Hellfire and Brainstorm

Hiatus…

kristian — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:49:34 +0000

Hellfire and Brainstorm will be taking an official hiatus. I apologize to my readers. I hope to be back later this year.

Post from: Hellfire and Brainstorm

Hiatus…

Liar, Liar… Speech on fire!

kristian — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:09:41 +0000

Having not watched the speech (I make a practice of putting myself in situations wherein I may be the victim of malicious prevarication) I think it is still safe to say that the whole thing was a bunch of BS. I heard the sound bites, I saw snippets of transcript… it was the same old, tired lines about 40 some-odd million people without insurance and how we just HAD to make sure that everyone has insurance. What crap. How many of those people choose not to carry insurance because it would impinge on their cable package and smokes? Yeah. I gotta tell you, I’m just hopping at the opportunity to pay for their insurance. Here’s an idea: instead of forcing the country into a plan that (no matter WHAT the mainstream media says) DOESN’T want any part of this plan, why don’t you remove all the government fetters and let the market drive prices down in competition? How can they do that, you ask? Eliminate mandatory coverages. Why the heck should a young, single male without a girlfriend, much less a family, have to buy an insurance plan that pays for pre-natal care? Where does that make sense?
Why should I have to pay for cancer coverage if I don’t want to? If I am free to buy the policy that I want at a competitive price, I’m sure as heckfire gonna do that over buying the government-mandated “one-size-fits-all” plan. Eliminate the barriers to portability. If every company in the nation can compete for any person in the nation in terms of insurance, there will CERTAINLY be a drop in price, based solely upon the (empirically demonstrated) law of supply and demand.
Doesn’t it strike you as odd that both of these restrictions are inflicted upon the market by the same people that now want to “fix” what’s wrong with the market? If I came into your house, busted your tv so you only got 6 channels and then offered to charge you a pile of money to fix it, you’d probably throw my backside out the front door, toolbox in hand… and you would be right to do so. So why does the democrat party think that we will let them do the same thing to our healthcare insurance? Ridiculous.

Post from: Hellfire and Brainstorm

Liar, Liar… Speech on fire!

“Free” Health Care

kristian — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:27:31 +0000

This morning on ABC there was a story about a group of doctors in Los Angeles that had decided to offer free medical care to the first 1500 people through the door. Is that a good idea? Sure, why not. It was their choice to do so and their money to burn; it’s a free country. The kicker is that they were SWAMPED with people (far more than the 1500 showed up) and people were waiting all night for a place in line to get a coveted ticket. Now, I’m sure that many if not most of those people had legitimate reasons to be in line and perhaps some relatively serious medical issues, but I think we can still say that this is a pretty good illustration of what happens when medical care is advertised as “free”. People will show up to take advantage of what they perceive as a free ride whether they really need it or not. I would be willing to bet that there were plenty of people in that line that were actually in financial need (and for that reason I applaud the doctors and medical professionals involved), but I am also of the mind that there were probably some freeloaders in the line. This is really a microcosm of what will eventually happen if the Congress passes this ABYSMAL health care plan that is on the board right now. Once the private insurers are out of the way (and that WILL happen under this legislation regardless what the president says), the public option will rule and everyone will be on the same coverage… meaning anyone can go to the doctor for any minor illness or injury. No matter the reason, they will show up, because it’s free… they don’t have to worry about the consequences at all. Got a runny nose, go see a doctor. Got a small cut, go see a doctor… you see what I mean. There are so many other ways to solve this issue. Even giving money to hospitals to cover people that don’t have health care under certain circumstances would be more palatable that this…
Anyway, that’s my quick observation on it…

Post from: Hellfire and Brainstorm

“Free” Health Care

Get out your check books

beezer — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 02:00:11 +0000

Actually, no need to even do that thanks to the scam known as withholding.

Check it out America: Obama is looking at raising your taxes to pay for the “explosion” in the budget deficit. Let’s be honest. To pay for all the bailouts, “Cash for Clunkers” money and health care reform your taxes will have to go up. There is simply no other source of revenue for the government that is as easy to tap and as easy to increase as the income tax. And Obama’s administration is not just taxing the rich. No sir. He’s going to hit middle class America with tax increases. That’s you and that’s me.

