Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico

24Aug/160

We have not done a good job

Fat Kids poster

First of all, I will say it again, while I am going to speak in broad generalizations about today's utes, I know that not all kids are self-absorbed, entitled, cell phone absorbed zombies. But as with almost all stereotypes, there is some bit of truth that helped to create the image.

One of the biggest complaints small business owners have is the ability to attract and retain good help. That situation seems to have gotten worse over the last decade or so. The problems are myriad, including the inability to pass a drug test; lack of basic skills; but more frequently a feeling that you owe them something, rather than they have to earn it. That feeling is across the spectrum, not just with employees. And it's spreading.

2 recent examples come to mind for me, that really have put me off trying to help the less fortunate. There is a guy I have seen frequently over the years. He is not homeless but is part of the homeless crowd. He is disabled and on public assistance. He is not a friendly guy and never makes eye contact. About 2 months ago, he walked into my office, took off his hat and introduced himself. He then said he was short on cash and wondered if he could borrow a dollar to get a cup of coffee. He promised to pay me back on Friday.

Of course Friday came and went with no repayment. He walked by my office a few times but didn't say a word. The next week he came in and asked to borrow a dollar for the same reason and said he would pay me back. No problem. This scenario repeated itself a few times. I didn't expect to be repaid and didn't mind too much giving him a buck here and there. Although he certainly could have offered to a couple of things around the office.

Then 2 weeks ago, he comes in and asks for $5, saying he hadn't eaten in a couple of days and wanted a burrito. I only had a $20 bill. The restaurant is a block away and he promised to bring the change back. OK. I really expected that he would bring the change back. It was all I had in my pocket. I was a bit surprised and disappointed that he did not return with the change. A couple of days went by and I saw him walk by my office. Despite the door being wide open, he did not stop. I got his attention and asked what happened. He said he'd had an emergency and needed to use the money. OK, you didn't have time to come tell me or ask me? In the last 72 hours, he'd walked by my office a few times and didn't even attempt to come in and explain.

He promised to pay me back but of course has not. I saw him yesterday as I walked to the same restaurant to get a burrito. As we passed each other, he said he'd pay me back on Friday. I said, "sure" and kept walking. He went off. Started telling me how I should just give him money, that he didn't have to pay me back because I'm rich. Well I am not rich. I don't make a lot of money and I have bills to pay including employee salaries. He left the saying he wouldn't pay me back.

The second incident had to do with trying to help out a woman and her kids. This young person had 2 kids and a baby on the way. She wanted to rent from us and despite some concerns, we wanted to help. She received assistance from HUD so moving in is not a quick or easy process with all the inspections, paperwork, etc. And if HUD doesn't approve the property, you don't get paid. Despite that potential, we let her move in 2 1/2 weeks early. It was right before Christmas.

First, she lied about her baby daddy not living with her. Then she had a difficult pregnancy and had to be airlifted to Albuquerque. Before she left, they got a dog, which was against the rules and left the poor mutt inside, for 2 weeks. I had to go fix a couple of things for HUD or the dog might have died.

Over the next 8 months, repeated complaints from neighbors about loud parties, fights, police showing up on a frequent basis & the constant traffic in and out at all times of day & night; always a quick visit too. The baby daddy was around all the time, but of course said he wasn't living there and refused to sign on to the lease.

All they had to do was pay $50 a month rent. But they couldn't even do that. We could have charged a late fee, but didn't. You know how the story goes, at first promising to pay next week, then ignoring us completely. Oh but when something needs to be fixed, the calls were quick and demands were rudely expressed. Then finally we'd had enough and filed to have them evicted. They yelled at us, called us vile names and threatened us with physical violence.

And after the eviction notice was granted, they destroyed the place; punching holes in walls, spreading paint all over the wood floors, tearing doors off the hinges, punching holes in the metal siding. It went from being a nice home to looking like it had been abandoned for a year and used as a meth house. And why? Because we are mean and they deserve a nice place to live, without any responsibility.

This is the society that liberal policies have created. The entitlement class, unappreciative of others; unwilling to work like the rest of us, because they can get more (earn more) by sitting around day drinking and doing drugs, than they could if they actually had to get a job. They believe that working class people have so much and we've gotten it by taking it from them in some way. That's the liberal narrative; the 'rich' got rich by taking it from someone else rather than working hard and earning it.

