Wednesday, February 25, 2009

New Homelad Security Alert Code

According to Utah State Senator Chris Buttars, homosexuals lack morals, engage in abominable behavior, and are as dangerous as radical Islam.

homo codeIn response, the defense department has come up with another addition to the Homeland Security Advisory System. Whenever the nation's intelligence systems pick up chatter about impending homosexual activities, there will be a "Pink Alert."

So far, the only information released on what to do in case of a Pink Alert is "Watch your bunghole."

Hopefully more information will be forthcoming.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Why Do Republicans Hate America?

GOP poised to leap on spending abuses in stimulus

House Republicans are setting up "a stimulus-watch program" that will allow watchdog groups and private citizens to report findings as contractors and agencies start spending billions of dollars on roads, schools, renewable energy projects and other initiatives, said House GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.
Where were these "watchdogs" when stuff like THIS was going on?
Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management
report said as much as $12.7 billion in cash from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, sent to Iraq during Bremer's watch between May 2003 and June 2004, was unaccounted for.
In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn (£88bn) in a US -directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff's notorious Ponzi scheme.
Why are Republicans so happy to write a blank check for rebuilding Iraq, but hate it when the government wants to spend money on America? Do they hate America?

Monday, February 16, 2009

Use Your Words Like a Big Boy

Socialism: (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) n. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
In other words, The government, or some other collective organization, owns the means of production. The gov't owns the factories, stores and everything else producing economic results.

Socialism does not mean government handouts, bailouts or welfare.


People are throwing the word "socialism" around a lot lately, and it is EXCLUSIVELY being used as a scare tactic. You can be relatively sure that anyone that uses that word in any form of political discussion lately is completely full of shit.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Where's Pauly's Bailout?

"Auto companies churned out oversized gas guzzling pieces of shit that no one wanted to purchase, so since those fat cats are lining up for a juicy government hand outs, I figure here was my chance to get in line behind homeowners with bad credit that never should have gotten loans in the first place..." Pauly

I realize this is the popular wisdom right now, but it's just plain wrong.

I don't know why people think that American car manufacturers suddenly stopped selling cars because all they do is "churn out oversized gas guzzling pieces of shit." But people do. Why is it that conventional wisdom is usually wrong and always overly simplistic?

In this case I guess it's because the auto slump coincided with surging gas prices. But sales were still pretty good, even when gas got up to $5 a gallon. Gas rose steadily over 5 years. But things really didn't start to get nightmarish for car makers until gas dropped down to HISTORIC lows, around $1.30 a gallon. So that can't possibly be it.

Yesterday it was announced that Nissan, who was projected to make over $1 Billion last year actually lost almost $3 Billion. Now how do GM and Ford's "gas guzzling pieces of shit" affect Nissan's performance?

People just STOPPED BUYING CARS. ANY CARS. The crashing economy scared the shit out of everyone. "Shit, my 401k just lost $300,000" isn't the kind of thing that inspires people to go out and drop $40K on a new SUV.

Every single car company is suffering. Only Subaru and Hyundai were profitable last year, and their market share is minuscule. Hell, Subaru produces ONLY all-wheel drive cars that get terrible mileage. They market solely based on safety and horsepower.

And if people stopped buying new cars, how are they surviving? They're driving their cars longer than they have. Because they are NOT "pieces of shit." They are built better and drive longer than any cars in history. It's actually the quality of the cars that's working against the automakers now. Maybe if they actually did make pieces of shit, they'd have more business.

And as far as "big gas-guzzling" vehicles, why do you think automakers produce them? Do you think automakers determine what people buy? NO! Automakers try to figure out what people will buy, then they try to make them. But it takes around 5 years for a domestic car manufacturer to get a new model on the road. Foreign auto builders can do that in 3 years, but again most of them do not produce the volume of GM and Ford. That flexibility gives the foreign makers an advantage in the short term, but too many snap decisions based on the current market can be more costly.

Decisions made in the last couple of years based on artificially high gas prices could help the industry, but since the "American Auto Buying Public" only seems to ever buy GIANT GAS GUZZLING DUELY PICKUPS AND SUVS, it could actually be a DISASTER. Drive down the street in any town and look at the ratio of giant vehicles to small fuel efficient models. It's overwhelmingly SUVs, Pickups and Mini-vans. Nearly all with one passenger in them.

Americans don't buy their cars based on what they "need." They buy based on what they "want." I want something BIG and STRONG. I want to be able to tow a boat, if I ever buy one. "What will I do with my hypothetical boat if I buy a Prius? Answer me THAT!"

Thursday, February 05, 2009


Steve Czaban, FOX sportscaster proclaims that Michael Phelps is a loser.

czabeWow, what does it take to be successful in "the Czabe's" opinion? Become a chubby middle aged sports announcer that never achieved anything? Or win 14 Olympic Gold medals and earn $100 million in endorsement deals: which of these would you consider "a loser?"

I think our poor friend Steve has fallen into the same logical fallacy that I fell into when I was a teenager.

Lucky for me, I grew out of it.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Logical Fallacy

I have never smoked pot. I made up my mind very early that I was not going to be a pot smoker. And I made that decision based on poor evidence and improper foundation.

My best friend in high school smoked pot. He worked at a car wash drying water spots off the vehicles as they came out of the tunnel. After closing time he would hang out with the other rag boys and get high. I was pretty nerdy in high school (warning: understatement) but occasionally I would go with my friend to some parties or just to hang out with some of his work buddies. And they really made an impression on me. They were LOSERS. It seemed like all they ever did was sit around and smoke pot and listen to heavy metal music. The only other thing they did was figure out how to get more pot. I was convinced that smoking pot made you a loser, so I wasn't going to fall into that trap.

I arrived at the conclusion that smoking pot made you a loser based on a logical fallacy. It's a common logical error. When it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained. WRONG. Maybe someone opened a hydrant. Maybe Waffles pissed all over the place. Just because rain wets the ground does not mean every time the ground is wet it rained, and just because everyone I saw smoking pot was a loser doesn't mean that everyone that smokes pot is a loser. It didn't dawn on me that they were smoking pot BECAUSE they were losers, not the other way around.

And now, this evidence:
Yes, that's Michael Phelps, smoking pot.

BUT BUT!!! Smoking pot makes you lazy! Smoking pot makes you indifferent and undisciplined! Nancy Reagan told me so!

Fourteen Olympic Gold Medals, a world record, say otherwise. Eight Gold Medals in one Olympic Games, also a record, say otherwise. Here's proof that you can smoke pot recreationally and still be disciplined and motivated to excel. Because nobody has excelled like Michael Phelps, ever in Olympic history.

And here's the kicker. Michael Phelps has a DRUNK DRIVING CONVICTION. He may in fact be doing THE RESPONSIBLE THING by smoking pot INSTEAD OF DRINKING. Not only was he given a free pass on the "irresponsible" drinking, he's being raked over the coals for smoking pot. No, drinking is not irresponsible, but drunk driving sure is. Yet people are horrified at what a HORRIBLE example he's setting for the children.

I think Michael Phelps is setting an excellent example for all people, children included. He's showing that it is possible to enjoy marijuana or alcohol, in moderation, and still be a motivated, disciplined enough person to win fourteen gold medals.

Isn't that the best example of all?