Shortest Distance Between Two Points Is Sometimes A Crooked Road

Archimedes might have said the shortest distance between two points is a straight line but the highway department ignores this age old truth with wild abandon. These days it seems like any new highway construction requires drivers to travel 10 miles in the wrong direction through a maze of giant curves and overpasses where he can see the road he wants to be on 100 yards from his current position while driving the opposite direction for several miles to get back to the point he was basically at 15 minutes ago. I suppose it works better this way or possibly the government just does things different. It does not inspire confidence when we find out, as reported in the last few days, the government still uses floppy drives for much of its data storage needs. These daily revelations of outdated or simply defective methods deployed by the state on behalf of the citizen in addition to unimaginable waste and overspending such as the $640 toilet seat, might cause to wonder if we are driving the wrong direction for our own good or someone got paid based on how much he could waste between point a and point b. We know that waste is the word we use in the public sector, in the private sector it is called steal. While we are talking about banning things, I am afraid we need to ban government spending along with Muslims entering the country until we figure out what the hell is going on. cjpost

Who in their right mind would ever imagined we would elect a president that would tell us which bathroom we would be allowed to use? Of course, we have become accustomed to politicians banning sugary drinks, forcing gay marriage upon us, shoving forced health insurance down our throats, taking the criminal's side against the police, using the IRS to destroy political opposition, releasing those that kill us so they can kill us another day and on and on. So in a way letting boys take showers with girls is an idea emanating from the same defective mindset that has given us untold stupidity in abundance as common practice that should not be shocking but still is. Makes us wonder what is coming next, meanwhile as far as I am concerned all these public places can do what they wish with their bathrooms, I will be using the bushes behind the place until the people inside remember once again men and women are different. cjpost

Free Stuff Costs More

Much like the meaning of the word "pro-choice" means pro-killing of the unborn, the word "democrat" has become synonymous with "socialist." This is due to the unfortunate reality that there is no longer any distinguishable difference in the two terms. Those in this country wanting socialism have no idea what it is. The word socialism is synonymous, in the minds of the democrat voters, with, "take from the rich and give it to me." This is what those wanting it think it means, a simple, spread the wealth around, give me free stuff, stick it to the rich, wealth re-distribution scheme. A large portion of democrat voters are even supporting an openly socialist candidate for president as opposed to the usual, non-openly socialist candidate but this could be due to the repugnant personality of the front runner that is making "anyone but her" seem better to many. If these two were republicans instead of democrats the preference for the old white man over the more qualified woman would obviously be due to sexism but they are democrats, or socialists, so are not capable of anything less than virtuous behavior. In addition to her likability issues, it could be the possibility of winding up in prison being just as likely as winding up in the white house making the front runner less appealing. Of course, it could simply be that someone came along offering more free stuff than her. Obviously it has been quite a conundrum for many democrats, trying to decide between two people, one that might soon wind up in jail, the other that might soon wind up in the morgue, but, for a growing and surprising number of democrats, the possibility of more socialism, not less, over rides any concerns for the one promising to deliver it. The old man socialist will probably not win the nomination but the fact he is doing as good as he is, is somewhat alarming as it means socialists are starting to find they don't have to bother with pretending they are not socialists anymore. Both democrat front runners are offering lots of free stuff, always a requirement with any democrat voter. It is easy to understand why some people love free stuff and gravitate to the destructive socioeconomic system that claims to provide it, socialism. The problem is, socialism, nor any other system can provide that which does not exist, free stuff. That which some call free stuff is not free. Someone has to make free stuff and free stuff costs money. Under socialism, those who work are required to provide for themselves and also provide for those who do not work. So, the government takes stuff away from the producers and gives it to the non-producers. This increases the cost of the production of goods. Increased production costs are passed along to the consumers as price increases. This means everyone pays more for the stuff they purchase or produce in order to pay for the stuff others receive for free. It might appear that some get free stuff under socialism but they do not. Everyone pays more for their stuff to cover the cost of the free stuff the state gives to others. We argue among ourselves over the merits of socialism vs capitalism but this argument is actually a distraction. It might work best to simply point out that we have socialism already and it is not working. We have a hybrid socioeconomic system where capitalism and socialism both exist to some degree. Those things done by the state are socialist endeavors and we have lots of them, many would argue too many. We simply do not have the extra money to pay for more socialism, our almost $20 trillion debt tells us this. No one has any idea how that amount of debt will be paid back except offering the observation that the only way it can be done is to grow our way out of debt through an expanding economy. Socialism is a non-expanding economic model that exploits the wealth production elements it has access to in order to pay for its expanding wealth redistribution schemes. Socialism shrinks economies rather than expand them so debt increases rather than decreases under its rule. No one who knows what it is wants socialism, only the useful idiots lured by the false promise of free stuff. What those who think they want socialism really want is what we have now, a hybrid socialist/capitalist system where the producers are forced to pay for everything the parasites want. At some point very soon we will have to make massive, painful cuts in all social welfare and entitlement spending. Unless someone does indeed come up with a way for getting something for nothing the party is over and it's time to clean up the mess, not add to it. cjpost