In the 8 months of renting to them, we got $800 a month, from which we paid electric, propane, water, insurance, maintenance. Let me tell you, they used the propane during the cold months like they weren't paying for it. Now we will spend close to $10 grand to repair the damage they did to get 'even' with us for kicking them out because they wouldn't pay $50 a month. Trust me, I've seen the booze bottles and beer cans, they spent more than $50 a weekend on booze.

And now, we are wary about helping others again. We can't afford it.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments
23Aug/160

Random thoughts and observations

Hillary Funny Motivation

So Hillary gets caught lying once again. She said that all of her emails had been turned over, except for personal emails that had nothing to do with her position as Secretary of State. Now we have approximately 14,900 'new' emails that were recently discovered by the FBI on a series of 7 or 8 discs. The emails might be personal except that FBI Director Comey said that some of the almost 15,000 emails were clearly work related. But the MSM is basically saying nothing to see here, move along. So what she lied? She lied about Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice giving her the idea to use an unsecured server. Both have called her out on that claim but once again, it's not a big story because Donald Trump allegedly said something racist when stopped at Taco Bell and ordered a burrito. It is pathetic that she is still the Democrats' candidate for President. She has lied so many times... but the Dems have perfected the art of lying to the public and getting their votes, so we shouldn't be surprised.

Now Glorious Leader admits the $400 million paid to the Iranian government was a ransom. Well, not quite a ransom it was leverage or there was a contingency. You see, we owed the Iranians their money. It was theirs to begin with and we used the first payment to get the hostages out of captivity. But it wasn't really a ransom. We just said we won't send the money if you don't release the hostages. Sounds completely plausible to me. Obama claims we were going to have to pay the money anyway; but we've held on to it for 37 or 38 years so what's wrong with holding on to it for a while longer?

The MSM is continuing to savage Donald Trump, making up whatever they can to paint him as a racist, bigot, hateful man. After he correctly pointed out that the liberal policies of the Democrats have left the black community in poverty, with below average schools, and above average unemployment, he asked them to vote for him because "what have they got to lose?" What do they have to lose? Trump is likely to propose enterprise zones for urban communities to lure businesses into the areas and create jobs. Seems like they have a lot to gain from voting for Trump. Of course the media focuses on his statement about what do they have to lose and ignore once again the failed policies of the Democrats which have done nothing to improve the lives of blacks or anyone else living in run down urban areas. Have you noticed that the more Trump connects with voters, the more he says things that are right, the meaner and more vile the attacks upon him have become. If he was wrong in his policies, why not argue on the merits?

Speaking of enterprise zones: these areas would lure businesses by offering lower tax rates, low interest rates on loans, loan guarantees, job training programs, lower regulations. These have worked. Remember New York state did this just a couple of years ago and got a lot of businesses to move to rural NY. But the liberals won't tell you how successful that's been in revitalizing the lagging economy outside of the metropolitan areas. Because then others might want to have the same advantages. And the Dems need someone to be dependent upon them for their food, rent, and welfare payments.

And once Donald points out how bad the black communities have it, along comes the MSM and community leaders like Al Sharpton to tell us that things are that bad in black communities. All the racism, bigotry, lack of jobs, police targeting, food deserts, and everything else, isn't so bad after all. Amazing how quickly the plight of black Americans changed when someone correctly pointed out the failed policies of the Democrats.

22Aug/160

The USOC should be thanking Ryan Lochte

olympic-rings1

The USOC decided to get tough on Ryan Lochte and the other U.S. swimmers who made a bad decision and then followed it up by another bad decision. Instead of finally getting tough and showing a back bone, the USOC should be thanking Lochte and giving him a life time position on the U.S. swimming team. Hear me out on this one.

The Rio Olympics were fun to watch, but there were significant problems that NBC covered at first but probably bowed to the pressure from the IOC to quit talking about all the robberies and assaults of athletes and fans that were taking place, not to mention the condition of water, housing, and some venues. Since NBC spends a lot of money on the rights to the games but probably also makes a lot of money, so why kill the proverbial goose.

