No Sense Of Humor

As time goes by it seems that those on the political left are devoid of a sense of humor. And it shows in their policies.

For it is the political left who lead the push for political correctness and the stupid anti-everything laws.

No longer can you tell an Irish joke, or a Polish joke, or a "insert your nationality here" joke because.... "someone" might be offended.

BUT, you can be as rude and crude as you want. And to hell with how many people you offend.

Take George Bush's recent Dinner. When faced with the obvious - that there certainly appears to be no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - he did what any person with a healthy sense of humor would do. He made fun of himself.

The camera panned the audience. Far lefties like Nancy Pelosi sat stone-faced. Centrist politicians like Joseph Lieberman laughed.

Then we get to Australia. And who should get his mug shown on the lefty nightly news giving his opinion about the dinner? Why none other than socialist Bob Brown.

Every time - every single time - there is something where a lefty demonstration is held, there is Bob Brown giving his "opinion."

We can take for granted that Bob The Lefty will be there upholding and doing his socialist duty. But WHY does the media feel the need to continually show us his socialist opinion?

It can't have anything to do with reporting the news because they NEVER show what the right wing capitalists have to say on the same matters.

The conclusion is that the mass media is also part of the humorless left.

One anecdote I heard was a four year old boy says to his dad, "Dad, is that politician (just shown on the TV) a Democrat?"

Dad replies, "Yes, why would you say that?"

"Because he wasn't smiling. The Democrats never smile."

After hearing this I began to see if it was true. And I noticed, not only do they not smile, they are downright ANGRY.

Reflect back to Gore's latest outburst. He yelled and screamed and got all red in the face. Then there is Hillary Clinton's "squeal" from a few months back. Simon Crean (former leader of Australian lefty party Labor), their current leader Mark Latham, and previous leader Kim Beasley. ALL guilty of being angry and yelling on broadcast TV. (Something I have never seen a right wing politician do.)

Quite frankly, as a voter, I want to see the person I vote for being in control of their temper. I don't want someone with a short fuse to be in charge of anything, let alone a country and its military. I want a level-headed leader.

Under, Over, Right-On Budget

The govt is big on this thing we call a budget. But is their pre-occupation with it, and the pre-occupation of financial planners with it, causing more harm than good?

A budget is a forecast of expenditure (expenses) and revenue (income). With the main emphasis being on expenses. As in, we have $x to spend on doing X and once that is gone there is no more.

There is a danger in having such a budget because it sets up mental patterns to spending that much money on the budgeted thing. And doesn't allow for reducing the expense.

For example: Say you budget $50 a month for video/DVD rentals. What happens if your video/DVD rentals for that money only reach $30? In your mind, you have $20 you had already deemed as spent, and thus are quite willing to spend that money on something else which has little to no value in the end.

Whereas, if you didn't have that budget, you would not have considered $50 as being spent on video/DVD rentals and could have simply treated the $30 expense - down $20 from the usual $50 - as reducing your cost and leaving more money available for other useful purposes, like investing.

I'm not saying a budget is useless. No. There are some instances where you need a budget - such as in the construction industry and certain other business pursuits. But those budgets are based on known expenses and estimates based on experience.

Example: It is fine to budget $60,000 for the construction of a dwelling when you already have estimates for the slab of $5,000, framework $3,000, roof tiling $8,000, brickwork $12,000, plastering $9,000, carpet $3,000, wet area tiling $2,000, kitchen $10,000, painting $6,000 and plumbing and electrical $2,000 - for a total of $60,000. In that case, with estimates in hand you have an idea of the final cost.

The way most people work a budget is to say, "I have $X to spend and will spend it until it is gone. If I didn't get it done with that money and need more, I will have gone 'over budget.' If I did manage to get it done with less money, I am free to spend the left over money on anything I want no matter how frivolous it is."

The problem with most budgets is trying to have a fixed amount for an expense which varies. Such as gasoline, food, phone, etc. These items will vary from month to month depending on the price when you bought.

