A guest post to start the day. This from my one close friend I keep on the payroll:
I just got through reading an article about immigration. So, here’s the thing. If, like me, you feel that crossing the borders of this country without going through the official ports of entry or overstaying your visa is a crime then you are labeled a racist for wanting the borders secured and people sent back home (to their country of origin, not somewhere in the U.S). There are a couple of arguments that typically come up: 1) They are trying to better their and their family’s lives and 2) We need them here to do the jobs that Americans won’t do. That is usually followed up by “what do you want to do, deport them all?”. The simple answers to these arguments as I see them are as follows:
If you are trying to better your or your family’s lives, then start in your home country with its government. There seems to be enough of you crossing our borders that I genuinely believe you could probably affect some real change. I mean, you see this with refugees, why leave home? I don’t want to leave home. If you want to come here legally and assimilate with our customs, practices and way of life, fine with me. But if you just want to sneak in, get money, that you will probably send back to your home country for the rest of your family, if you left them behind, while telling the people of this country we have to engage in your cultural practices and way of life with you, not interested. If I wanted to live like a Mexican, Brazilian, or Venezuelan, I’d move there. You remember “when in Rome”.
Next, do you really believe that these people are the only ones that will do the jobs no one wants to do? First of all shame on you. The only thing that kind of thinking gets us is something just this side of slavery. At best, it gets us indentured servitude. I’m so sick of the ‘I don’t want to pay higher prices for food or hotels, so it’s okay.’ That’s total B.S. and you know it.
Lastly, do I really want to deport them? The simple answer to that question, and I wish more people would start answering more of these kinds of questions this way is YES. Quit beating around the bush. This is what I want and no explanation is required. If you get the reply “that’s just not possible”, make that person explain why. It’s not incumbent on you to prove your side of that argument. You’re probably going to get some garbage about cost and manpower. I say so what. Send them off to do the cost comparison and enjoy the time without any more stupid questions.
I’m really sick of people who debate issues that have a hard time giving a straight answer. Answer the question as briefly and succinctly as possible and then, and only then, give reasons or statements to back up the answer. If you are asked a catch twenty-two type question and asked to answer it with a yes or no, you have to explain that is impossible and then you can give your short answer. I prefer replying to one of those with “you know, that question is like me telling you to answer yes or no to the question “have you been caught masturbating yet””, that gets their attention and proves a point.
I started a new experiment yesterday. I am forever trying something different and seeing how it works or doesnt and what effect it has on me. Im not quite to Tim Ferriss or Steve Pavlina levels of insanity/ progress, but it keeps me off the streets and out of the bars. For the most part.
Anyway, I read somewhere once that in Ye Olde Tyme Middle Ages and or Renaissance times people slept in two periods. They would crash early, then get up for a few hours, read, pray, fuck off, fuck around, fuck each other, whatever, then go back to sleep till daybreak.
My other half is out of town for a few days, so rather than bungle the time with ambient idiocy like crack or hookers I decided to give this a go. After getting home and doing a bit of labor in the yard I read for a bit, doted on the furbrats some and went to sleep about 8:30. Eastern, Central, Mountain, doesnt matter. I set an alarm for midnight at which point I got up, puttered around out in the garage for an hour or so, read a bit more and back off to bed.
I expect my co-workers will probably find me at my desk later, slumped over the keyboard with drool on my chin, sawing logs. But we’ll see.
From The Burning Platform, possibly the funniest comment I have read regarding Elizabeth ‘Fauxahontas’ Warren: her DNA makes her more Aryan than Hitler!
Power makes you stupid. And lazy.
From the comment section came the suggestion that Trump should indeed pay up on the debt: 1/1024th of it, in Sacajawea dollars! That would be $976.56. Maybe to be generous he could pay the change in Indian Head pennies…
I dont know what the Left is all up in arms over Kashoggi for, I mean he was a man and in the hierarchy of their grievances that is the most basic.
This brings to mind a thought. It seems to me that it goes without saying that there is a hierarchy that the Left uses to decide who is an ally and when. Ms. Warren, you may want to pay attention to this…
First you have the (2) Sexes. Man and Woman. Uh, ‘scuse me, make that Woman and Man. Dont want to be sexist…
Then you have (5) Races. Lets see, Black, White, Red, Yellow, Brown. Did I miss any?
Then we come to sexual orientation. The list here is longer than I know off the top of my head and I lack the motivation to go research it, so lets say there are (12). I know that is a conservative number, there are probably hundreds when you figure in the people that have a thing for toasters, masonry (bricks, not the guys in regalia), lumber, fish, etc.
Depending on which level of ‘The Hierarchy of Grievances’ a person falls on tells you who is capable of Oppressing them and how violently the Oppressor must be taken down. Slow realization of this is why the Heterosexual White Males (the worst of all three known levels) are being marginalized and excommunicated from the Party. Even if they arent Heterosexual they are starting to be seen as privileged, and sooner or later that will be the case if their only crime is being White and , eventually, Male.
As has been said many ways in many places, a movement can succeed without a god, but never without a devil.
Hm. Now that is a curious comment. Whoopi (yes, the perpetually aggrieved harpy) reportedly said that women who used sex to get ahead in their Hollywood careers should ‘cop to it.’
Now why would she say that after banging the #MeToo drum like it was a $2 whore for so long…? Cui bono, as the Romans would say?
Another odd comment, this time from Joe Biden. He suggests that there is not, after all, any evidence of widespread voter fraud in the election process. Sudden changes make me think:
Ok, work beckons. If I am able to get to it sooner or later I will work on a summary of Carl Jungs thoughts on state v religion. Fascinating stuff!