Archive for category Uncategorized
Lance Abbott for U.S. Senate? It’s Catchy. It Has a Good Ring to It. Sounds Good to Me. Now, Pull the Lever!
Posted by Lance Haley in Uncategorized on June 15th, 2010
LANCER’S JOUSTING ON HORSEBACK
Maybe I should run for a U.S. Senate seat?
Think it’s a long shot? Think I am crazy?
Think again . . .
According to one study, the first name on a ballot has a much higher probability of winning an election - name placement on an election ballot is usually predicated upon alphabetical order, although some ballots are based on when a candidate files to run for office, or decided by a lottery. Given the name-placement theory based on alphabetical order, all I would have to do to win is change my last name to Abbott. That would likely place me at the top of an election ballot, putting into motion the state of “primacy” - that which is first, is foremost in the mind. Unless, of course, some smart-ass changes his last name to Aardvark. But then who would vote for a guy with a last name that reminds them of an ugly animal?
Now I am really starting to think I have a good chance. Just this past week, Alvin Greene, an unemployed ne’re-do-well in South Carolina just stunned the Democratic establishment in that state by winning his party’s nomination for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Republican Jim DeMint. Which has given rise to a number of theories regarding Greene’s inexplicable nomination - yes, even conspiracy theories suggesting Republican shenanigans at work; Greene beat an experienced, heavily favored, former Democratic state legislator and judge.
Furthermore, Greene’s resume is not exactly stellar; he was “involuntarily” discharged from the U.S. Army, he has a felony charge currently pending against him for obscenity for allegedly transmitting a pornographic picture to a University of South Carolina student, and he lives at home with his elderly father. He also had to pay $10, 440 to file for his candidacy; the question is, where did he come up with that kind of money if he is unemployed? And he apparently has not even run any semblance of a political campaign – no rallies, no media ads, no active campaigning, and no money.
Even in his own home town of Manning, South Carolina – population 0f 4000, where everybody knows everybody – hardly anyone knows Greene. And that may very well have worked in his favor. The less voters and your opponent know about you, the better. Especially in the current political environment where “professional politicians” are viewed with disdain and cynicism, and negative campaigning works because voters are rarely concerned with the truth. Particularly in South Carolina. Just ask John McCain about the Republican presidential primary in 2000.
So what gives? Notwithstanding the alphabetical placement theory, one South Carolina voter – Gail Westerfield – even admitted that she voted for him because the name reminded her of the famous soul-singer, Al Green. And yes he is black. Which gives a whole new meaning to “dark horse” candidate (no, that is not meant to be a racist comment – but it is an uncanny irony).
Now, let’s get back to my proposed candidacy.
My real first name - Lance – is an English name derived from the French term for a lance (which is the weapon commonly referred to as a ”spear”). A Lancer was an individual soldier who rode on horseback directly into battle with a lance as a weapon. A fearless warrior. Think Lancelot from Camelot. Now with a name like that, how could a clueless voter not feel as though I would always have their best interests at heart as their elected representative? Of course, Lancelot had an affair with the Queen (Guinevere). But hey, that’s almost a prerequisite for political office these days.
I also like the name Abbott. After all, it invokes the term “abbot” – a spiritual designation for one who oversees the monks in a monastery. In a monastic community the abbot is the superior, and he is obedient to God’s will, while simultaneously given the respect and authority to act wisely in the administration of the monastery.
Perfect. I can use the anologies associated with the historical underpinnings of those two names to demonstrate how I will unselfishly and faithfully represent my constituents if elected to office. Hopefully, no one else has ever made a similar campaign promise. 
So now comes the $64, 000 question. Would you vote for me?
P.S. And can anyone lend me around $10, 000?
No One is to Blame for the Oil Spill
Posted by Lance Haley in Uncategorized on May 13th, 2010
THE WRATH OF GOD
“He did it. No, he did it. No they did it . . . “
Legal Memorandum to Members of the U.S. Senate Energy Committee:
This is in response to testimony provided the other morning to your committee by executives from the three energy companies involved in that drilling rig that is currently spilling oil into the Gulf of Mexico. By way of this memorandum, we are giving notice that our law firm is providing legal representation for all three companies in this matter – BP, Halliburton, and Transocean – as well as the rest of the oil industry.
To clarify and correct the testimony provided to you thus far from our clients, we submit the following:
First: we acknowledge that our clients engaged in “finger-pointing”, blaming one another for the spill and then each denying that their company had any culpability in, or liability for, the disaster. We would respectfully assert to the members of the honorable committee that this is simple human nature; people often blame one another when something terrible happens that demands accountability.