It might be nice to know you will have to spend $X on mortgage, rent, debts, and so on, because those amounts never change. But trying to limit your spending on variable expenses is only an exercise in frustration - you could get mad and frustrated that you can never get under-budget.

If you know you have an upcoming expense, you can plan for it. Otherwise, the best thing to do is to keep track of what you spend (expenses) compared to what you bring in (income), and try to lower the expenses and raise the income. And even have mini-goals if feasible. Such as making it a goal to lower grocery spending by $10 per month (which should be easily achieved by not buying brand name products).

One of my businesses can have an income fluctuation from month to month as large as $800 - one month that business can make $800 more than another month, with the same fixed expenses (exactly why this is so is not for discussion here). Trying to factor that $800 into a monthly budget is near on impossible.

Best I can do is know my fixed expenses, and make sure they are covered. Budgeting for variables is fruitless. Prices go up. Prices go down. Second guessing it is a waste of time and would only put my mind into a "I can spend all this" mindset instead of a "only spend the bare minimum necessary" mindset - which is prudent for business owners to do.

An example of how some people budget: They have envelopes with names on them. One envelope will have Rent/Mortgage on it, another will have Groceries, another will have Gas, another will have Phone, and so on.

The idea is, when you get paid, you immediately take the cash out of your wallet and put the required amounts in the designated envelopes. And then only take money out of those envelopes for the spending.

What happens if you have money left over in the groceries envelope that week/month? You will spend it. You will spend you 'reserve' money. And next week/month when prices go up, you might not have enough money and will then be over-budget and will have to come up with the money from one of your other budget envelopes.

Some local authorities will claim they did "This and that" all within budget, as if that is a good thing. But unless we know the full story we don't know.

They may have repaired a road within budget, but what budget are they referring to? The overall budget of money to spend, or the money designated for that project?

If it is money for that project, they could easily have over-estimated the costs knowing it would not cost that much, then claim they did it under budget while it still costs way too much. Or they got an unexpected increase in extra income because of a new tax they placed on residents.

Fact is, it is NOT in the govt interest to be under budget because it means they won't get as much money for that area next time, and can't justify the high taxes they levy on you.

Position Vacant

WANTED IMMEDIATELY: Psychotic sociopath to masquerade as "spiritual adviser/leader" to brainwashed zombies - and - to encourage and command said zombies to murder as many non-zombies and "anti psychotic spiritual adviser/leader" people (men, women an children) as possible, by blowing themselves up and/or planting other explosive devices. The successful applicant must be willing to move into our headquarters and must be totally devoid of any common sense whatsoever. Successful applicant must also have a complete lack of reasoning ability. Please apply in the initial instance with resume` and send to "Hamas Terror Network Inc" P.O. Box 666, Hell (Palestine). We are not an equal opportunity employer.

So the founder of the terrorist group Hamas has been killed. The man who commanded the suicide bombers to blow themselves up killing innocent people is not living any more. The man who was to Hamas what Osama Bin Laden is to Al Qaeda, is dead.

Is there world rejoicing?

Of course not. The big leftist governments of the world condemn the act. And the left news media NEVER mentions that this man was the head/founder/leader of the terrorist group called Hamas. Instead, they call him a "spiritual leader" as if to portray that this man was some kind of peace-loving holy man. Whereas, the reality is completely different. This man commanded people to kill themselves and others as long as it served his sick and twisted goals.

One news report even calling the attack in which he died as unjustified.

Unjustified? Pray tell, do please tell me just what would have to happen before you said something was justified?

The man was the boss... the head honcho... the number one man... the CEO... the Godfather... of a terrorist group. And he is ultimately responsible for commanding his followers to MURDER people on the grounds of being a different race/religion.

If that is not grounds enough, then I don't know what is, and I must also be on the wrong planet. I must now be on the Earth's alternate universe copy called Stupid Earth, which is inhabited by morons who protest when the leader of a terrorist group gets killed.

