Sowell of Emotion

Thomas Sowell: After months of watching all sorts of political polls, we are finally just a few weeks away from actually beginning to see some voting in primary elections. Polls let people vent their emotions. But elections are held to actually accomplish something.

The big question is whether the voters themselves will see elections as very different from polls. If Republican voters have consistently delivered a message through all the fluctuating polls over the past months, that message is those voters’ anger at the Republican establishment, which has grossly betrayed the promises that got a Republican Congress elected.

Whether the issue has been securing the borders, ObamaCare, runaway government spending or innumerable other concerns, Republican candidates have promised to fight the Obama administration’s policies — and then caved when crunch time came for Congress to vote.

The spectacular rise, and persistence, of Republican voter support for Donald Trump in the polls ought to be a wake-up call for the Republican establishment. But smug know-it-alls can be hard to wake up.

Even valid criticisms of Trump can miss the larger point that Republican voters’ turning to such a man is a sign of desperation and a telling indictment of what the Republican establishment has been doing for years — which they show pathetically few signs of changing.

Seldom have the Republicans seemed to have a better chance of winning a presidential election. The Democrats’ front-runner is a former member of an unpopular administration whose record of foreign policy failures as Secretary of State is blatant, whose personal charm is minimal and whose personal integrity is under criminal investigation by the FBI.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have fielded a stronger set of presidential aspirants than they have had in years. Yet it is by no means out of the question that the Republicans will manage to blow this year’s opportunity and lose at the polls this November.

In other times, this might just be the Republicans’ political problem. But these are not other times. After seven disastrous years of Barack Obama, at home and overseas, the United States of America may be approaching a point of no return, especially in a new age of a nuclear Iran with long-range missiles.

The next President of the United States will have monumental problems to untangle. The big question is not which party’s candidate wins the election but whether either party will choose a candidate that is up to the job.

That ultimate question is in the hands of Republicans who will soon begin voting in the primaries. Their anger may be justified, but anger is not sufficient reason for choosing a candidate in a desperate time for the future of this nation. And there is such a thing as a point of no return.

Voters need to consider what elections are for. Elections are not held to allow voters to vent their emotions. They are held to choose who shall hold in their hands the fate of hundreds of millions of Americans today and of generations yet unborn.

Too many nations, in desperate times, especially after the established authorities have discredited themselves and forfeited the trust of the people, have turned to some new and charismatic leader, who ended up turning a dire situation into an utter catastrophe.

The history of the 20th century provides all too many examples, whether on a small scale that led to the massacre in Jonestown in 1978 or the earlier succession of totalitarian movements that took power in Russia in 1917, Italy in 1922 and Germany a decade later.

Eric Hoffer’s shrewd insight into the success of charismatic leaders was that the “quality of ideas seems to play a minor role,” What matters, he pointed out, “is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world.”

Is that the emotional release that Republican voters will be seeking when they begin voting in the primaries? If so, Donald Trump will be their man. But if the sobering realities of life and the need for mature and wise leadership in dangerous times is uppermost in their minds, they will have to look elsewhere.

Former governor Sarah Palin is an intelligent person, contrary to how liberals have tried to portray her. So it seemed to me that, if anybody could explain why they were promoting the candidacy of Donald Trump, it would be Governor Palin.

But I listened in vain for any evidence or logic that would provide a reason to vote for Donald Trump for the office of President of the United States. There were lots of ringing assertions, just as in Trump’s own speeches, but no convincing facts or demonstrable reasons.

After all these months, no coherent plans have emerged from the rhetoric of “The Donald”– just sweeping boasts about all the things he says he will achieve. But boasts about the unknown future are hardly reassuring.

However puzzling the fervent support for Donald Trump may be today, given how little basis there is for it, such blind faith is not unique in history. Other dire or desperate times have produced other charismatic leaders to whom desperate people have turned, with hopes of deliverance.

Trump is certainly different from establishment Republicans, but it that enough?

Things were appalling in 1917 Russia, when people turned to Lenin to try to get them out of a disastrous war abroad and a bitter economic situation at home.

The fact that Lenin was quite different from the czar who had led the country into catastrophe might have seemed promising to some people. He was also different from the ineffective Kerensky government that failed in its brief months in office. But the totalitarian government that Lenin established proved to be even worse than its predecessors.

The idea that someone quite different from those who led a nation into disaster can be expected to produce an improvement is a non sequitur that has seduced many people in many places and times.

Germany’s Weimar Republic was nobody’s idea of an ideal government but Hitler’s reign that followed was far worse in every way. Many Americans denounced the rule of the Shah of Iran, but he was never a worldwide sponsor of terrorism, like those who replaced him.

A pattern that would appear in many other places and times was one in which people’s hopes became focused on someone new, charismatic and with ringing rhetoric– but utterly untested for the job of governing a nation.