The bottom line is that Obama has taken full advantage of a Democratic Congress and spineless Republican leadership to move America even closer to socialism. He’s done it by spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave in Thailand. The good news is that now middle-class America will finally take its head out of its ass and realize that when Democrats will take only the rich, they are talking about middle-class America. The bad news is that it may be too late to stop what is already in motion. Let this be a lesson to you America. Pay attention to what your government is doing.

(Side note: I think my favorite line in the article is this one “If we want an economy that’s going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it’s going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform,” Geithner said. How does SPENDING BILLIONS on health care reform bring down a deficit? It doesn’t!!!! This is probably the worst attempt at working the party line into an answer in the history of politics. It’s hard to believe that Geithner is the best person to head up the Treasury if he doesn’t understand simple economic concepts. Spending creates deficits; it doesn’t bring them down. I totally agree that deficits need to be eliminated for the economy to achieve robust growth. But I disagree with the idea that spending outrageous amounts of money to make health care worse is the way to do it.)

Post from: Hellfire and Brainstorm

Get out your check books

3 Beers, two idiots and an Irish cop…

kristian — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:30:52 +0000

A joke? Not hardly. I wish that it was. Unfortunately, today the President will be hosting a “Concilliatory Happy Hour” for his buddy the professor of “African American Studies” and the Policeman involved in his arrest. Now, I have a couple BIG problems with this:
1. Since when does the president have any reason to get involved in the purview of a local Massachusetts police matter?
2. Why is the president elevating the complaint of this loud-mouth liberal professor to the level of legitimacy by inviting him to the White house to bury the hatchet with the arresting officer?
3. Why is ANYBODY taking the charge of racism seriously when all the evidence that has been presented points to an officer who was doing his duty according to the information that he was given?
4. Why does a citizen (who is being served by his local police jurisdiction in the protection of his property and safety) belligerently refuse to show ID that proves he is the owner of the house in question?

This whole episode is a prime example of the LACK of presidential restraint that is living in the White House these days. The president decides to chime in after having JUST said “I don’t have all the facts but… the police acted stupidly.” WHAT??
How about, ” I don’t have all the facts, and I believe that this is a matter best left to the police jurisdiction involved.”
or perhaps “I don’t feel that a local police matter falls into the purview of the President of the United States.”

Oh well. I guess that would have taken some knowledge of the ACTUAL duties of the office and an ability to NOT take advantage of a news item to boost your flagging poll numbers. So that will not be happening any time soon.

Post from: Hellfire and Brainstorm

3 Beers, two idiots and an Irish cop…

Early morning “eco-grab-bag”

kristian — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:36:36 +0000

Well folks, today’s installment of truth for the masses is a smattering of small, but collectively annoying pieces of liberal thought. I hope you enjoy them.

First out of the box is the label on my Deer Park water bottle. How, you might ask could that possibly qualify? Today, it’s the “Be Green’ label on the back. Frankly, I’m getting a little tired of all this “green” thought. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good chance to protect some nature and promote healthy ecosystems, but the things that people are doing now to “be green’ has become ridiculous to the point of embarrassment. Deer Park decided that they would reduce the size of the label on their plastic water bottles to use less paper. Good for them. How the heck do you need a lot of paper anyway? Could it be the extensive ingredient list that is contained in your standard bottle of spring water? Perhaps a legal disclaimer stating the dangers of drowning in half a liter of your product? Nah, just easier to see on the shelf, probably. So Deer Park has made a decision that will undoubtedly save it a pile of money in paper and they want to spin it as a ‘green decision’…

Horsecrap.