Folks. Lose the emotion here. The man was a terrorist leader. He wasn't a "spiritual leader" or "politician." Those are the terms bandied around to once again make the Palestinians look like poor innocent people being picked on by big bad Israel.

Israel kills a terrorist and there is outrage. Palestinian terrorists blow up children on a school bus and there is no outrage. Go figure.

Remember how I said to pay close attention to the reporting about that region and you would see the anti-Israel pro-Palestine slant. This is just another example of it.

A Shot In The Dark

Some Australian medical group is warning/advising people to hurry up and get a flu shot NOW. Otherwise you might get the dreaded Fiji Flu (or whatever the darn thing is called this year to make it sound scary) and die like 2,000 other Australians do each year.

First, as a species we managed to exist until now without a flu shot. And I don't think avoiding flu shots will see you any worse off. In fact, you will probably be better off because if you get the flu your body will become immune to it - stronger.

As for the "death toll." More people die from accidents around the home each year. So no biggie there. And, if you keep healthy and eat properly, your immune system will be strong and will be able to deal with pretty well anything. (Even during the worst plagues the MAJORITY of people live and only a minority die - and that minority usually had poor to non-existent immune systems.)

Anyway. What I found odd about the story which advised us all to get a flu shot was... it was followed up by a story about a women who ended up a paraplegic in a wheelchair after she got a flu shot!

And instead of concentrating on the fact this woman cannot walk anymore because of the flu shots we have just been advised to get, they concentrated on her autistic children (probably caused by the triple vaccine if the way her body reacts to vaccines is any indication).

Then they just moved on to another story as if nothing was up with the stories they just ran side by side. It was almost a surreal moment. And just goes to show how "caring" the news media really is.

Singing Sensation?

Well well well. So Kylie Minogue is getting married to current boyfriend Olivier Martinez.

I had several reactions to this news...

1: Who cares? I personally don't think this is newsworthy. Who cares what she does. She abandoned Australia years ago. To hell with her.

2: HA! She is marrying someone who is "prettier" than she is. In all reality, she is nothing much to look at. In fact, I think she looks like an Alien. She would have been wise to marry someone less attractive than her so she would look good in comparison. By marrying such a pretty "pretty boy", her "oddness" and "not really that attractive after all" will shine through.

I tried to find a photo of her and her guy so you could see for yourself what I mean in point number 2. And while searching for an image I came across several articles about her. One of those articles called her a "singing sensation."

Did I read that right? Kylie Minogue a "singing sensation"?

Oh that's a good one. Her voice is synthesized, digitized, enhanced, smoothed out, echo-effected, and in no way sounds like a natural voice in the slightest. Even in her earliest of early songs - such as her first one "Locomotion" - her voice has been altered so it sounds ok.

The fact of the matter is, she cannot sing to save her life. Let's put her in a room (unplugged) with Tina Arena, and have a singing contest to see who can really and truly sing. I don't need to do such a test, Tina will wins hands down because she can actually sing.

Further, Minogue cannot dance either. She can't sing, can't dance, can't write her own songs. And yet, the drongo Australians keep treating her like some... some... person of talent.

Which is something I don't understand. She turned her back on this country. Doesn't even sound like an Aussie any more. Why should WE give her the time of day?

Something else that puzzles me... the media attitude towards her. They too treat her like something special. And there is a tendency to be guilty of self-lying.

For instance: Years ago she did a tour. She only had one concert in Brisbane and only managed to sell roughly half the entertainment center - a total of about 5,000 tickets. Her comment was that this was typical of Brisbane because Brisbane didn't support international artists or any artists very much.

I gots news for her... Billy Joel manages to sell out six performances at the Brisbane Entertainment Center.

Hey Kylie... maybe it's not the fact Brisbane doesn't support entertainers... maybe it's because the people of Brisbane have a brain and realize you cannot sing, dance, act, or actually do anything that requires a modicum of talent. Just a thought.