After all, each one of us learned from the time we were about three years old that taking responsibility for doing something wrong will often have dire consequences. The lesson that some individuals took away from those experiences is that it is best to immediately deflect responsibility away from themselves, and blame someone else so that they can avoid becoming the target of the palpable wrath and inevitable punishment; we call them ”America’s Business Leaders”. By way of recent example, the Senate Banking Committee hearings involving executives from Goldman Sachs immediately comes to mind.
Second: after giving these circumstances their due consideration, as well as following the example provided by Wall Street, and finally by applying sound legal reasoning coupled with currently accepted American business principles, we have concluded that no one is to blame. At least not any of these oil executives, and certainly none of their companies.
This was simply an Act of God.
When American private enterprise engages in the pursuit of profits – as in “doing God’s work” – and something goes horribly wrong, it would be misguided to blame the shameless human beings who run these companies, or the heartless corporations themselves. This is just God’s will.
Think about it. These executives and their companies were following the Lord’s wishes by providing jobs for tens of thousands of employees at virtually the same wages they were earning thirty years ago – adjusted for inflation, of course. This results in huge profits for the corporations, as well as admittedly obscene salaries and bonuses for the executive management.
And in spite of the huge tax breaks you give the rich and the big corporations in order to protect and preserve the American way of life, they unfortunately still have to pay some income taxes. Fortunately, those taxes support the tax subsidies which you so generously give right back to the oil industry - talk about an “Oil Slick”? We like to think about it as a trickle-down theory for oil industry welfare. The oil executives pay taxes, and then they get that money back vicariously through their company coffers.
Isn’t it strange how the free market’s “invisible hand” and God’s hand work in concert with one another?
So if you expressly blame the oil executives, and then financially punish these companies, they will have to stop drilling for more oil off-shore because it will no longer be nearly as profitable. Oil exectutive salaries will fall. Along with large political campaign contributions from the petroleum industry. That is contrary to God’s will. You, in turn, will be blamed for taking gasoline out of the tanks of every American car in the country. Do you really want to answer to your constituents when they are waiting in long lines at the gas station this summer? Remember: mid-term elections are just around the corner (November). Getting voted out of office will simply be the consequences of you having incurred God’s wrath. This is just plain common sense to every good American – especially Sarah Palin.
Third: If you still are so inclined to make someone accountable, there really is only one group of people to blame: You. Washington. The Politicians. After all, Congress is the one that approved off-shore drilling. You were the one’s that insisted that our clients explore for oil anywhere in the United States, and that new technology made drilling for oil safer than ever. You said it was in the interests of our national security; that we had to stop buying oil from the Middle East, and vicariously supporting the terrorists.
It’s kind of like the War on Drugs (speaking of disasters): forget addressing the issue of demand for the product; Americans choose to focus on the problem of supply. Except in this case, Americans demand more oil, and simultaneously want a cheap supply, as well. Like drug addicts, they have no intention of taking responsibility for their behavior. They have been in and out of “oil rehab” numerous times over the past 40 years. We all recognize that relapse is very common among addicts, and we just have to accept that fact.
Let’s face it. Addicts are always deep in denial, and our clients are just opportunistic enablers, providing these oil addicts with the means to “chase the high” they get from driving their cars whenever they want, and wherever they want. Case in point: a new NBC/WSJ (Wall Street Journal) poll shows that 60% of these addicts still support off-shore drilling. Let’s just give them what they want.
Like any junkie, these American addicts can suffer the consequences of their behavior. OK. We are willing to concede that their children will suffer the greater consequences in the future. But hey, we all accept the fact that there will always be collateral damage in every war; it’s inevitable. Just go ask those maimed and wounded children in Iraq that George Bush “liberated” so American oil addicts would not be deprived of their “drug” (and real Americans did not want Uncle Dick Cheney to be deprived of obscene capital gains on his Halliburton stock – which God help him, he sold the minute that oil well “had heart failure“; he worked so hard to push us to war in Iraq so Americans could have their next ”fix” of cheap Middle East oil).
We rest our case.
In conclusion: we would once again encourage you to embrace our rational explanation for this environmental disaster, and re-frame the way you look at it; given the popularity of Congress right now – or rather the lack thereof – you guys may want to think carefully about this most recent poll (no, that is not a pole, Republicans), and reconsider your opposition to off-shore drilling.
We would suggest that when you are kneeling at your bedside tonight, praying for more political campaign contributions, you should ask God for guidance on this issue. We have faith and trust that you will come to understand the wisdom of his desires. For God only knows why he works in such mysterious ways.