That is where we are today.

The Republican field of candidates has had a number of people with experience governing at the state level, so that they have a track record that we could scrutinize. But the media obsession with Trump has left little time for weighing the pros and cons of those governors.

Some of them have already had to withdraw before we learned whether their qualifications were good, bad or indifferent. This may be a misfortune for their political careers but it can turn out to be a disaster for the country, if it leaves the field open only to people whom we must judge solely on the basis of their rhetoric.

There are still some governors left in the running, but they are not among the candidates who have the highest support in the polls, where most have received the support of fewer than 10 percent of the voters polled.

Former governor Jeb Bush looked like the front runner at the outset, especially with his impressive amount of money in his campaign chest. But it is not nearly as easy to buy an election as some commentators seemed to think, so perhaps we can take some solace from the discrediting of that notion.

We might also take some solace from the support received by Dr. Ben Carson, despite the media-fed notion that conservatives are racists. Even after his brief time leading the candidates in the polls has passed, Dr. Carson remains the candidate with the highest favorability rating among Republican voters who were polled.

But there are few other things to feel positive about as the primaries approach. Common sense by the voters may be the best we can hope for. And that can save the day, after all. In fact, they may be all that can save the day.

The 1%

The Sith Lords of The Left (except when they are Democrats or Socialists like George Soros then they are ok).🙂

Debunking the Myth of the “1%.” Who’s Really “The Rich?”

Rich bastards! It’s time to spread the wealth around! If you’re part of the 1%, you’re part of the problem!

Or… is it?

Perhaps the greatest economic misconception of the 21st Century is the idea that 1% of the world’s population are greedy jerks who keep the other 99% of the earth living in poor houses made of mud and tears.

Think the top 1% are billionaires? Nope. Millionaires? Nada. Well, they’re at least cracking $750K, right? Wrong again. In fact, YOU are probably far more affulent than you realize. And you disgust me for it. Let’s look at the numbers, American style:

If you make more than $100,000, you’re in the top 20%.

If you make more than $149,000, you’re in the top 10%.

If you make more than $522,000, BINGO, you’re a 1%’er. You’re probably a greedy jerk too, so screw you.

This is just a guess, but even if you don’t fall into one of these categories, chances are, you at least know somebody who does fall into any of the above categories. Which makes you a second-hand 1 percenter. That’s like a second-hand smoker only more vile. You probably don’t even think of those friends as being rich, but they are compared to the rest of the world. And these are the people leftists tell us are causing all the world’s problems, including the diminishing bee population (not really, but maybe one day), who need to do more for the country by paying their “fair share.” Except, that top 1% of earners already pays more in taxes than the bottom 90% (that’d be EVERYONE making less than $149K) COMBINED. Behold, graphs:

who are the wealthy

Oh, and by the way? If you’re under 31 and make over $300,000 – you’re in the top 0.1%. For realzies. Check out this chart from The Atlantic:


But let’s take things a step further. If we expand the comparison globally, you become waaaaay wealthier than imagined. Like Scrooge McDuck from Ducktales, swimming in a vault of coin.

The average yearly income on a global scale? $1,225.

Yeah. You’re rich. Bastard. How does it feel to cause global warming? Even if “your” money is sent to you on a bi-weekly basis from the US treasury… you’re rich. And kind of a succubus, but that’s for another article.

If you make more than a whopping $34,000 a year? You are in the top 1% of the world’s wealthy.

Over half of the world’s 1%’ers (those making $34K+), live in the United States.

the wealthy

Maybe you’re not so bad off after all, Mr. college hipster making $15 serving coffee, huh? Maybe life isn’t so bad climbing the corporate ladder for “just” $75K a year, is it? Also, a nutless monkey could do your job. You mad? Please leave room for cream.

Saying the wealthy need to pay more (paging Bernie Sanders), is really saying we all need to pay more.  Because really, you’re rich. If you’re an American, you’re rich. Like, super, ridiculously rich. Period. Also, you have running water, a flushing toilet, probably a phone of some kind, a flat screen, and maybe a Netflix subscription. So please, stop the whining. It’s getting old.

SO, how rich are YOU?

Here’s a fun tool created by Giving What we Can: you punch in your income and household size, they tell you how rich you are compared to the rest of the world. You’ll probably be shocked. And that’s a good thing. Seriously. Go try it. Like, right now, money-bags.

Go ahead, I Dare you!🙂

Lesson? If you’re living in the USA, you’re a greedy one-percenter and a bastard for it. Screw you with your flushing toilet and your five figure annual income. All this comes down to dollars, common sense, and perspective. The United States is a bastion of wealth, even for the “poor” Americans binge watching Orange is the New Black. Our top income earners aren’t paying their “fair share,” they’re paying YOUR share too. So get the numbers, memorize them, and every time you hear a gender-studies hipster talk to you about the one percent and shares and fairness and the latest iPhone, tell them about the real facts. If they’ll listen. (Steve Crowder)

But we all know that Liberals do not respond maturely to facts.🙂

And if Democrats didn’t have the Envy Card, The Hate Card they would be just a husk of nothing floating on the winds.🙂

But I want us to be super careful when we use the language “hard worker,” because I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall, because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like. So, I feel you that he’s a hard worker. I do. But in the context of relative privilege…”- MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry.

