The Savage Republican

Man dead for 15% off

I'm sure that you've already heard of the tragedy at a Wal Mart where a worker was literally trampled to death.
Here is a picture of the rush:

Hundreds of shoppers smashed through windows at a Long Island Wal-Mart early Friday morning, killing one store employee in the stampede. News' reader Nakea Augustine caught the chaotic scene on her cell phone, check out the photos.(Caption from the site. Go here to see other pictures from this tragedy).
Look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions.
I have.

Michael Steele-and we're deeper into it

I was listening to the Bill Bennett Show this morning. Michael Steele was guest host. Near the end of the show he was commenting on the future of the Republican Party responding to a callers question. My heart fell at what I heard.
He talked about "How do we reach out to the moderates? How do we build a bridge to them? How do we include the Christie Todd Whitman's in the party?"
Two word answer-"We don't!" We let them build a bridge to us. We let them reach out to us.
We tried this bridge building/reaching out crap. We got John McCain.
Say Michael, how'd that work out for us? How did that bridge building go in the 2006 election cycle? I can tell you how well it worked here in Minnesota in 2004 and 2006. Let's say it fell just a bit short of expectations.
My advice? Not saying "We're reaching out." Saying "Follow us."
I have absolutely no desire to waste my/our time building another bridge to nowhere.
Wake up people!

OK Professor!

So, government educated brain trust reader, what DO you really know about America? Huh?
Read this blog and think my knowledge gets picked up by osmosis (really pressure diffusion deficit) do ya? WELL, DO YA?
OK, genius, here's your chance! Show me your stuff.
Go to the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and take their civics test (link here).
There are 33 questions ranging from government structure, Constitutional, history and economic questions.
Take the test, then email me your results to AmendmentX "at" savagerepublican
"dot" com and I'll reply with my results. It took me about 3 minutes to take the test.
Let's see how you do...

From the Office of the President Elect

Go here and watch the short video.
Then go and read the comments.
It is just about everything you need to know from the Office of the President Elect.

Just wondering...

I saw the first photo and something jumped out at me.
Anyone else see a connection between the pictures?
Or is it just me?

Why you need a firearm

Many people, despite my nom de plume, assume that I'm a 2nd Amendment guy. Probably because of my involvement with 2nd Amendment issues.
I stress preparedness. I stress the concept "Are you prepared to be wrong?" Most people assume, quite wrongly, that police will and have a duty to protect them. Nothing could be further from the truth:

Police are a reactionary force. They arrive after the crime.
911 is not what people think it is. In research I did to find out typical response time from a 911 cal, I discovered this brutal fact: In less, repeat,LESS than 5% of the time police arrive to stop the crime and/or arrest the perpetrator. Less than 5% of the time.
The police are not legally required to provide specific protection to you. (Silver v City of Minneapolis and the most egregious case is Warren v District of Columbia. Others are here).
Police can and have retreated (aka "pulled out") of hostile situations: The Rodney King riots and a few years ago in North Minneapolis. Translation: you are really on your own. Good luck!

And so, even with a heightened police presence, we have this:
"A Cape Girardeau woman shot and fatally wounded Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender who had broken into her home early this morning with the intention of raping her a second time, Cape Girardeau Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle said today...

Cape Girardeau police had been keeping a close eye on the woman's home, in the southwest part of Cape Girardeau, since she reported the rape nearly a week ago" (emphasis mine).
Again, even with an increased police presence, the victim was attacked and was able to defend herself. Notice that she escaped and police were able to respond in 45 seconds from a 911 call from another residence.
So, decide for yourself.
Me? I prefer to be prepared to be wrong.

Ever wonder where bitter apples come from?

With bailout mania sweeping the nation, there is a small warning in an article in, of all places, the New York Times. The problem is that this is a warning that has been repeated and ignored many more times than it's been stated. There is a concept in insurance and societal behavior called "Insuring the moral hazard". The concept is that if someone or any entity is shielded from the full consequences of their behavior that that behavior becomes more likely to occur the further the behavior is separated from it's consequences. This is explained in the greed/fear scenario. If there is a payoff to some behavior, that payoff is moderated by the fear of consequences arising out of that behavior. If fear of the consequences is reduced, the probability of that behavior occurring rises. A prime example of this is in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac disaster: As FM/FM "encouraged" lenders to make riskier and riskier loans, the banks and mortgage originators saw that as long as FM/FM was buying those risky mortgages. That and the implied belief that FM/FM were government entities and the Feds would back up any problem loans, the loan originators were "insured" against loss. Enter in Wall Street. They saw a way to create security backed assets with these mortgages. And again, as FM/FM were government created entities, Wall Street saw that these were fairly risk free assets (or at the minimum reduced risk) guaranteed by the federal gov't (aka you and me). Well, AIG looked to insure those assets. When the bottom fell out of the mortgage bubble, it was a house of cards/line of dominoes that fell. Again, all thanks to government intervention, coercion, threat, duplicity and outright fraud.
So, here, in the New York Times we have this bit of wisdom:" But longer term, the new bailout could haunt regulators and taxpayers. The move ultimately may encourage banks to take more risks in the belief that the government will step in if they run into trouble. " Geez! Do ya think?? What the crap do these people think started this whole bailout disaster to begin with? When the loan originators saw reduced risk as did all subsequent financial entities, well, disaster was in the offing.
So, we have more bitter fruit with the promise of another crop from the same tree firmly rooted in bad government policy.
Eat hearty fellow citizens!
BTW, ever hear of the green apple quick step?
We'll yearn for the days when things were only that bad.

The Savage Republican

Local Attractions

Favorite Links

Previous Posts

Archives

Friday, November 28, 2008