Respectfully submitted,
Hugh Lewis Dewey (a.k.a. Hughie Louie Dewey)
The Law Firm of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe (pronounced “Do We, Cheat ‘Em, and How”)
P.S. If God, in turn, shirks responsibility for this disaster, we’ll see you all in court. Including him!
UPDATE [5-14-10]: Watch “There Will Be Blame” – the segment which aired last night [5-13-10] - from Jon Stewart of The Daily Show – TOO FUNNY!
Why It’s Easier For Some Men to Become Cops
Posted by Lance Haley in Uncategorized on May 2nd, 2010
Now it all makes sense . . .
Today there was a very bad wreck on the opposite side of the four-lane highway that I was traveling on in the Northland of Kansas City, Missouri. That whole side of the highway was blocked by emergency vehicles. Police officers were also blocking the left-hand lane on my side of the highway for safety reasons, so everyone was in an orderly, single file line in the right-hand lane, moving slowly as they approached the scene of the accident on the other side of the highway (“rubber-necking”, of course).
Looking in my rearview and driver’s side mirrors, I could see that a bright yellow pickup truck was in the left hand lane about a 1/4 mile behind me, attempting to intentionally block the typical idiots trying to race to the front and cut in line. A line of cars was forming behind him, and he would not let them around him. I commented to my passenger regarding the ongoing incident – praising the driver of the yellow truck for making these jerks wait - and we both watched as a conflict unfolded.
Eventually, the black pickup truck that was right behind the yellow pickup went around him on the shoulder of the road, pulled up next to him – where they presumably exchanged words - and then accelerated quickly up the left hand lane. I gently pulled part-way into the left hand lane to intentionally impede this jerk, and started waving my hand with my palm faced downward in order to persuade him to slow down and get in line with the rest of us. The blue pickup slows down and starts to pull around my car, stopping as he is next to me.
I see that he is a short, off-duty police officer in full uniform- and he asks me in the most insolent, threatening manner, “Can I HELP you?”, baiting me to start an argument with him. I quickly responded with a dismissive “Whatever!“, and he sped on up the road with a gaggle of four more A$$HOLES (not police officers) in tow behind him. I never saw his vehicle at or near the the scene of the accident as we drove by less than a minute later.
So a man with a badge and a gun who is obviously not on-duty thinks he has the right to engage in road rage, verbally intimidating and abusing his fellow citizens for trying to get him to be courteous and follow the rules of the road? As well as place others in danger with his wreckless and unprofessional driving, while encouraging others around him to drive in the same manner. What would ever possess him to think that way?
Well just hours later while perusing the internet, I tripped over my third-leg and stumbled upon the answer:
In Indonesia, you cannot get a job as a police officer if you have a large penis because, in the words of a government spokesman, it is a “hindrance during training.”
That explains everything!
NOTE (to that police officer): They have a way to fix your “problem” over in Indonesia – just wrap that little penis of yours in some leaves from a gatal-gatal tree.
Superwoman’s Love Handles Stop a Speeding Bullet
Posted by Lance Haley in Health & Diet, Humor, Obesity, Uncategorized on February 26th, 2010
YOU GOTTA LOVE HER REASONING
Premise #1: Bullets fired from guns can kill.
Premise #2: Being overweight can stop bullets.
Conclusion: The more overweight you are, the less likely you will die from a gunshot.
Based on that line of reasoning, one obviously stupid woman concludes that it’s better to be obese than to risk being killed by a gunshot wound. The invalidity of her reasoning may astound you, but it is indicative of a deeper, more pervasive problem in this country. Resorting to logical fallacies like this in order to rationalize beliefs and/or behaviors is the primary reason why America is in so much trouble.
Although this incident may represent the extremes of poor critical thinking skills, most Americans are frequently guilty of using faulty reasoning in order to reach preconceived conclusions far more than they realize. The absence in American schools and universities of a requirement to pass a course in Introduction to Logic & Reasoning as a pre-requisite to receiving a degree prevents the general public from being able to filter out the excessive “noise” so omnipresent in our daily lives – television, talk radio, print media, the internet, etc. – that is masked as expert opinion and gospel truth.
So laugh at her logic – or lack thereof. And then honestly assess your own.
Oh, and a little advice to Ms. Frazier: the next “bolt of lighting” that hits you will likely come from a double cheeseburger.