Despite NBC's efforts to minimize mentions of green water for triathletes, or kayakers having to paddle around a couch on their run, there was still some discussion about the fiasco of having Brazil host the games and all the corruption surrounding the bidding process. Then along comes U.S. swimming's reality star, Ryan Lochte. Ryan had been fairly quiet during these games, for the most part swimming well and keeping his mouth shut about pretty much everything. There wasn't the normal braggadocio about being the best swimmer in the world, forgetting about some guy named Michael Phelps. Ryan hadn't said much about opponents or the host country either. He'd just been swimming and doing a pretty darn good job of that.

Then swimming events are over and like most athletes, he and his teammates decide to cut loose. They go out partying all night and not unusual to have to go to the bathroom. Stop the cab! There's a gas station. Of course the bathroom is locked at 6 a.m., just like in the U.S. And just like in the U.S. a bunch of young, drunk frat brothers decide it's too hard to go inside and ask for a key, let's break it down. But, unlike, in most areas of the U.S. gas stations/convenience stores in the U.S. have armed security guards. Cue the stupidity from the drunks.

To make a long story short, Lochte and friends aren't making good decisions and refuse to pay for the damage. The guards call police but also pull their guns to keep the Americans there. There is no doubt Lochte would have left without paying. But he and his friends gave the guards a good chunk of change to pay for the damage, so by the time the cops got there, it was not a big deal. This should have been a footnote that took all of 2 seconds to talk about, then move on.

But Lochte couldn't keep his mouth shut. He made up or embellished the story to say he was robbed by bad guys posing as cops. He even tried to make himself sound like Jason Bourne, saying that a guard demanded he get to the ground, pointing the gun at Lochte's temple and Lochte acted like it was no big deal. A gun to my head, I'm not scared.

But in the process he embarrassed the Rio Olympic committee and Rio in general by pointing out at least a partial truth about crime in Rio. Perfect. Now NBC, the IOC, the ROC, and everyone else had their distraction. Now all of the pundits could talk about the bad and embarrassing U.S. athletes, giving the viewing public the scandal they so love to watch. The story dominated sports talk and even the mainstream talk shows bringing Mat Lauer to the forefront. For that alone, we should all hate Lochte.

But the USOC and NBC now could ignore the less than desirable conditions of the Olympic Village and Rio in general. The IOC can now ignore calls for reform and continue to rake in payola padding their personal pockets. Which means NBC will continue to pay through the nose for the games and rake in the dough selling the rights. NBC and the USOC should reward Lochte handsomely instead of saying he'll face further discipline.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments
16Aug/160

Who’s really racist?

barack_obama

Milwaukee is being burned to the ground, at least parts of it, while mobs of 'disaffected blacks' are targeting white people and destroying the property of people who had nothing to do with the shooting of a thug. By the way, do you think any of the rioters hesitated after they found out the police officer that shot the nice, God fearing young man was black also? Probably not. But the incident along with Ferguson, Baltimore, and others got me to thinking about the racism narrative pushed upon us by Glorious Leader and the MSM.

Who is really racist? When we see a riot after a police officer shoots a black man, it's black people rioting and screaming about the racist nature of all police officers. Many of the leaders of the black community will talk about the racist nature of America and encourage or at least try to justify the rioting. Liberals and the MSM promote the argument that we are a racist nation. It sells papers and creates voting blocs for the liberals, so it benefits them to push the narrative. But how often do you see real racism in America? I'm talking institutional racism that the left says exists.

How often have you seen a KKK rally, marching down the streets of Washington D.C.? Or any city for that matter? Are minorities being lynched? Hung from trees in public places to send a message to other minorities to stay in their 'place'? Are there still colored only facilities in the south? Whites only restaurants? Not openly and publicly; if there was, you'd be seeing all over the news.

But you do hear about Black Lives Matter calling for the death of white people. You do hear about Al & Jessie and other leaders of the black community saying white folks are getting their comeuppance for all the racist policies of America, going all the way back to the founding of the country.