And remember in  the FY 2015 the government took in more tax money than anytime in it’s history and still ran a deficit!

elect me d5c6f-democrats6

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

Over the Cliff

More from “Jar Jar Binks” Boehner:

Under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio), the 112th House of Representatives has thus far approved legislation that has increased the debt of the federal government by approximately $18,944 for per American household.

The 112th House of Representatives has achieved this in a little more than 20 months time—and it may not be done yet enacting laws to approve new federal borrowing and spending.

On March 1, 2011, Boehner and President Barack Obama cut their first short-term federal spending deal. That deal took effect on March 4, 2011. Since then all new borrowing and spending by the federal government has been approved in laws enacted by Boehner’s House consistent with its constitutional power to control the borrowing and spending by the federal government. (KFYI)

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): There’s a lot of talk right now about an impending fiscal cliff. But we already went over a cliff economically in this country a long time ago.The current debate over tax hikes is an empty one built upon a false premise. The debate is whether raising tax rates will address our current crisis. The premise is that it is a lack of taxation that has led to the crisis. Both are hopelessly wrong.President Obama’s proposed tax increases on the top 2% of earners would fund the federal government for about eight days. Even if we taxed Americans earning over $1 million on 100% of their income, we would raise only about $600 billion in revenue.

Taxing citizens at this level is a tyranny even Europe hasn’t reached, and still it would only address about one-third of our deficit.

If one actually does the math, “taxing the rich” turns out to be no real solution at all, only fantasyland rhetoric.

Every dollar the government takes is another dollar used unproductively. Every dollar removed from the private sector and wasted in the hands of bureaucrats is a dollar that will not be used to purchase goods, to pay for services or to meet a payroll.

Every dollar the government ever takes — today, tomorrow and forever — is an attack on jobs and the economy.

Instead of sitting around trying to think of new ways to vote away someone else’s money, Washington leaders should finally begin to address the real crisis that has threatened us long before the current handwringing: spending.

With a $16 trillion national debt and well over $1 trillion annually in deficits, we barreled over the edge of fiscal insolvency long before this month.

Why do we lurch from deadline to deadline with no apparent action on our nation’s problems until the next deadline approaches? I presented Social Security and Medicare reform to the Senate over a year ago. I directly spoke to the president and vice president about my plan. And their response? Absolutely nothing!

Is it any wonder people are fed up with their government? The president announces we have no time for spending reforms, but when the deadline passes I predict not one committee will step into the breach to begin the process of reform.

Why? Because Democratic leadership still insists that Social Security and Medicare are just fine. Meanwhile, Social Security actuaries tell us that Social Security this year will spend $165 billion more than it receives. Medicare will spend $3 for every $1 it collects. Yet, the president says he doesn’t have time for entitlement reform.

The “fiscal cliff” scenario has come and gone. The only question now is: How do we recover?

The only solution is to cut spending. It’s no secret to anyone, except perhaps Washington leaders, that our current levels of spending are not only unsustainable, but the main culprit in our fiscal crisis.

Opponents of spending reductions — whether Democrats who insist on maintaining and expanding current domestic spending, or Republicans who insist on maintaining and expanding current Pentagon spending — make the case that any cuts to their preferred parts of government would be “Draconian” or “devastating.”

Like tax hikes, this too is a false narrative. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nominal spending in 2008 was $2.5 trillion. The outlays for the 2013 budget are an estimated $3.5 trillion.

This means the federal government plans on spending $1 trillion more next year than it did four years ago. By any measure, this is a significant and dramatic growth in spending.

Estimated revenue for 2013 is $2.9 trillion if the Bush tax cuts expire. Our 2012 revenues were $2.4 trillion, which included the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts would only make a difference of $500 billion this year — about one third of our entire deficit — but would also further harm our economy due to the job market decline that always accompanies any rise in taxes. History has proved this point time and again.

But if we spent only at 2008 levels combined with the revenues of 2012, next year we would have a deficit as small as $89 billion. An $89 billion deficit would represent less than 1% of GDP. The 2012 deficit was as high as 7.3% of GDP.

Did anyone think the size of government we had in 2008 was somehow not enough government? This is how drastically spending has increased in just the last four years.

Those who argue we can’t cut spending are basically saying that our federal government was far too small when Barack Obama entered the White House and that now we can survive only if government continues to spend at its current level. I know few if any Americans who honestly believe this, Republican or Democrat.