Why Good Non-partisan Politicians Like Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Dennis Moore (D-KS) Throw in the Towel
Posted by Lance Haley in 2010 Election, 2012 Election, Campaigns, Conservatives, How and Why We Get Screwed, Uncategorized on February 16th, 2010
These two men are the “poster children” for what’s really wrong with Congress and American Politics
You only need to look at their recently announced retirements – Bayh’s came yesterday and Moore’s was back in November 2009 - in order to divine that something is seriously amiss.
They are NOT Liberal Democrats. These are both very mainstream Centrists, at times even leaning a bit to the Conservative side. Moreover, it is highly unlikely either one of them would have lost their seats in the next election cycle. They were both very popular – especially with independents and Republican moderates – and they both have huge campaign war chests.
So why quit?
Evan Bayh’s stated reasons given at the press conference for his retirement announcement yesterday speaks volumes:
“There is too much partisanship and not enough progress — too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving,” he said yesterday. “Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples’ business is not being done.”
And although Dennis Moore has not stated the same sentiments publicly – and I have known Dennis for a number of years – I have a very strong visceral instinct that such is the case. If so, we are witnessing the disappearance of the political Centrists/Moderates, and an even greater polarization of the political spectrum.
Moreover, the inexplicable hatred of President Obama by the Right Wing - and blanket criticism of everything he does (or does not do) – defies logic and reason. Because of this insane hatred and the incendiary punditry, we are now treading down a very dangerous pathway; it does not bode well for the future of our country, or the security of this nation.
Are you listening America?
Jon Stewart Eviscerates Fox News’ Viewers For Drinking the Bong Water
Posted by Lance Haley in Bill O'Reilly, Business and Money, Conservatives, Cultural Issues, Culture Wars, Fox News, Glenn Beck, Media & Communication, Sarah Palin, The Daily Show, Uncategorized on February 4th, 2010
Just kidding . . .
That was a shameless attempt to get Jon Stewart to reference this blog. On last night’s The Daily Show (TDS), in a segment called The Blogs Must Be Crazy , Stewart lampooned the blogosphere’s use of certain words – particularly “eviscerates” – to describe how strongly some media talk show hosts respond to one another when critiquing their respective competitors.
Jon Stewart’s appearance on The O’Reilly Factor has created quite a buzz this week, and whatever you think of either Stewart or Bill O’Reilly, their willingness to appear on one another’s shows is quite refreshing, with a spirited but civil discourse taking place between the two of them. I suppose the one irony in the show was O’Reilly’s cheap shot at Daily Show viewers by referring to them as “stoned slackers” – when surveys have routinely shown that they are some of the best informed news audiences.
It comes as no surprise that ”stoned slackers” would actually be every bit as informed as Fox News viewers, and are probably significantly smarter than Fox News’ talk show hosts – even when they are “lit up”. If Daily Show viewers ever watched Fox News - which they are way too smart to do – wonder what they would think?
“Man I wish I could get ahold of whatever theses dudes are smoking, because that must be some really high-grade SH!T” . . . or . . . . “Dudes, you are not supposed to drink the bong water.”
America: Ten Years From Now, Recall When You Believed Health Care Reform Was Too Expensive
Posted by Lance Haley in Budget Deficit, Uncategorized, economy on February 4th, 2010
Let’s see. Obama’s Health Care Reform was way too expensive. We just could not afford it. It was going to financially break the country.
Read this little statistic released this week, and then you just keep telling yourself that . . .
Sarah Palin is the Real Retard in this Political Correctness Brouhaha
Posted by Lance Haley in Conservatives, Cultural Issues, Fox News, Media & Communication, Morality, Politics, Sarah Palin, Uncategorized on February 3rd, 2010
Levi Johnston - the father of Bristol Palin’s baby – contends that his “ex-mother-in-law”, Sarah Palin, would say ”where is my retarded baby”. Sarah and Todd Palin have a “special needs” child, and Sarah Palin denies that she ever referred to her baby that way. Frankly, I can see Sarah Palin saying something like that “tongue-in-cheek” (in jest). Having a sense of humor about these things is normal human behavior (as in the heading of this post).
Nevertheless, I digress.
For decades now in the United States, minorities and their advocates – most of which are Liberals – have long protested the use of certain derogatory terms as socially unacceptable. The most common example are racial slurs like the “N” word. This drive to “scrub” the English language of these terms was labeled as “political correctness” – a concept that references the agenda to create a social sensitivity to members of our society who are not part of mainstream America. Conservatives have routinely criticized “political correctness” as liberal nonsense, and ironically, Rush Limbaugh referred to “liberal activists” as retards . Now you want to talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Moerover, where was Sarah Palin’s outrage regarding on his political incorrectness?