Cam Newton, the QB of the Carolina Panthers gives an interview to GQ magazine I believe it was; in the interview he says the criticism of him has nothing to do with his race, but is just criticism from fans who follow other teams. He said he believes that having a black QB in the NFL is not a big deal anymore and we've, for the most part gotten over the race issue. He's just being criticized like Aaron Rogers or Mark Sanchez. He gets lambasted by pundits saying he is hurting the cause; that he's afraid to say that America is racist or worse, that he's an Uncle Tom. You see, all black people must agree on this issue, must hold the same opinion or they aren't truly black. Isn't that racist?

Look there is clearly racism in America; it will never be completely eradicated. But it is not institutional. All white people aren't racist, didn't own slaves, don't want to own slaves and really do treat people based upon the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Most black people, brown people, yellow people, red people, etc. do the same. It's the political pundits, politicians, and the MSM that profit by fostering the race issue. They are the ones who look at the color of one's skin and say, "you're black or brown or a woman or LGBT and can't do it on your own. Isn't that the most racist thing you can think?

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments
14Aug/160

The debate takes its next ‘logical’ turn

gay pride

So we've been inundated with the argument that people are not what they are; that is a genetic man might actually be a woman and visa versa, depending solely on how they feel. Thus the argument over which facilities a person can use, those designated for men or women. We won't go into that debate again but now it's beginning to seep into the world of athletics and the Olympics.

Caster Semenya is the top female 800 meter runner in the world. There has been a question about whether or not she was born a woman or a man. She has actually undergone testing to try and determine whether or not she is a man or woman. The results of that testing, which is imperfect, found that she had a high level of testosterone and she was required to take estrogen shots to bring those chemical levels more in line with a genetically born woman. Again, according to imperfect science. But for the Olympics, because the testing is imperfect, she won't have to take those shots and can run at her previous level or so it's thought.

But that brings up the question about gender identity. Can a man who feels like a woman compete in women's sports? Remember Renee Richards? He had a sex change to become a woman and competed on the women's professional tennis tour for years. That lead to the women's tour and the women's golf tour to adopt language that required a competitor to be born as a woman. In today's world, is that acceptable? It's a question that will make a liberal's head explode because it pits competing protected groups against each other.

First, women are a protected class, one of the original protected classes. In fact, women's sports were created to provide a field of competition that would let them compete against each other rather than have to compete with men. In a liberal's mind, they believe that men and women should not be kept separate in most instances, except for sport. Simply, women cannot compete against men in almost any sports contest that requires physical effort. Science has proven that physically men and women are different, we have different roles to fill according to God or nature and thus our bodies are different. Men are stronger and faster. Studies show that on average men perform about 12% better in physical sports than women do; based upon records and average performance of competitors.

Now what happens if a person decides that he identifies as a woman and wants to compete as a woman? Liberals will initially tell you that the man should be allowed to identify as a woman and use facilities or apply for jobs or shop as a woman. But put 'xe' into a race or tennis match or basketball court with genetically born women and what happens? Does 'xe' have an unfair advantage. Kate Fagan from ESPN has a tough time with this question and the logical end, that is testing to protect women's sports from genetically born men.

Her solution is to say that it's a solution without a problem. There isn't a problem with men pretending to be women in order to compete in women's sports. But there is because of Semenya. And it will become a problem soon given the way society is headed in general. Liberals won't be able to handle it because they want to treat these groups as protected classes and now those protected classes are competing against each other for 'rights'. So Fagan does what liberals do when confronted with the logical outcome of their previous efforts, she punts.

If you truly want to be equal in all areas, then women should be competing with men. Period. But that's not what liberals really want, true equality. They want unequal treatment in order to give more opportunity to minorities or classes of citizens that have been discriminated against. The other solution is to let men compete in women's events. We have had women compete in men's events; Annika Sorenstam competed in the PGA for a short time. She did OK but the best women's golfer of all time was just barely above average competing against men.

The solution is to keep the sexes separate when it comes to the Olympics, professional or amateur sports and it should be a requirement that you be born as a genetic female to compete in women's sports. But it's fun to watch the liberals struggle with the unintended consequences of their actions.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments
11Aug/160

No Ganga smoking here…

marijuana

I missed the show, but Dan Lebatard, the biggest gasbag in the world, was talking about a program concerning marijuana use in the NFL. The guests included former NFL RB Ricky Williams among others. Williams is now an advocate for legalization of marijuana and the topic has been quite prominent in NFL circles recently. Marijuana is currently on the banned substances list for NFL players and suspensions for violating that ban are fairly common.