The bottle says that the smaller labels save the equivalent of 30,000 trees in a year. Ok, but what does that mean? Are we to believe that these smaller labels will result in lower numbers of evil, axe-wielding, backhoe-driving maniacs riding around in the pristine, old-growth forests of the world? (By the way, nobody cuts down old growth hardwood for paper pulp. They grow entire plantations of PINE TREES to use for paper.) Pine trees are one of the fastest growing trees in the Southeast (where I live) and are an ideal renewable resource for use in the making of paper. So are we actually ‘saving a tree’ with these smaller labels? No, not really. The trees that would be saved have already been planted and will require harvesting whether they are used or not. It may affect the future planting of trees (by preventing the planting of the same number of trees). In fact, a reduction in the consumption of paper will really have the net effect of ‘unsaving’ somebody’s job. Less demand for paper means less sales on the retail and wholesale levels therefore, less manufacturing, less harvesting and less planting. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that part… these chainsaw toting demons RE-PLANT the trees.

So, really the effect of using less paper is to have an overall negative effect on the economy. Now, I toodled around the internet and found a few websites that make claims of massive global tree destruction because of the global paper industry, but most of the information seemed a little on the vague or useless side.

For instance:

Industrialized nations, with 20 percent of the world’s population, consume 87 percent of the world’s printing and writing papers. (Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme, Keynote Address UNEP’s 7th International High Level Seminar on Cleaner Production, 29-30 April 2002)

This quote was taken from Green America (Formerly Co-opAmerica)’s website. So, the people with the technology and the economies that drive the entire globe use more than their fair share of paper? SO WHAT? Why is this even a noteworthy fact? Of COURSE industrialized nations use more paper. There isn’t much use for a ream of neon yellow astrobright paper when you live in the Serengeti…unless you can find a way to stick it on the lions that might otherwise eat you for lunch.

Here’s another winner:

Global production in the pulp, paper and publishing sector is expected to increase by 77% from 1995 to 2020 (OECD Environmental Outlook, 2001, p.215)

Now, before I even tackle the substance of the quote, let’s look at the source. OECD is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The tagline at the top of the page is “For a stronger, cleaner, fairer world economy”. Oh geez… there’s that word again. Fair.

That combined with the fact that the owners of the site and the server are both French is enough to make me second guess the validity of the statement. But, we will parse it anyway. 77% eh? Why the hell is publishing in this category? Doesn’t publishing mean the distribution of information? Books? Education? Commerce? Why, yes it does. Are we double-counting the pulp used to publish these various pieces of info? The whole idea of categorizing an end product use with a raw material statistic is a little misleading and innacurate, don’t you think? Would they categorize corn, maize and Fritos in the same way? How about Rice, Soy and General Tso’s Chicken? I think you get my point. The world can expect to become more knowledgeable in the future as information is distributed and shared with new groups of people that have to this point not been able to collect or absorb such knowledge. That’s good, isn’t it? At the same time, how much paper DOESN’T get used any more by the industrialized nations of the world because of email?

So you see, the end user and the reason for that paper use aren’t considered, just the gross number.

So, don’t worry about the trees, save the people. After you read this, print it and hand it to a friend. Tell them to copy it a couple times and hand it to a couple of their friends. It’s all for the good of the economy!

Post from: Hellfire and Brainstorm

Early morning “eco-grab-bag”

The dangers of working on TV…

kristian — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:26:33 +0000

I’m sure that some of you have heard about the little kerfuffle going on about Brian Kilmeade\’s \”pure genes\” comment on Fox & Friends recently. It came up in a discussion about genetic predisposition to various ailments (heart disease, cancer etc.) All the libs that heard it are shouting “racist” (as they typically do in situations like this) – some are making fun of the fact that he kinda stuttered or hesitated while making his statement and calling him a moron and a nazi (again, as liberals typically do in situations like this). This episode however is extremely useful as an instructional tool on the dangers of working for the media, especially on a network that has conservative leanings. What Brian said was effectively the following: Swedes generally marry other Swedes, whereas Americans (read “white americans”) are more likely to marry someone from a different genetic background. As a result, the Swedes are more likely to have “pure genes”, and therefore are less likely to carry genetic predisposition to a wide variety of ailments. Now, on the surface (which is where most liberals usually hang out in the knowledge pool) that might appear to have some inherently racist overtones. If you delve a little deeper though, you start to see the logic behind the statement. To explore this further, I would like to visit the historic and present racial makeup of both the USA and say, Sweden, Norway or perhaps Iceland.
In the 1600′s and 1700′s the United States played host to an abysmal episode in the history of mankind, the slave trade. This however introduced to this country yet another variation to the ever expanding gene pool that was North America. At that point, there were already persons from just about every area of Europe, and the indigenous American tribes from different areas of the continent. As the US advanced through history, all of those bloodlines mingled (even as many of them were persecuted and driven out of their homelands). Today, the US is one of the most diverse countries in the world as far as genetic makeup. I would wager that there are genes from just about every human population on the planet floating around somewhere between Atlantic and Pacific.