Recent reports have surfaced stating that Rahm Emmanuel, President Obama’s White House Chief of Staff, was addressing a group of Liberal Democrat politicians last summer regarding their intended strategy to use “attack ads” against Conservative Democrats, and referred to them as “Fxxking retarded“. Now Sarah Palin has said that Emanuel should be fired.
I guess the irony of a “kike using ”politically incorrect” language while addressing a group of liberals is lost on Palin.
P.S. For those of you who are offended by my use of a politically incorrect term, you too are missing my point.
President Obama, Now You’re Talking . . .
Posted by Lance Haley in Economics, Middle Class, Uncategorized, economy on January 25th, 2010
but it is still just talk.
IF you are going to successfully implement these proposals - which have been a long time coming, and would show that the U.S. government really does care about the Middle Class – a little word of advice.
USE THE DAMN BULLY PULPIT – Teddy Roosevelt style!
Now that is really talking.
Furthermore, the American people will start listening if you have the courage of your convictions to place unrelenting pressure on both your political allies and opponents into taking strong action, regardless of the consequences. You are too worried about being liked by everyone. Teddy Roosevelt was not particularly popular with many of his political friends, nor any of his enemies – especially the rich and powerful. Nonetheless, he was both respected and feared by all. Most importantly, he won the majority of the American public’s heart and soul.
So can you.
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
President Teddy Roosevelt, “Citizenship in a Republic,”
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
All Proposed U.S. Budget Deficit Reduction Plans Are “Nothing Burgers”
Posted by Lance Haley in Bailouts, Banking, Budget Deficit, Campaigns, Congress, Conservatives, Economics, Financial Crisis, Government, How and Why We Get Screwed, Politics, Senate, Show Them the $$$, Uncategorized, Wall Street, Wealth Disparity & the Ultra Rich, economy, financial industry on January 24th, 2010
“Nothing Burger“: Two pieces of bread slapped together with nothing in between. Usually eaten when you have nothing in the house except bread or are too lazy to spend 2 minutes making a decent sandwich.
- definition in the The Urban Dictionary
This is utter laughable.
Senator Gregg Judd (R-New Hampshire), the highest ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, claims the Democrats are not serious about cutting the deficit. He first offered a plan co-sponsored by Democratic Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D – North Dakota), that would require Congress to establish a bi-partisan commission to study deficit reduction recommendations, and if a fixed number of its members could agree on specific budget cuts, Congress would then be compelled to vote on those measures before the 2010 mid-term elections this Fall.
President Obama and the Democrats endorsed a similar deficit-reduction plan, but without the requirement of a mandatory vote in the Senate on the issue. Senator Gregg then criticized the Democrats, calling their plan a “nothing burger“, insinuating that they were not serious about deficit reduction. And the Republicans are?
Senator Gregg, you need a little lesson in transparency.
First, there is serious doubt about whether you can even get the support of your own party on this issue – both Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R – Kentucky) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (D – Ohio) stated they will not back the plan because the Republicans are philosophically opposed to tax increases. In other words, Republicans tacit acknowledge that deficit cutting would likely involve raising taxes, and they would rather let the country go bankrupt before they would make it pay its own way – now that is fiscal responsibility at its finest.
Second, that nasty little chart just below indicates that the real explosion in the government debt started in 1981 – after Ronald Reagan took office and the Neo-Conservative movement began. The largest deficit increases (as a percentage of the previous deficit) occurred from 2003 to 2006, not ironically when President Bush and the Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress. Moreover, that does not even account for the estimated $600 Billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that we borrowed from China through 2007, – projected to increase to $1.6 Trillion before Obama took office - and which was “kept off the books” by the Bush Administration, Enron style.
Ouch!
Third, no Washington politician is ever going to be serious about fiscal responsibility, regardless of which party they belong to – it just does not make political sense if you are an incumbent running for re-election. Besides, Senator Gregg, proposing mandatory deficit reduction is easy when you are being disingenuous about the political realities of the issue.
One final word on that lesson about transparency, Senator Gregg: While serving as the Senate Republican’s lead negotiator and author of the TARP program (Wall Street bailouts) in the Fall of 2008, you recommended that Bank of America receive $45 Billion from the TARP funds – at a time when you owned millions of dollars in Bank of America stock. After your Bank of America stock recovered rather nicely this past year, you are now proposing that the TARP fund be terminated so as to not create a “piggy bank” for politicians.
And you have the audacity to criticize the Democrats, Senator Gregg?