Williams made a couple of claims related to his career and marijuana use that Lebatard said were inarguable. First, Williams claimed that if marijuana had not been on the banned list, he would have been in the Hall of Fame. Let's see, he was suspended several times because of drug use; he spent a year, during the prime of his career, in Indian living in a tent and smoking Mary Jane, to contemplate life. Yes he had a good career, but HOF? I never thought he was that good. Maybe but it's not inarguable.

He also claimed, as do many NFL players and citizens at large, that marijuana can be used for pain management. I was listening to 2 leading experts in the field of pain management, who are very aware of the use and effect of marijuana's main ingredient, THC. One is an advocate for legalizing all marijuana use, one is not. Both agreed that there is not one credible study that shows THC or marijuana can be used to control acute pain. Not one. Long term pain management is a different story and can reduce the effect of pain since it depresses the senses. But for acute pain, no evidence whatsoever. More clinical, controlled studies need to be done, but so far none have shown a short term pain management benefit. Inarguable? I think it's very arguable.

Let's assume THC could be used for acute pain management; both doctors thought that liquid THC would be more effective as it could be used as a topical solution and it gets to the system and stays there better than smoking Plus both agreed that smoking marijuana has other, very negative effects upon health, mainly ingesting unfiltered smoke into the lungs, not much different than smoking unfiltered cigarettes.

So if Ricky really believed what he says about pain relief, wouldn't you chose to use liquid THC? Oh and as an aside, insurance industry statistics along with government stats show that recreational and medical use of marijuana are increasingly contributing factors in causing auto accidents. In fact, some companies are actually considering legal marijuana as a rating factor when determining premiums.

11Aug/160

Good for Lilly! Typical liberal response

olympic-rings1

The Olympics have long been touted as a way to bring countries together, foster friendship and understanding. For the most part, that's been a real part of the experience. Heck just ask Trojan, they provide a hundred thousand condoms for the athletes; I'd say a lot of people are coming together. But, in sport, in any competition, there are rivalries, there are also cheaters. Once again, this Olympics has pitted the U.S. v. Russia.

Most of Russia's team was banned by the IOC after it became apparent that the Russian government was fostering an atmosphere of cheating, specifically encouraging athletes to use performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) which are banned. Not all of the Russian athletes were banned from the Olympics even though they had tested positive for PEDs. Yulia Efimova is a swimmer who had been banned from competition twice after testing positive for PED use. She appealed a ban from the Olympics and won her appeal and was able to compete starting with the 100 meter breast stroke.

Efimova won her semi-final heat in that event and quickly raised her index finger to say she was #1. U.S. swimmer and world record holder Lily King was in the waiting area getting ready for her semi-final heat. She saw Efimova's claim of being #1 and quickly wagged her finger, no. That was caught on camera and provided a little intrigue to the race. After winning her heat, King raised her finger and said she was #1. The rivalry has now bubbled to the surface.

As the two racers came to the starting blocks for the final, King stared down Efimova. She did not take her gaze from her competitor while Efimova wouldn't or couldn't look at King. King of course won the gold and gave the #1 sign and wagged her finger again. She then swam past Efimova without acknowledging her 2nd place finish and congratulated her fellow American for getting bronze.

As King exited the pool Michelle Tafoya asked her about the finger wagging and Efimova. King was unapologetic and took it a step further, telling Tafoya that she won that race for all the clean swimmers; all the athletes who do it the right way and train hard without using banned drugs. It was a clear shot at Efimova. She even called out Efimova at the post race press conference. With most Americans, it was wildly popular; calling out a cheater and a Russian cheater to boot. USA! USA! USA!

But with the liberal crowd, King was unsportsmanlike. King was being mean and giving the U.S. a bad name. Really? Russia was systematically cheating. King called out a cheater. What is wrong with that? In the liberal mind, everything. You see liberals always take the side of the cheater, the bully, the criminal, while trying to claim they are victims or misunderstood. Also while claiming to be on the side of the victim. Just look how they protected Mike Brown, Muslim terrorists, or Trayvon Martin.