Now, if we look at the historical background of Norway, we don’t find that same level of genetic mixing. Norway didn’t grow labor intensive crops that encouraged the importation of a low cost, slave-based workforce. Not only that, but Norway doesn’t share a land border with a country, much less a continent that has a significantly different genetic makeup from that of the typical Norwegian. For example, how many Mexican immigrants (legal or illegal) do you think enter Norway in a given year? Are there any reservations or pockets of tribal societies left in Norway? Has Norway ever experienced a large scale wave of immigrants from Asia to it’s West Coast? On all counts, no. So, relatively speaking, Norway would be a homogeneous collection of individuals. Sure, there are variations of hair color, height, etc., but in terms of visible ethnic differences, virtually nothing.

Ok, before I go any further, let me stop before any libs reading this get really wound up to say the following: The recent history of the human race has shown an ever increasing tendency of groups to intermingle in a global sense. In the last hundred years, travel has become cheap, easy, and much more rapid. Not only that, but the economy is global in reach now, and people are routinely transferred to offices located in different parts of the world. I am aware of this. Yes, there ARE people that live in Norway that aren’t decended of blonde-haired, blue eyed Scandinavian stock. But, before you call me a bigot or racist, see if you can give me a recommendation for a restaurant in the “Little Havana” section of Oslo. If you can, I’ll stand down. In the mean time I’m gonna go look for a good Ethiopian restaurant in downtown Reykjavik. I’ll probably need to order a pizza though, it could take a while to find one.

The point is this:
There are plenty of idiots out there that love to watch people that they disagree with and then “shoot off” at the mouth without considering what is ACTUALLY being said (the two that come to mind most readily are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson). Most of them probably also thought that “Change you can Believe In” was a slogan to get behind. Note, none of them asked “Change to what?” Those of us that actually look a little further into the background of any situation, usually have a better view on the realities of present and future. If I worked on TV, I might stutter a little too if I was about to say something that most people were too ignorant to understand.

Post from: Hellfire and Brainstorm

The dangers of working on TV…

“to uphold and defend”….

kristian — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:11:19 +0000

Undoubtedly, you the informed reader of this blog, have heard about the uneasy situation in Honduras. I’m sure you have also heard the media crowd duly reporting that it is a “military coup”.   Horsefeathers.   It is very clearly (and undeniably) a constitutional response to a power-hungry president.   I, however would rather look at a few surrounding circumstances just for the sake of my own amusement.
1. Hugo Chavez doesn’t like what’s going on. Well, that’s my first indication that this is probably a GREAT thing in the making.   “Mr. I Own Venezuela” is a tin-pot dictator who himself has decided (at the point of a gun) to be El Presidente for life. Anything he doesn’t like is most probably a big step in the right direction. This of course doesn’t even take into account the fact that Mr. Chavez is complicit in this attempt at usurpation of power by willfully and knowingly printing and providing ballots for the unconstitutional referendum that Former President Zelaya had planned to carry out.
2. The United Nations has condemned the actions of the Honduran Congress (i.e. the forcible deportation of the dictator-to-be Mel Zelaya).   Does this surprise anyone?   Hmmm… the UN on the wrong side of an issue, where have we heard that before? Oh, right, it was every other day since June 26, 1945. If the Honduran Congress is acting on the letter of the Honduran Constitution, the UN can shove off.   Isn’t this the same crowd who were griping about the US invasion of a sovreign nation (Saddam’s Iraq)? What happened to all that ‘sovreign nation’ sentiment? Eh, who cares what they think… they all believe in man-made global warming too.
3. The President of the United States has made statements supporting Zelaya (the ousted power grabber in chief). Now THAT bothers me. What does it say about the present administration’s oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of our nation when they clearly don’t care whether or not the Constitution of any other nation is followed or respected? Notice I didn’t say that it surprised me… anyone with an ounce of Constitutional knowledge in their skull knows that nationalization of private entities would make the founding fathers vomit. I’ll tell you one thing, if Barack tries this whole “re-elected till I get tired of it” trick, I sincerely hope that our military leadership follows the example of their Honduran counterparts.