It’s also hard to imagine reasonable people actually believing that our government spending this obscene amount of money is somehow what makes our economy tick.

A real plan would extend the tax rates we’ve had for 12 years, reform entitlements and examine any and every way to significantly cut spending. Right now, House GOP leadership seems to want Republicans to be the party that raises taxes just a little less than the Democrats. This will not do.

Republicans are supposed to be the party of limited government and low taxes. These are our most core and basic principles. I don’t think it’s time to change who we are or what we stand for. It will not help our economy. It will also defeat the purpose of even having a Republican Party.

And that’s what Sith Lord Obama wants, By the way… “Those are not the Spending Cuts you are looking for…”:)
Sith Apprentice Harry Reid: “Now is the time to show leadership, not kick the can down the road,” Reid said. “Speaker Boehner should focus his energy on forging a large-scale deficit reduction agreement. It would be a shame if Republicans abandoned productive negotiations due to pressure from the tea party, as they have time and again.” (NBC)
But nothing the Democrats propose actually cuts spending or the deficit in anyway that is actually meaningful. But that’s the trick.
Make the stupid people think that it is meaningful and the Republicans are getting in the way so they take the fall for it when it fails miserably.
It’s tactical. not practical.
Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals: Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have.
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
So Boehner Proposes and Obama and Reid Dispose, even if it’s a plan that essentially mimics on their own it still is “protecting the rich” and is not “good enough”.

“He (President Barack Obama) is not willing to accept a deal that doesn’t ask enough of the very wealthiest in taxes and instead shifts the burden to the middle class and seniors,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. “The president is hopeful that both sides can work out remaining differences and reach a solution so we don’t miss the opportunity in front of us today.”

Boehner’s spokesman said: “The White House’s position defies common sense.”

“After spending months saying we must ask for more from millionaires and billionaires, how can they reject a plan that does exactly that?” spokesman Brendan Buck said. “By once again moving the goal posts, the president is threatening every American family with higher taxes.”

Because that isn’t the goal, Jar Jar. This is Chess not Poker. Simple, really.🙂
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Common Sense

A vacationing President Barack Obama accused Congress on Saturday of holding back the U.S. economic recovery by blocking “common sense” measures he said would create jobs and help growth.

After all, it’s “common sense” that Liberals are always right and never to blame for ANYTHING. They only take credit for their overall superior intellect…The one that lashes out childishly if you question their superiority.🙂

“The only thing preventing us from passing these bills is the refusal by some in Congress to put country ahead of party. That’s the problem right now. That’s what’s holding this country back,”

Some= Republicans. Not the Democrats who haven’t passed a budget in 842 days. Or the Democrats who refuse to even discuss Republican proposals. Or Democrats who pass massive business-killing regulations or spend $4 trillion dollars and get nothing out of it except ideological gratification. .

Nope. It’s the Republicans fault. The Senate and the Presidency are controlled by the Democrats, but it’s the Republicans fault. And if that doesn’t work, it’s George Bush’s Fault!

“We’re going through a tough time right now. We’re coming through a terrible recession,” he said. “So we need folks in Washington — the people whose job it is to deal with the country’s problems, the people who you elected to serve — we need them to put aside their differences to get things done.”

Translation: Stop Blocking Democrat’s need to Tax and Spend like complete morons. If we just spend more money everything will be fine! Give us More Time!

Class Warfare is good for the country. So stop being “terrorists”.

Oh, just in case you were wondering about Obama’s new fuel economy standards (where we are supposed to use less foreign oil rather drill for our own because oil companies are evil):

The Obama Administration’s new fuel economy standards will cause the retail price of average motor vehicles to increase over $11,000, according to a study conducted by the Center for Automotive Research.

“A fuel economy standard of 37.6 mpg is associated with a price increase of $5,244, 18.1 percent higher than the 2009 National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) average price of $28,966. A fuel economy standard of 40.8 mpg is associated with a price increase of $6,770, 23.4 percent higher than the 2009 NADA price,” says their report called, “The U.S. Automotive Market and Industry in 2025.”

“A fuel economy standard of 44.8 mpg is associated with a price increase of $8,214, 28.4 percent higher than the 2009 NADA price. The fourth fuel economy standard of 49.6 mpg is associated with an $11,290 increase in retail price. It is assumed that manufacturers and dealers will pass on the cost increase in fuel economy and safety technology to the consumer, at a retail price equivalent.”

The Obama administration’s new fuel economy standards would require automakers to produce cars and light trucks with an average fuel economy of 54.5 mpg by 2025. The Center for Automotive Research says their study is “the result of 11 months of effort and investigation by researchers at CAR in 2010-2011.”

Zoe Lipman, the National Wildlife Federation’s Senior Manager for Transportation and Global Warming Solutions argued on a conference call held Thursday that the estimated fuel savings due to these standards will outweigh the “modest” motor vehicle price increases for consumers.

