still the pessimist, I was waiting for him to ask for a donation, but he didn't. Instead, he just wanted to call me personally to tell me how much he enjoyed reading my book.
You see, some time back, he was speaking at a local fund raiser, and after some coaxing from my wife, I attended the event and gave him a copy of my book. Senator Alloway's call was very sincere and we had a great conversation about the media and general politics. After his call, I could feel my ego inflating. After all, it's not every day that a State Senator calls you for no other purpose than to say he's a fan of your work.
As pure coincidence, Alloway was to be hosting a job fair at an events center here in my home town. I decided to stop by and introduce myself in person. I'm glad I did, because though Alloway recognized me right away and couldn't have been a cooler dude to talk to, the event itself turned out to be worth the frozen/Arctic trip into town on it's own.
I've been to job fairs in the past, but this was easily the biggest one I have ever attended. Being there as an employed truck driver allowed me to observe the event as an outsider. After all, I wasn't there to find a job.
As I watched the variety of people wandering aimlessly throughout the boothes manned by various trade schools, community colleges, and local industries, I realized two things. One, you know unemployment is too high when a job fair in a rural area such as this can draw a crowd this size (1000+people). And two, you could easily split that crowd into two groups; those who want a job, and those who don't.
Those who wanted a job were easy to spot. They were comprised of people who went the extra mile to look their best. Dress pants, and pressed shirts for the men, dresses and heels for the ladies. All carrying some sort of folder containing a portfolio and resume. In this group there was also a sub-strata. Those who wanted a job, but weren't going to get one because they sabotaged themselves before they even left their house.
These were the folks that took the time to wear the right clothes, prepared the right portfolios, but couldn't find a convincing way to hide the "flaming skull with rotting flesh" tattoo etched into their neck. Not to be out done, there was the guy who realized all too late that the giant disks that usually plugged half-dollar sized holes in his earlobes were probably not going to help his employment situation, so he opted to ditch the disks and went with the "I want my earlobes to look like soggy onion rings" look.
Moving on to those who had no intention of finding work. They were easy to spot as well. Many in this group moved in packs. Bringing friends and family and looking like reject extras from a bad rap video, these folks weren't even trying to be discreet about their agenda. They were there to grab job applications so they can fill them out as a requirement for unemployment benefits and welfare.
All in all, braving the elements to experience my town's job fair extravaganza turned out to be not only a great chance to see slackers and go-getters in their full glory, but it was also a good chance to push my son around in his stroller and make fun of people.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Maybe the reality that confronts me daily in the form of newly issued grey hairs is finally sinking in. Maybe I actually am out of touch. Maybe my intellect has not yet reached a level that would allow me to properly contextualize any form of entertainment popularized after 1987. Maybe I actually am an over-protective parent. Or, maybe there is a segment of society that cannot muster enough fore-sight/long term speculative reasoning ability to recognize a bad idea when they see one. This segment is known as the "clueless parent".
First, in the interest of full disclosure, it has been brought to my attention that my following opinion could be mis-interpreted as some sort of racial prejudice. So, to set the record straight...it is not. Please withhold judgement until the end of this piece.
Recently, my six year old daughter was in our living room when she decided to start dancing. This is not unusual because she has lots of energy and loves to dance. The problem was the particular dance she was doing. Cross between the ticks of someone who suffers from cerebral palsy and something I would commonly see on the dance floor of bars I used to frequent before I met my wife, this "dance" concerned me enough to ask my daughter what she was doing.
She explained that she was do the "tooty-ta" dance. After further inquiry, I learned that it was something she was taught in her first grade class, and it turned out to be a video that I was able to find on "You-Tube".
As a father, I am told that one of my duties is to protect my children from things that might harm them or things that might not be in their best interest. I am also told that my wife and I are responsible for whatever our children turn out to be as adults. On both points, I am in total agreement.
In the year 2011, the ever-growing list of things I need to protect my children from includes but is not limited to the following...bees, germs, snakes, pedophiles, sharp objects, traffic, drugs, pimps, prostitutes, stripper poles, and negative stereotypes disguised as cute, harmless little dances for children.
Call me crazy, but I have a bit of a problem with my kid being taught to emulate the mannerisms of people who refuse to wear clothes that fit properly, and can't seem to figure out which end of the hat is the front. Top that with comically large gold medallions and non-sensical lyrics and viola! A brand new gangsta rapper in training. Every parent's dream.
As for the racism angle, not so fast. My prejudice against rap music runs both deep and wide, and for many reasons to be written about in a future article. But this has nothing to do with skin color. It simply has to do with musical tastes. And for those who doubt my sincerity, I offer my CD collection as exhibit "A". It contains the following artists: Buddy Guy, John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters, Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Wonder, Miles Davis, Taj Mahal, Ray Charles, Bo Diddly, BB King, and a whole list of other black musicians who know how to make music with actual instruments, as opposed to electronic sampling programs.
As for "tooty ta", it has no apparent educational value for kids of any color.