What really chaps me is that this whole thing is being played off my the media as “just another military takeover” in Central America, when it is the exact antithesis of that very situation. You had an elected executive attempting an ‘end-around’ on the Constitution of his nation. When he tried to use the military to complete the task, the military leadership told him to drop dead. Yup, sure sounds like a coup d’etat to me. This is the very spirit of constitutionally-bound Patriotism. A heartly congratulations and well desereved “‘atta boy” to the Military leadership of Honduras from Hellfire & Brainstorm. Apparently, they have ‘a few good men’ in their ranks as well.

Post from: Hellfire and Brainstorm

“to uphold and defend”….

You MUST be kidding…

kristian — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:46:51 +0000

Well, it would seem that the Obama administration is pushing hard towards instuting a government-run healthcare system. I’m sure that many of you understand exactly how abyssmal an idea that really is, but let me make it even worse. According to this article from CNS News.com they aren’t sure which countries they really mean when they say that it “works pretty well”. Um, what?

Robert Gibbs would starve as a salesman. If you’re going to sell me a product and tout references for it’s great features and functionality, you had better have a specific list of people that I can call to find out if that’s true. If somebody told you that their vacuum cleaner was voted “the best on the market”, my first question is: “By whom?”

Well, in this case, the idiot sales person says: “Um, I don’t know.” Hmmm… so whether it be the vaccuum or Government-run heathcare, they’ll both suck, we just don’t know how much.

I can tell you, I lived in Britain and had the unfortunate experience of visiting a hospital over there. The place looked like it hadn’t been updated since the 70′s. Ask yourself why people in Canada come to the US when they need immediate medical care for what could be a terminal illness. How well is a government bureaucracy going to run a system that is responsible for our very survival? I don’t want my heart surgery waiting in somebody’s inbox over the weekend or getting “stuck in the system” because the “new guy” in the Health Services Administration Office mis-coded it. If you’ve ever been to a DMV, you know how government healthcare will work and with whom you will be dealing in that office. I have never met anyone in any federal government office or institution that I would consider “above average” in the intelligence arena. All I’m sayin’ is you had better schedule your heart attack for mid morning on a Monday or Tuesday… any earlier and your “approval for services” will be in “weekend voicemail hell”, any later and you’ll be in the end of the week catch-up period. Oh, by the way, government office-types don’t do overtime. They leave at 5 every day. I know, I ‘ve unfortunately been one and watched it happen.

Wake up and start screaming about this now. When it’s already happened, it’s waaaay too late.

Post from: Hellfire and Brainstorm

You MUST be kidding…

Why is this not causing outrage?

kristian — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:06:58 +0000

This may have happened in previous administrations, and if it did, it is equally disgusting, but it appears that the face of the US abroad is being sold to the highest bidder…
Several US Ambassadorships were filled yesterday by some of the biggest fundraisers and donors for President Obama’s campaign. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but shouldn’t these jobs be going to people who have some sort of qualifications other than the fact that the president wants to give them a long-term, paid vacation in another country? What an abysmally stupid way to run a country… no matter WHAT you party affiliation.

Post from: Hellfire and Brainstorm

Why is this not causing outrage?