And we can all afford such “modest” increases like $11,000 more for a car. It’s good for us.🙂

Thomas Pyle, the president of the Institute for Energy Research disagrees with Lipman.

“The Obama administration’s latest fuel economy mandates are an aggressive step away from consumer choice and towards government control,” he said in a USA Today op-ed.

“Every day, Americans are seeing the negative consequences of the administration’s increasingly aggressive meddling in the economy—more government control and less consumer choice.” (CNS)

But it’s for you own good. And, after all, Government does know best…

That’s only “common sense”😮

Personal Responsibility Government Style

You’re a wreck.

You can’t do things right.

Common sense has been leeched out of you.

You’re too stupid for your own good.

Or at least the government thinks so. So in your best interest they want to act for you.

You’re too Fat, so we have the Food Police wanting to ban Salt, fat, and in San Francisco- Happy Meals. And it doesn’t stop there. Oh no, it does not.

Consider this press release:

As a dietitian, I suggest that parents make Halloween candy rules to avoid sugar highs and stomach aches. But even more important, I encourage all Americans to support comprehensive child nutrition reform to improve the National School Lunch Program and other child nutrition programs. Congress will soon consider legislation to reauthorize the school lunch program, and this vote comes not a moment too soon.

Nearly 40 percent of calories consumed by children are from junk food, according to a new study analyzing data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Half of these calories come from just six foods: pizza, ice cream, whole milk, cookies and cake, soda, and sugary fruit drinks.

Wait—milk? Milk is a “junk food”?

Oh, and the group behind this release, the “Physicians Committee” for “Responsible Medicine” (PCRM) is neither a physicians group, nor responsible, nor interested in medicine. (They do seem to be a committee.) So while PCRM claims to be a group of good-hearted doctors concerned about nutrition, it’s actually an animal rights front group whose M.O. is to scare everyone toward vegetarianism.

Love the Orwellian name, by the way.

It’s head is the former head of PeTA. And you should know by now how insane those people are.

PCRM founder Neal Barnard has called cheese “dairy crack…the purest form of the [milk] drug.” PCRM has also tried to sue milk companies in Washington, DC, demanding (are you sitting down?) “monetary awards for the pain and suffering” that lactose intolerant Americans have experienced from consuming milk.

Of course, the truth is that milk—whole or otherwise—is a great source of Vitamin A, Vitamin D, and calcium. No serious medical group would suggest otherwise, unless they were more concerned with “saving” cows than promoting human health. Come to think of it, that’s probably PCRM’s real beef in the first place.

New York City Passes the Salt with Another Ad Campaign

And of course, these people just have your Personal Responsibility at heart.🙂

New York City is also spearheading the National Salt Reduction Initiative (NSRI), a partnership with state health authorities and other national and local health organizations. The group’s goal is “a voluntary reduction of sodium levels with the objective of reducing the amount of salt in packaged and restaurant foods by 25 percent over five years.”

There’s just one problem: Very few food companies have signed on with the NSRI. So how can the reduction stay voluntary? (Hint: It won’t.)

Then there’s the FDA which announced earlier this year that they intended to reduce Americans’ salt intake — without providing any specific details at the time. Notorious food nags at the Center for Science in the Public Interest have been petitioning the FDA for years to revoke salt’s “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) status. This would require the FDA to approve the (much lower) salt content of every food in the nation. (

They only want what’s best for you, regardless.🙂

They know better. And if you won’t take “personal responsibility” and do as they say then they’ll just have to force you to do it.🙂

The Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood may be experiencing some repetitive whiplash.

Responding to a couple articles written in The Daily Caller, LaHood took to his blog in order to clarify his position about whether or not he “believed we should employ a specific technology that would block cell phone signals in cars to prevent drivers from talking or texting behind the wheel.”

“I think the technology is there and I think you’re going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones,” LaHood had said on MSNBC. “We need to do a lot more if were going to save lives.”

In his blog post on Thursday, the Secretary clarified his statements with another quote taken from his MSNBC appearance:

“There’s a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we’re looking at that. A number of [cell technology innovators] came to our Distracted Driving Summit here in Washington and presented their technology, and that’s one way. But you have to have good laws, you have to have good enforcement, and you have to have people take personal responsibility. That’s the bottom line.” [Highlighted for enjoyment]

“The boom line,” LaHood repeated after the excerpt, was “personal responsibility.”

“For starters, there will never be a technological device that imparts common sense when it comes to safe driving,” he said. LaHood later added that “No one should need a piece of technology in their car to tell them that talking or texting while driving is incredibly dangerous.”