Even Hillary got in a shot: she personally called U.S. fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, the first U.S. woman to wear a hijab in Olympic competition. Wow, what a barrier to break, she must have faced such discrimination on her long tough journey to the Olympics. Muslim women from around the world have competed in the Olympics for years, wearing a hijab. But asked if she would call and congratulate anyone else on their gold medal wins, versus Muhammad who got beaten badly in the first round, Hillary said no. A female athlete was the first American to win a gold this year, but she didn't deserve a call. King certainly didn't as Hillary inferred that King didn't represent the spirit of the Olympics or America by displaying such acts of poor sportsmanship. It's not who we are as a country.

Wrong lady, it's exactly who we are and who we should be. Rivalries are good for sports, it drives competitors to get better; it creates interest and excitement, yes even feelings of patriotism. Competition makes people better in all walks of life. It can bring out the best of us, remember Luz Long helping Jesse Owens in the broad jump? Yes it can bring out the worst of people, like PED users. And shouldn't we call out cheaters when we see them? Shouldn't we make a statement that is loud and clear that we don't tolerate cheaters? Not according to liberals. And that is one of the reasons we are still electing the same politicians to office or considering a liar and a cheater for President. Because pointing out the cheaters is not politically correct.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments
10Aug/160

It just amazes me….

pondering-man

I would like to be able to figure it out; in fact I'm sure that someone with an interest in psychology or psychiatry has done a study but I haven't seen it. What I'm interested in is the thought process behind how people justify supporting a politician they know is crooked, they know has lied, they know has cheated; yet they rationalize their ongoing support. This is apparent so much during Presidential campaigns and I had two experiences recently that just dumbfounded me.

I tuned in to a talk show on the radio and just caught the last 3-4 minutes of a discussion between a representative of the Democrat party and one from the Republican party. The topic was the use of executive orders and/or executive memos to essentially bypass the legislative process and move us towards the rule of man as opposed to the rule of law. The liberal guest was speaking in tongues as most spokespeople are prone to do; she said that she understood why people were so leery of Glorious Leader's use of executive orders to accomplish his agenda. She too was not entirely comfortable with the practice but, of course there's always a 'but', many of the orders he signed were for a good reason. The order 'cut the red tape & politicizing' of the legislative process and helped real people.

Her point was that, hey, even though it's a highly questionable practice, if it accomplishes a good end, the means are justified. Which of course begs a couple of questions: who decides if the goal that is achieved is good or not? Clearly someone, often a lot of people, are going to oppose the 'accomplishment' of the order/memo. What if Trump were President and used executive orders to build the wall and deport illegal aliens? A very significant portion of the U.S. population would support him but the left side of the aisle would likely oppose his action. Now, we could argue that he is just emphasizing enforcement of existing laws and not creating new laws or regulations but I doubt that would make a difference to his opponents. My point of course is that not everyone agrees with all the memos.

But she justified the use of executive memos in some cases; those with which she agreed. Which means she has no principles. She supports the rule of man, as long as she agrees with the 'man' in power.

The second incident occurred at a local store. I was standing in line when the customer in front of me asked the clerk if he was going to vote the "right way". His right way was to vote for Hillary. Of course said the clerk, because Trump will deport all the Hispanics in America and "I'm Mexican, but got my citizenship 3 years ago." Of course that is not what Trump said but that's another column. The customer said something to the effect that Trump was crazy and even a liar and cheater like Hillary was better than Trump. You see she was just fleecing the rich guys and big companies and if she had to lie to do it, then so bet it. Really? I wonder if he would mind being lied to in order to achieve a justifiable end? Maybe I could lie to him about the price of the items he was buying if that extra money was given to a poor family? Don't we all want to help poor families? I would bet lots of money that he wouldn't like being fleeced no matter how laudable the goal.

But both of these incidents just show that without principles, we have moved toward the rule of man. I don't care (those of you that have read this blog or listened to the radio show know this to be true) about the letter behind your name; if you are unethical, a liar, a promise breaker, a manipulator; I don't support that part of your persona. I have held Mitch McConnell, George Bush and other Republicans to the same standard as Hillary, Obama, and other liberals.