But this is just one example. There is another here. Basically, it is a story about her latest album release in the US. It debuted at 42 on the chart. The following week it was down to 83. And now (it's 3rd week) it is at 122.

Last week it sold something like 11,000 units. Which is pretty pathetic for such a "known" entertainer. But the article then said, if she had sold that many in Australia she would have been at number 3. And that Shannon Nolls - the runner up of Australian Idol - sold only 13,000 which would have had him at 100 position in the US.

Why compare the sales in Australia of a "known in Australia only" entertainer to the sales in the US of an "internationally known" entertainer in such a way to make her look good?

I'm fed up with the media love affair with her. And can only deduce they fall over themselves at her feet because they see in her their own lack of talent. And if they were to be truly honest and only talk about people with talent, she would never get mentioned.

In my opinion, if she were to audition for Australian Idol she wouldn't get into the final 100! That is how bad a "singer" she is.

Oh, some will say I have sour grapes, and it's the "tall poppy syndrome" in action.

(Tall poppy syndrome refers to the habit of Australians to cut down to size those who would rise above the masses. Those who get cut down invariably have a severe lack of talent and/or are pretentious. And those who complain about the syndrome are those same people. In short, unpretentious people of real talent are never cut down.)

So before the Kylie lovers label me as suffering tall poppy syndrome, take a long hard look at her. You will see that she cannot, in fact, sing, dance, act or do anything that requires skill. The fact she has been able to fool the buying audience all this time is a testament to her and shows how stupid the public really is.

Three cheers for those who actually have talent.

Homosexual Tendencies - or - The Poofing Of Australia

Times, like the weather, change. Sometimes the change brings good differences. Sometimes bad. And sometimes just plain baffling.

For instance: When I went to school the worst insult you could call a guy was "poof." As in "you're a poof, mate" or "piss off ya poof."

And any talk about sex between males was a definite no no. And if you ever made such a remark, you were considered a "poof" from that moment on. No correspondence entered in to.

But times moved on. And now it seems I live in a homosexual tendency world. Where males sound like poofs and it seems quite alright to make "male to male sex" remarks.

Like during Australian Idol. One of the hosts mentioned how something (performing in front of the crowd or some such thing) was hard; or may have even said the performance made it hard for them to come up with something to say. Well, before the sentence could be finished so as to have legitimate meaning, the performer (a pin-head Aussie yobbo who thinks he is all that and a bag of potato chips) smiled and made some kind of homosexual tendency innuendo. YUCK!!!

What is going on? Males now think it is okay to poof around with each other. They think talking about doing sexual things with each other is somehow cool.

I cannot think of anything more UNcool.

Ok. Some reading this will now spit the dummy and say I am a homo-phobe and all the rest of the typical labeling that comes with any kind of anti-homosexual comments. They will also tell me I need to have more understanding and sensitivity of other people.

Humph. Ever hear of "practice what you preach"?

How about YOU having more sensitivity and understanding of MY thoughts and feelings. Why should it always be ME that has to accept you, yet you NEVER are willing to accept me.

And unlike everyone else who ever gets labeled a homo-phobe (and who then comes back with "I have homosexual friends" as if to show some kind of understanding), I do NOT have homosexual friends. I am a heterosexual and only hang-out with other heterosexuals. I have nothing in common with homosexuals so see no reason to spend time with them.

Oh sure, the clients of some of my business interests are homosexual. But that don't mean squat because we don't socialize. Fact is, it is UNnatural for heterosexual men to want to spend time socializing with homosexual men.

As far as I am concerned, you do what you want and be what you want. I also expect you (if you are homosexual) to allow me to be and do likewise. Thank you.

Onward.

Overall, the men in Australia are becoming more and more effeminate. And I find it disconcerting. What will the up and coming generations of males be like? Wimps and pussies talking homosexual innuendos with each other and acting like poofs while having homosexual friends so they can be completely understanding?