Sometimes, however, folks do need a little help developing “personal responsibility,” which is why LaHood reminded those reading his blog that:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is currently conducting broad distracted driving research so that we can expand what we know about the problem and look for ways to solve it. As part of that research, NHTSA is also evaluating some kinds of technologies that might one day prove helpful, such as collision avoidance and lane departure warning systems. But we also recognize the limitations of technology.

When Lahood said in the blog post that distracted driving was something the DOT would “tackle on all fronts,” he means on the technological front, too.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s “Driver Distraction Plan” sent to TheDC by the DOT specifically mentions the “emerging technical option in managing distractions.” This option specifically includes software that could be “downloaded to a cell phone, [and] has thresholds past which calls are not sent through to the driver but instead sent to voicemail; text messages are also blocked.”

After conducting a survey of the technology, the DOT said “this information can then be used to assess the overall feasibility of these as a countermeasure for distracted driving,” according to the plan. Currently, the NHTSA is “in the planning stages of this project” with a final report expected next year.

Neither the DOT nor the NHTSA responded to requests made by TheDC for further details on this “emerging technical option.”

On Monday, the Department of Transportation launched its awareness week campaign, “The Faces of Distracted Driving Week.” However, it’s not clear whether the campaign was originally intended to include LaHood himself.

And if they can manage that, what’s next? Hmmm…

Big Brother is watching you. So you better be responsible or else!

Enjoy your Thanksgiving next week, because that Turkey is going to be replaced by Tofu someday if you don’t wise up and take Personal Responsibility.🙂

Can you imagine a more horrifying sight to a Food Policeman than a holiday based on Food, overeating, and gluttony!



It must be stopped!

You heard it here first!🙂

This liability waiver includes an agreement not to haul your host into court on the basis of:

  • Failure to provide nutritional information including calories, fat, carbohydrates, sodium, and trans fat;
  • Failure to warn of potential for overeating because food tastes too good and is provided at no cost;
  • Failure to offer “healthier alternatives” or vegetarian “Tofurky”;
  • Failure to provide information about other venues serving alternative, “healthier” Thanksgiving meals;
  • Failure to warn that dark meat contains more fat than white meat; and
  • Failure to warn that eating too much and not exercising may lead to obesity.

“with this signed form, you can leave the trial lawyers and ‘food police’ out in the cold. That’s something we can all enjoy this Thanksgiving.” (

Now doesn’t that make you feel better… More personally responsible…:)

Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoon by Lisa Benson

The Lawsuit Lottery


Overlawyered: Fearing lawsuits over injuries, a West Virginia county is removing swing sets from elementary schools. A minor, local issue? No. America’s litigious society has changed the way kids play.

Roughly a year after a child broke his arm jumping off a swing like Superman and his parents are settling a lawsuit for $20,000, Cabell County, W.V., schools are yanking swing sets from school playgrounds. The lawsuit was one of two filed in the last year against Cabell County schools over swing set injuries, the West Virginia Record reported Thursday. School safety manager Tim Stewart, who is overseeing the removal, said he sees “a high potential when it comes to swings and lawsuits.”

What’s happening in Cabell County is not an isolated case. Local governments, fearful of lawsuits, have been for years closing pools, stripping playgrounds of equipment and banning outdoor games.

A Massachusetts elementary school has told students they can’t play tag. One Boston school forbids handstands while another in Needham, Mass., doesn’t allow students to hang upside down from the monkey bars. A pool in Hazleton, Pa., closed some years ago after a swimmer sued for $100,000 because he cut his foot running and jumping into the pool, though he’d been warned not to.

“There is nothing left in playgrounds that would attract the interest of a child over the age of four,” Philip K. Howard, lawyer and author, wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2008.

“Exercise in schools is carefully programmed, when it exists at all. … Broward County, Fla., banned running at recess. .. . Little Leagues forbid sliding into base. Some towns ban sledding. High diving boards are history, and it’s only a matter of time before all diving boards disappear.”

Olga Jarrett, a Georgia State University professor who prepares students to teach, told the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform: “Many schools don’t have playgrounds at all, they don’t have recess. They’ve been built without playgrounds with the idea that this is not something we do at school.”

She blames “a fear of lawsuits that makes some school systems and cities design playgrounds that are completely uninteresting to kids.”

Howard, who wrote “The Death Of Common Sense” and “Life Without Lawyers,” has been warning the country for years that our fear of litigation is changing American culture.

He has preached the importance of placing reasonable limits on lawsuits and restoring reliability and justice to our legal system.

While we’ve seen enough progress to be hopeful, we don’t expect civil law reform to move as fast as it should as long as so many of our policymakers are owned by the plaintiffs’ attorneys lobby.(IBD)

Then consider all the Lawyer adds on TV. You can’t have a commercial break without one…or two…or three…

Or the whacko who sued McDonalds because her hot coffee was too hot!

Or the fact that Tort Reform (aka Trial Lawyers) were explicitly ignored by ObamaCare. Why, Trial Lawyers are one of the Democrats main source of cash!!