Until the majority of us begin holding politicians and bureaucrats accountable no matter what party they represent, we will continue to move towards the rule of man and continue to have the corruption in politics that has unfortunately been the norm for the last 50 years.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments
8Aug/160

Let’s laugh a little

mickey-mouse-face

Some Mondays are harder to deal with than others and this seems like one that needs a bit of a pick me up. So let's laugh a bit, even if it's at someone else's expense; I'm sure they've laughed at us before.

Things parents kept from their kids:

Regina - don't tell them that's not their original goldfish in the bowl. In fact, it's number 3. The other two are on a long trip through the sewer.

Ryan - don't tell the kids, but I really don't know what I'm doing.

Chris - I give them chores because I don't want to do them anymore.

Nora - my kids owe their very existence to my acts of impulsiveness, irresponsibility, and poor judgment.

Cathy - everything I tell them not to do, I did when I was their age.

I always steal a couple of nuggets out of their Happy Meals on the way home; kids can't do math.

Al - someday your boss isn't going to give you a participation medal

Andrew - I spent their allowance on whiskey

CK - I keep ice cream in a box labeled frozen peas.

Jason - I took some money out of their piggy bank

Mom - I'm counting down the seconds until school starts while telling them I'll miss them

Ian - mom and I have snacks; and we're not sharing

Jenny - the wifi isn't down, I turned it off to spend time with them.

Filed under: Funny Stuff No Comments
4Aug/161

Quick hits – one star hotels edition

redneck

I've been traveling a bit more recently and have been using some of those discount hotel websites. Just an aside, Trivago advertises that they search all the discount hotel sites, because not all sites get the same price for the exact same hotel room. So I tried them and guess what, all the different sites had the same exact price for 99% of the hotels retuned for my search. But that's another story.
One of the sites has or had a tag line that you could get a 4 star hotel for a 1 star price. But you know what happens when you get a 4 star hotel for a 1 star price? You get a lot of 1 star guests at the 4 star hotel. You know the rednecks that bring the whole family, 12 people staying in one room; Mom, dad, grandma & grandpa, 8 kids. All of them at the pool at the same time, with a buffet set up on the table, Cheetos, Doritos, dips, cookies, cakes, sodas, Ho-Hos, every snack food known to man. More perch bellies than a hog farm. Is that a dog swimming in the pool? Yep, that's our dog and we paid good money for that room, he's going to swim too. I pay my taxes. Yeah, sales tax maybe. And they've used all the towels provided by the hotel for the pool. 52 towels laying around the deck. 'Merica!

I was traveling across Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and New Mexico this week. I saw a town somewhere along the way called 'Mountain Valley'. Um, isn't that a bit redundant in a way? That's not the word I'm looking for but in order to have a valley, don't you have to have mountains? Otherwise that low lying area is a plain. The dictionary definition is a low lying area between mountains or hills. Just wondering.

We always hear about studies that find all kinds of germs and nasty stuff on the handles public restroom doors. But what do you do? You wash your hands and throw the towel away and have to touch the door handle to get out. It's hard to make the door an outward opening door for obvious reasons. But I have a solution. Put trash cans in the hall right outside of the restroom door. That way, you take the paper towel you were using to dry your hands, grab the door handle using the paper towel as a barrier, then throw it away as you walk out of the restroom. You're welcome.

If your single, you probably have some married friends trying to set you up with a date. You can really tell what your friends think of you by the quality of the person they match with you. If you see your date and think, man, not even at closing time, you know they don't think much of your personality.

Across Texas some of the programmable road signs carried the message, "468 fatalities this year in auto accidents in TX. 59% were unbuckled." I wasn't sure exactly what message they were trying to relay to motorists. I'm pretty sure they were saying, you have a better chance of surviving an auto accident if you are wearing your seat belt. I took it a step further. Almost 6 out of 10 people who were killed weren't using seat belts which means they might not have been the smartest people on the roads. Doesn't that mean we are cleaning the gene pool? Natural selection is working out and the species is becoming smarter for it. I know, some of you think I'm being insensitive to the surviving family members but deep down, they know their dead relative was a moron.

Filed under: Funny Stuff 1 Comment