You have 43 warnings on a Step ladder, like do not stand on top of this ladder!


For example, does a Superman costume really need a warning label to tell people that it doesn’t cause super-strength or the ability to fly?

Really? No Kidding. Does that mean I sell my kryptonite on E-Bay then?🙂

A teenage boy was hit by a runaway bat . His family sued the maker of the bat and got $850,000 in a products liability suit because the company failed to adequately warn about the dangers that the product can pose.

So now, baseball bats are required to post warning labels? What should the labels say?

“Caution: Getting hit in the head by this product might cause death.” (

The family of Brandon Patch argued that aluminum baseball bats are dangerous because they cause the baseball to travel at a greater speed. They contended that their 18-year-old son did not have enough time to react to the ball being struck before it hit him in the head while he was pitching in an American Legion baseball game in Helena in 2003. (USA Today)

There was a mother who wants to sue Sea World because her precious 10 year old was at the performance where the whale drowned the trainer. That was Sea World’s fault! And she wants the cash!!

I see one more “Mesothelioma” ad I think I will chuck something at my TV!!

And the Congress is made up predominately of Lawyers. The President is a Lawyer.


I want also shed some light on the state of California’s up-to-$4,000-a-violation bounty system for freelancers who identify ADA violations in Main Street businesses, and the case for at least requiring complainants to give business owners notice and an opportunity to fix an ADA violation before suing. (The disabled-rights lobby has managed to stifle that proposal in Congress for years.)

So it’s the adult version of I-Spy, only you get $4,000 for hunting them down and killing them. Sounds more lucative than my day job.

Become a Professional ADA Violation Spotter and become rich!😦

You own a business, maybe a restaurant. You’ve got a lot to worry about. You have to make sure the food is safe and tastes good, that the place is clean and appealing, that workers are friendly and paid according to a hundred Labor Department and IRS rules. (and soon ObamaCare, Cap & Trade,and Tax Increases!)

On top of that, there are rules you might have no idea about.

The bathroom sinks must be a specified height. So must the doorknobs and mirrors. You must have rails. And if these things aren’t right — say, if your mirror is just one inch too high — you could be sued for thousands of dollars.

And be careful. If you fail to let a customer bring a large snake, which he calls his “service animal,” into your restaurant, you could be in trouble.

The ADA was supposed to help more disabled people find jobs. But did it?

Strangely, no. An MIT study found that employment of disabled men ages 21 to 58 declined after the ADA went into effect. Same for women ages 21 to 39.

How could employment among the disabled have declined?

Because the law turns “protected” people into potential lawsuits. Most ADA litigation occurs when an employee is fired, so the safest way to avoid those costs is not to hire the disabled in the first place.

Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of the blog,, says that the law was unnecessary. Many “hire the handicapped” programs existed before the ADA passed. Sadly, now most have been quietly discontinued, probably because of the threat of legal consequences if an employee doesn’t work out.

Under the ADA, Olson notes, fairness does not mean treating disabled people the same as non-disabled people. Rather it means accommodating them. In other words, the law requires that people be treated unequally.

The law has also unleashed a landslide of lawsuits by “professional litigants” who file a hundred suits at a time. Disabled people visit businesses to look for violations, but instead of simply asking that a violation be corrected, they partner with lawyers who (legally) extort settlement money from the businesses.

Some disabled people have benefited from changes effected by the ADA, but the costs are rarely accounted for. If a small business has to lay off an employee to afford the added expense of accommodating the disabled, is that a good thing — especially if, say, customers in wheelchairs are rare? Extra-wide bathroom stalls that reduce the overall number of toilets are only some of the unaccounted-for costs of the ADA. And since ADA modification requirements are triggered by renovation, the law could actually discourage businesses from making needed renovations as a way of avoiding the expense.

A few disabled people speak up against the law. Greg Perry, author of “Disabling America: The Unintended Consequences of the Government’s Protection of the Handicapped,” says that because the disabled now represent an added expense to businesses, many resent them.

Finally, the ADA has led to some truly bizarre results. Exxon gave ship captain Joseph Hazelwood a job after he completed alcohol rehab.

Hazelwood then drank too much and let the Exxon Valdez run aground in Alaska. Exxon was sued for allowing it to happen. So Exxon prohibited employees who have had a drug or drinking problem from holding safety-sensitive jobs. The result? You guessed it — employees with a history of alcohol abuse sued under the ADA, demanding their “right” to those jobs. The federal government (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) supported the employees. Courts are still trying to sort it out.

More money for the parasites. (John Stossel)


Lawyers do have their place, but how much of this is too much and how much of this is the cart before the horse (trough)??

Lawsuits Make Us Less Safe

By John Stossel

Imagine if an evil business routinely deprived us of products that would help us live longer with less pain and more comfort. We’d be outraged, and lawyers would line up to sue. Yet something similar happens today, thanks to lawsuit abuse. Makers of all kinds of products are afraid to sell them to us because one lawsuit could ruin them.

Personal-injury lawyers claim they make America safer, but that’s a myth. It’s easy to see who benefits from those big damage awards we read about. Less obvious — but just as real — are the things we’d all like to have but never will get because of this climate of fear. Here are a few examples.

Monsanto once developed a substitute for asbestos — a new fire-resistant form of insulation that might save thousands of lives. But Monsanto decided not to sell it for fear of liability. Richard F. Mahoney, the CEO at the time, said, “There may well have been a safe, effective asbestos replacement on the market, and now there isn’t.”


Why do we have to worry about shortages of flu vaccine? Because only a handful of companies still make it. And why is that? Because when you vaccinate millions of people, some get sick and sue. Between 1980 and 1986, personal-injury lawyers demanded billions of dollars from vaccine manufacturers. That scared many American drug companies out of the business.

In 1986, Congress stepped in. To help curb the lawsuits that discouraged vaccine production, the government established a fund called the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It would pay victims’ families directly so they wouldn’t have to hire lawyers and suffer the delays of litigation. This was supposed to entice vaccine makers back into production, but drug companies were still leery, fearing that plaintiffs’ lawyers would sue them anyway.

They were right to worry. Eli Lilly developed a mercury-based preservative called Thimerosal that was used in many children’s vaccines. Plaintiffs’ lawyers jumped on scaremongers’ claims that mercury causes autism in children. Although a government-issued review found no such link, more than 100 autism lawsuits have been filed against vaccine makers since the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act passed. No wonder most drug manufacturers still steer clear of vaccine research.

Even when new vaccines are discovered, drug companies are sometimes afraid to sell them. The FDA has approved a vaccine against Lyme disease. Want some? Forget about it. No company wants to take the risk.

Fear of being sued reduced the number of American companies researching contraceptives from 13 to two.

After scientifically groundless lawsuits against breast-implant makers bankrupted Dow Corning, Japanese silicone makers stopped producing a pain-reducing silicone coating for hypodermic needles. A company director said, “We’re sure our product is safe, but we don’t want to risk a lawsuit.”

Union Carbide has invented a small portable kidney dialysis machine. It would make life much easier for people with kidney disease, but Union Carbide won’t sell it. With legal sharks circling, the risk of expensive lawsuits outweighs the possible profit.

Are you pregnant and nauseous? Bendectin would probably cure your morning sickness. For 27 years doctors prescribed the drug to 33 million women because it was so good at stopping nausea and vomiting. But you can’t buy Bendectin today because lawyers kept suing the manufacturer, Merrell Dow, claiming the drug caused birth defects.

Studies did not show that Bendectin caused birth defects, and Merrell Dow won most of the lawsuits. But after spending $100 million in legal fees and awards, the company gave up selling the drug. Bendectin has never been effectively replaced, and morning sickness is now a major contributor to dehydration during pregnancy.

Dr. Paul Offit, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, says, “Within two years of discontinuing Bendectin, the incidence of hospitalization for dehydration during early pregnancy doubled; the incidence of birth defects was unchanged.”

Those are just some of the life-enhancing products we know we must do without because America’s peculiar legal system makes it profitable for trial lawyers to pursue extortion — like litigation. What wonderful products will we never even hear about because the lawyers have created a climate of fear?

You can’t even look cross-eyed at a kid if you’re a teacher and you can never ever be alone with one under any circumstance whatsoever.


Because if you are, you could be on the sex-offender registry and working at McDonald’s being sued for your coffee being to hot in a nanosecond.

Thanks to Lawyers and the Lawsuit Lottery.

This lottery is similar to the regular one, you gamble that your ticket (the lawsuit) will pay you mega-millions and set you up for life. And the nice Lawyer who gets as much as 40% of it is right there to cheer you on. For there own benefit, of course.

Everyone wins, Everybody else loses.😦

The author of the above book: “Predatory lawyers know they can file ridiculous lawsuits against innocent product makers and blackmail them into cash settlements — even in cases in which a user has ignored common sense,” said Dorigo Jones. “The real issue is not the obvious warning labels, but the billions of dollars in litigation costs passed on to consumers — a kind of a “lawsuit tax” we all pay. That is why M-LAW ( urges judges and policy makers to support civil justice reform.”

But don’t you feel better. You’ve taken responsibilities for the risks of being alive secure in the knowledge that if you do something stupid there’s always a lawyer there to make you the potential millionaire “victim”. Meanwhile, actual cases that are very legitimate could be overlooked because there isn’t enough will or money for anyone to care.

Sleep tight, don’t let the bed bugs bite!🙂

And if they do, I’m sure we can find someone to sue!🙂

%d bloggers like this: