My Exit Strategy.....

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about a lot of things. I have possibly found something good in someone in Arizona, who is trying to go to Nevada. I have been considering Nevada for a long time anyway, but have not been able to save the money to relocate. I actually have not even been able to repay money borrowed to stay in business. It is time to cut my losses and run.

I should have seen this coming. In 2006, I had a reasonable amount of money saved. I burned through a third of that in six months, at which point I barely had enough to replace my taxi when it died. Since then, I have gone to having to borrow money to keep insurance on the taxi, to uncertainty I will even be able to make renewal.

Since I came back from my trip to Arizona, it is becoming obvious that I will never be able to leave as long as I keep trying to run my business.

Rental car companies are running specials for $12-$15 per day. UVa sends its buses to the airport to pick students up for free. City buses are reducing their fares and are also running a FREE trolley. How can I compete with free?

There are also two shuttle buses, running illegally so far as I know, because that they do not have commercial for-hire license plates, running large groups around town for $7 a person.

Even though state regulations state that a vehicle insured and registered as a taxicab cannot legally carry more than 6 passengers excluding the driver, there are at least 4 limos that carry from 9-12 passengers on a regular basis operating as taxicabs. I cannot compete with companies that don't do it legally. I have a quote for insurance renewal for $3,600 yearly premium. Why should I spend the money to do it legally when others aren't and are getting away with it?

Not only that, but I am up against two large companies with 50 cars each that rob their drivers blind. Furthermore, these idiots quote low-ball prices and then don't show up to pick their customers up.

Of course, the customer expects me to honor someone else's price, and gets pissed off that I don't. Then they either bitch about what I charge them or they're actually stupid enough to call another taxi and wait 20-30 minutes to save maybe $10-15.

All this really does is confuse customers to the point they don't understand what's fair and what isn't. People can say what they want about pricing myself out of business, as some idiots like to say, but I have noticed you either work a lot for a little money in this business or you work a little for a little money. What's the point? I stopped having fun running my business the moment people started trying to tell me how to run it.

Which brings me to yet another up-and-coming problem. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. An attempt is being made at starting a taxicab association, which has all the earmarks of being a union. Unions have never been anything but trouble in the first place.

Even though neither the city nor the airport is regulating meter rates, these idiots want to establish a common rate, and elect representatives to "deal with the airport". The airport is a private entity, and has already put it in writing and voiced its clause in the ground transportation agreement that it reserves the right to revoke permits and use a primary provider -- any time they choose.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that all these idiots are going to do is piss off the airport authority into telling us all to take a hike, and I will NOT be told how to run MY business when I am the one paying the bills.

I have therefore decided to sell my business by the end of my insurance term next month and go back to delivery or something. It's really hard to come to this decision, but I can't save any money aside the way things are right now. I could always do that delivering.

At least delivering food won't get me accused of being a crook for making less than minimum wage. I know that my selling out and going away is what the big companies want, but I see a time coming when I may go under anyway and walk away with nothing. Better to cash out while I can and at least leave with SOMETHING.

In closing of this decision, I have a few things to say to the general public..... As you idiots are part of the reason for the financial crisis this country is in. No one wants to spend money because the economy is bad, but the economy is bad BECAUSE NO ONE IS SPENDING MONEY!

So, I thank you for refusing service over a few dollars price difference. There is always a difference between ordering a hamburger and filet mignon. If the goods or services you receive are better or more convenient than another company, you should expect to pay a little more.

However, despite my efforts to provide better service, a nicer cab, and a better overall experience, it is quite clear that most patrons will ride a Sherman tank if you can get them there cheaper.

I also thank you for perpetuating a bad economy by choosing to spend your money with big businesses instead of smaller ones that need your business so much more. Remember, that bigger company you choose was once a small one too.

More food for thought -- So many are enraged with the Supreme Court decision that corporations can make as many political contributions they want, and in any amount they want. This basically spells it out that the federal government is for sale to the highest bidder, and many people say that they are angered by this. But YOU are empowering this by not choosing small business! And usually over a few dollars. You're doing it to yourselves.

Part of the reason smaller businesses are not always around to serve you is because you are not using them until the bigger businesses are too busy to serve you quickly. So have fun supporting corporate greed, you sell out the little guy every time you do it.

Whether You Did "Cash For Clunkers" Or Not, You Should See This........

Okay, so for all the people who think Obama is such a great president, and "Cash For Clunkers" was such a great program...... Wait and read this entire posting before you start calling me a Communist, anti-American, or whatever else comes to mind.

I am not anti-anything except sheer STUPIDITY. Calling a vehicle a "clunker" simply because it gets 18 mpg or less is exactly that. A vehicle with sub-20s fuel economy is not a "clunker", it is a gas-guzzler. This is part of what we pay gasoline tax for.

The main guidelines were fuel economy of 18 mpg or less, less than 25 years old, and registered for a year, which is completely too broad of a definition.

Those who took unfair advantage of this program by turning in vehicles less than 10 years old because they met the fuel economy requirement were just plain selfish and stupid, especially those who unloaded these vehicles when they were worth more as a trade-in than they received. But I don't just blame these people. I blame the government for being stupid enough to allow it to happen.

I say selfish because a lot of people were left out in the cold that had REAL "clunkers", like my friend who had a '92 Corsica with 190k+ on it, and was falling apart. In some respects, it WAS a "clunker". But it didn't qualify because its original fuel economy rating was over 20. Never mind that it got perhaps 18 while she had it (it blew up a couple weeks later).

Thousands of perfectly good vehicles (some less than 10 years old) were turned in as "clunkers" under this program, and whether their owners knew or not (or were told), dealers were required to destroy the engines in these so-called "clunkers" by pouring sodium silicate solution into the engine and running it at speed until it seized, rendering the engine and all of its internal parts worthless. This was required regardless of mileage and age. Even on a 2000 with 58,000 miles! This is MADNESS!





But surprisingly enough, the vehicle had to be driven in. If it had to be towed, it was not eligible. Why did it matter if the engine was to be destroyed anyway? Hmm, doesn't sound like this really is about helping those with REAL "clunkers". Not to mention the fact that this program was far more complicated than an average trade-in.....





And what about the dealers who still have not been paid?





This program was supposedly designed to help the car dealers, which was supposed to in turn help the car manufacturers, therefore it really shouldn't have mattered what you were trading or what you were buying. It also should not have mandated destroying what was being traded. Instead, it became a misguided media circus, and the program officially became something it was not.

I have to give Obama this, it SEEMS like he is trying, and it is nice to see a President trying to take care of our OWN for a change, instead of trying to police the rest of the world, but this program was not very well thought out.

First off, this program should have been limited to vehicles between 10 and 20 years old, currently getting less than 85% of their rated fuel economy, and valued at no more than $4500. If a vehicle was under 10 years old, still got its advertised fuel economy, and/or was worth more than $4500, it should not have qualified for this program. PERIOD.

Okay, you're asking yourself, "This guy talks a lot about the problem, without offering a solution." I DO offer a solution. Here are my thoughts on how it should have been handled from the beginning.

First, the billions given GM in bailout money should have been stipulated to restructure not only the automaker (I am a GM fan myself), but also its position in the marketplace and perhaps even the marketplace itself. Allow me to explain.

Everyone is in an uproar about the United States' dependency on foreign oil, emissions, and the economy. I blame big oil for part of the recession we are in. Greedy, selfish CEOs that make too much money already began grabbing at straws last year, even as crude oil prices began to drop. If $4.00 per gallon was really necessary to make a profit, why did big oil report record profits last year?

While I am still on the fence as to whether oil-based fuels such as gasoline and diesel really harm the environment in and of themselves, Compressed Natural Gas has been a viable alternative to gasoline and diesel fuel for years. Big oil has lobbied vehemently against it, because it feels threatened.

Therefore, CNG has been prevented from having an equal place on the market, even though Ford, GM, and Honda have all offered cars and/or trucks powered by CNG for quite some time! E85 is a misguided step in the right direction, as it has been shown to pollute in ways that gasoline and diesel do not.

Compressors are available for home natural gas lines that enable you to fill a CNG vehicle at home for as little as $1.60 per gallon. Some people might say, "Why didn't you sign up for CHANGE.ORG and tell them about CNG?" I DID! Obviously, they weren't listening. I guess it made too much sense.

Honda has offered the Civic in a CNG version, and GM offered the Cavalier and several models of pickups as CNG fleet vehicles. Ford has offered CNG Contours and Crown Victorias for quite some time. As they are nearly identical mechanically to my Grand Marquis, I looked into scavenging a totalled CNG Vic to convert my Grand Marquis. The cost of conversion would have run somewhere around $3500.

The two main drawbacks are that the tanks take up the bulk of luggage space, and must be recertified / replaced every so often, and also the relatively limited availabilty of fuel.

This is not because we don't have natural gas reserves to use. It is because big oil has blocked it at every turn! What big oil is too stupid to realize, is that if their executives would realize that they don't need to make $5,000,000 a year, and not think only of themselves rather than the environment and the consumer, they would survive just fine. My theory is this:

Some of GM's billion-dollar bailout should have been stipulated to convert all vehicles on GM franchise dealer lots to CNG, and begin building more models of CNG vehicles. Another part should have been stipulated to initiate a buy-back / upgrade program for interested owners.

10% of GM's bailout ($5 billion) could have been used to convert up to 1,000,000 unsold new vehicles to CNG.

Another 20% could have bought back up to another 1,000,000 used vehicles and converted them to CNG. They could then be refurbished and sold as recertified used vehicles, reclaiming the money spent, with a small profit.

GM dealers and their service department techs alike would have been busy, (in a constructive way) and everyone would have won in the end. Obama's economic package could have then been used to expand CNG availability sufficiently to allow more widespread use.

And what would 2,000,000 clean fuel vehicles do? When people can drive vehicles that burn clean fuel for less, they will save money. The money saved will enable more people to go more places and do more things they want to do, thereby helping the economy in a bigger way as more businesses make money. Some people who have stopped driving because of high fuel prices might even start again.

Also, how much would 2,000,000 clean fuel vehicles with an average fuel economy of 25 miles per gallon, driven 25,500 miles per year, save in gasoline and diesel? 2,000,000 vehicles multiplied by 25,500 miles per vehicle, comes to almost 18 billion miles per year.

18 billion miles divided by 25 miles per gallon comes to 714 million gallons of fuel. Oh, wait, they burn CNG! This would save 714 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel per year!

And as for GM? They would have the CNG vehicle market nearly cornered until other manufacturers caught up.

Big oil would still survive if they aren't greedy. We will still need motor oil, transmission and axle lubricants, and other automotive necessities. And if more people are going more places and doing more things, big oil can still make money from what is still necessary. The bulk of the big oil community is obscenely overpaid and wasteful.

All that Cash For Clunkers really did that this plan would not, is destroy perfectly good vehicles. This plan would have sold new vehicles, allowed older vehicles to join the clean fuel movement, and kept dealers and manufacturers busy.

If all this was not feasibile, at the very least, owners of REAL "clunkers" (see MY definition above) should have been allowed a chance to trade for the perfectly good vehicles that were instead destroyed. I might also mention that many vehicles that should have qualified for this program actually DIDN'T because of the fact that the program goes by the original manufacturer's fuel mileage estimates, NOT what the vehicle in question ACTUALLY gets.

The government mandated destroying hundreds of thousands of perfectly good vehicles, while leaving those who really could have benefited from this program out in the cold. But it doesn't stop there.

The program claims to have destroyed 700,000 vehicles. It would take 70,000 fully loaded car carrier semis, which get about 4-6 miles per gallon of diesel fuel, to haul these vehicles to the scrapyard. Not to mention there are those less fortunate who now might not be able to afford a car at all, because some of these cars were not worth $4500, but might have provided transportation to work for a low-income family man.





Many of the vehicles turned in as clunkers were not even 10 years old. Many more had nothing wrong with them whatsoever, they only met the fuel economy requirement.





Charities have reported donations being cancelled to be turned in for Cash For Clunkers. Shame on anyone who did that! You knew the rated fuel economy when you bought the vehicle, so don't ditch it needlessly.

If you don't want it anymore, donate it to charity and get a tax write-off for the full value of the vehicle while helping those less fortunate, instead of being stupid. Or trade it in as you would normally. Don't cheat people who needed help more than you do.





Now, I have done a little simple math to show just how poorly executed this program was. My S-10 Blazer gets 19 miles per gallon average, and it qualified, but I will explain why I didn't buy into "Cash For Clunkers".

I am going to assume that the average vehicle can accumulate 255,000 miles in a 20-year life span, much like my Blazer (which is PAID FOR). That comes to 25,500 miles per year, which is actually three times what most people drive. That's okay, because that leaves A LOT of wiggle room. With improved fuel economy, the more you drive, the more you save on gas, right?

255,000 miles divided by 19 miles per gallon = 13,421 gallons of fuel, times $2.50 per gallon = $33,552.63 over ten years. $33,552.63 divided by 10 years is $3,355.26 per year in fuel.

255,000 miles divided by 38 miles per gallon = 6,710.53 gallons of fuel, times $2.50 per gallon = $16,776.32 over ten years. $16,776.32 divided by 10 years is $1,677.63 per year in fuel.

Now, $3,355.26 minus $1,677.63 = $1,677.63 saved in fuel per year. $1,677.63 divided by 12 months = $139.80 per month fuel savings, or about 56 gallons of fuel per month per vehicle.

I don't know of a single car sold new in America that costs less than $140 a month with full-coverage insurance. Most payments are at least $300-400! Now who in their right mind would get rid of a perfectly good vehicle that's paid for to spend another $100-150 a month in payments and full-coverage insurance? This is of course, assuming that everyone traded a 19 mpg vehicle for a 38 mpg vehicle, which is not realistic.

That's right, America!!! Many of you gave up perfectly good, paid-off vehicles to be destroyed so that you could buy cars you might not be able to afford in a year, because it's NOT saving you any money! What you save in gas, you spend anyway on the payment! And I've seen no proof either that your old vehicle was hurting the environment, or that your new one is helping it! I've seen little evidence of REAL "clunkers" being destroyed through this! Are we feeling stupid yet, America?

More food for thought -- 56 gallons per month multiplied by 700,000 vehicles comes to 39,200,000 gallons of fuel saved per month, which comes to 470,400,000 gallons saved per year. But this is assuming everyone more than doubled their gas mileage. The CNG plan realistically saves 714 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel per year and would have helped the economy more in the long run.

As for those who scrapped perfectly good vehicles for this program, SHAME ON YOU! Especially those who got less than book value for the vehicle. I hope everyone that "clunkered" perfectly good vehicles like the ones in the videos below got a lemon out of the deal.

I also hope, and can almost guarantee, that with our continuing recession, at least a few of you idiots will be forced under duress to sell your new car when you are out of work. Businesses are still failing in this country every day.

And if you think you got $4,500 off your new car? Think again. If you don't have to claim the rebate as income on your taxes next year, your taxes are going up to pay for the rebate you got on your new car. Many noble ideas are simply stupid in execution. Call me what you will. I don't care what anyone thinks.

You wanted CHANGE, America?!!! You got it! But at what cost?

The buyers lose because they are in debt for a vehicle that they didn't necessarily NEED.

Owners of REAL "clunkers" lose because they were left out in the cold.

Dealers lose because they are not being paid for the vehicles.

The working poor lose because they will no longer be able to afford a good vehicle or parts to fix the ones they have, once used vehicle and parts prices go up from 700,000 perfectly good used vehicles being destroyed.

The environment loses because more emissions are generated scrapping and disposing of these vehicles than were generated by the vehicles themselves, or those that replaced them.








Every time a good idea comes along, the government comes along with 50 ways on how and why they want to screw it up. Nothing ever gets done in the interest of the people in this country because the government takes six months to six years trying to figure out how to make money off of doing what they are already collecting tax revenue for. The government sells the working class of this country out to Jose Illegal every day. It's not bad enough that Jose Illegal can get amnesty (due to further government stupidity) by knocking up his girlfriend and dropping an "anchor baby", so then he takes a job that Joe Legal could have had, for half of what Joe Legal needs simply to live and pay his taxes.

No. The government has to go further by giving Jose Illegal all the benefits provided by those taxes. Undocumented (and therefore untaxed) under-the table income allows Jose Illegal to get welfare, housing assistance, government-sponsored lunches for his anchor-baby once they begin school, and all the other wonderful benefits that Joe Legal makes too much money to receive. I'm not racist in any way, but if you want to go to another country to work, do it legally, and don't expect anyone to speak your native language, you are not at home anymore.

I might also add that most of these nice new cars come equipped with OnStar or something of the like. Guess what? If they want to, the government can now spy on you in your car! Better yet, watch "Demolition Man" for a demonstration of what too much government control can lead to.

They can also track your vehicle and shut it down any time they want! Under the guise of preventing dangerous pursuits when vehicles are stolen.





Here's a scary thought -- What's to stop the onboard GPS for these things from reporting your driving habits and travel speed to law enforcement? Remember, any government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

Though this was not really about emissions, let's move right along to the emissions argument. More emissions are generated by scrapping these older vehicles and building new ones than the old ones and new ones combined could generate for a long time.

I did a paper in college in 1999 on so-called "anti-clunker" legislation, and my research found a study indicating that 98% of so-called greenhouse emissions came from industry such as power plants, textile mills, and the like. It went on to state that every motorized vehicle in the United States as of 1998 could be on the road and running at the same time, and would still be eclipsed by industry.

The effect, if any, was caused by the use of leaded fuels, of which use was ceased nearly 40 years ago. However, many government eggheads cry "CFCs" and "hydrocarbons".

CFCs are found in many aerosol-sprayed products, such as hairspray. They are also found in certain refrigerants, such as R-22, R-12, and others. R-12 has not been used in automotive air-conditioning for almost 14 years.

Hydrocarbons, for the uninformed, are basically unburned fuel or vapors from standing petroleum fuels. Have a look at what I learned in researching my college paper years ago.

Vehicle emissions are controlled by several systems:

1) Electronically monitored and managed fuel injection. A controller monitors and precisely meters the fuel-air mixture the engine receives, keeping it at a ratio of 14.7:1. This ensures a proper burn with virtually no unburned fuel leaving the engine. Most cars have had this since 1981. ALL of them have had it since the early-90s!

2) Evaporative emissions to control gasoline vapors. A separate vacuum system purges these hydrocarbons into the engine to be burned. Therefore, emissions from standing fuel in the tank are negligible. I believe most cars have had this since the early 70s.

3) Recirculation of exhaust gases. A vacuum or electronically controlled valve routes exhaust gases into the engine's intake to be reburned. Most cars have had this since the mid-70s. Some run clean enough that they are not required.

4) Catalysts. Yes, that rotten egg smell you get around some cars from time to time. A catalytic converter is, at its basics, a filter made of platinum and other metals, or ceramics, and uses exhaust gases to superheat the catalyst, which in turn burns any hydrocarbons or other non-solid emissions in the exhaust.

With these four systems, how can any car really pollute more than necessary? It seems to me with all these systems controlling emissions, the only emission should be carbon monoxide. Well, gee, I think that's a basic byproduct of fire, which is inevitable!

Many fine examples follow of just how retarded this program really was, and how stupid some of the participating buyers are....... Feel free to throw up. I know I did.

Pay close attention to how well these engines run before they finally accept their forced suicides. One ran for over 40 minutes! NONE of the vehicles in this lineup were known to have ANY mechanical problems WHATSOEVER. I thought this program was for "clunkers"?

I heartfeltly thank all the dealership employees that posted the embedded videos of this madness. You are true patriots, exposing the stupidity of our government and the stupid, selfish people who took unnecessary advantage of this program.

What is our government thinking by taking perfectly good vehicles like this Ford Taurus SHO off the road? It may have had 220,000 miles, but as long as it took to die, I know full well this car got better than 18 miles per gallon average. Oh, and by the way, it took SIX DOSES of the sodium silicate to kill it. No kidding! Watch all six videos of this car by advancing to the next.





A perfectly good vehicle that could have transported a low-income family.....





Perfectly good pickup with many miles of service left.





Can someone tell me how this POSSIBLY qualified as a clunker? I know it had to have done better than 18 miles per gallon....





And some people just don't know where to advertise a classic for sale..... Dee-dee-dee!!!!





Another one that had lots of life left in it.....





The Crown Vic on the right could have made an excellent car for a low-income family.... the truck could have served a working man well.





Another waste of a perfectly good vehicle.... Way to go, Uncle Sam!!!





Okay, this one had a lot of miles, granted. But who says high mileage means it's a clunker? Again, a waste of a perfectly good vehicle that could have provided transportation for the less fortunate.





A waste of yet another perfectly good vehicle that could have carried a low-income family to and from work, home, school......





Perfectly good low-mileage work truck being destroyed.





This one made me extremely angry. It could have made a nice taxicab. Hmmm, so THAT'S why I can't buy another Crown Vic or Marquis for under $3000!!!! A '98 with 102k on it, if I heard right. My '95 has 227k on it and still runs fine! And for those who say I should get something more fuel-efficient for a taxi, you obviously know nothing about the taxi business. Are you sure you don't feel stupid yet, America? Wait, there's more!!!!





Two for the price of one. Again, both of these trucks could have provided someone less fortunate with reliable transportation. Instead the engines were seized with sodium sililcate.





This one was just mind-reeling. This car didn't even have 5,000 miles!!! Yet another waste of a perfectly good car that could have been transportation for the less fortunate.





A 79,000 mile 98 Cadillac Deville is a CLUNKER?!!! Are you SERIOUS?!!





58,000 original miles. Only an IDIOT scraps a vehicle with 58,000 miles on it, people! It was likely worth more than $3,500 - $4,500!!!





Somewhere, a farmer, contractor, or low-income family could have used this truck.





Yes, this car looks rough. But again, it ran fine until the engine was destroyed by Cash For Clunkers. Another fine example of perfectly good car that ran fine and could have been transportation for a low-income family.





Fully loaded Ford Expedition. Yes, it doesn't get much gas mileage, but this vehicle was probably worth more than $4,500 as a trade-in!





Another perfectly good car destroyed that could have been low-income working class transportation.





Maybe we could learn a thing or two from this F-150 truck. It gave one final middle finger to the program by attempting to kill its executioners.....





Waste of another perfectly good Blazer.





As well as this Tahoe ran before its forced suicide, I seriously doubt it was on its last leg. Clunker, indeed!





A BMW 735i?!!! This is just ridiculous. I know full well this car was worth more than $3,500 - $4,500 as a trade-in.





Another example of lots of service life left, that could have provided transportation to a low-income, working class family.





I think whoever turned this next car as a clunker was just plain stupid. Nice vehicles like this are donated to charitable foundations all the time to be auctioned off to help those less fortunate, and the donor gets a tax write-off equal to the value of the car. Are you SURE we're not feeling stupid yet, America?





I say it again. WHOEVER TURNED THE LAST CAR IN IS AN IDIOT!

Was this 2003 Explorer REALLY a clunker? I don't think so.....





You can't tell me this car wasn't worth more than $3,500 - $4,500 trade-in.





A true testament to Mopar toughness, this van ran for over 40 minutes before it finally died, and even then it had to be driven!!!!





This one angered me even more, because it shows at least three Chevy Astro and GMC Safari vans, I have been searching high and low for one in order to replace my current taxi! I have not been able to find one locally, because at least a dozen of these vans were turned in locally for THIS STUPID PROGRAM!





So, YES, this has already affected me on a personal level. Why? As I mentioned earlier, I can't get a Crown Vic, Town Car, or Grand Marquis for under $3,000 anymore. Why? Because of THIS STUPID PROGRAM!!!

Moving right along.......

A Mercedes?!!! You've got to be kidding me! Another car that could have been donated to a charitable foundation. And a warm thank you goes out to Uncle Sam from the needy!





Now THIS one REALLY made me just flat-out DISGUSTED. This was an $8,000 car (VERIFIED THROUGH KELLEY BLUE BOOK'S WEBSITE, and there was NOTHING wrong with it! Not to mention it would have been a collector's item in a few years.





The person who turned this car in as a clunker is nothing short of STUPID! Hey, moron, you could have donated that Corvette to a charitable foundation and gotten a tax write-off for the FULL value of the car. Out of all these idiots, I hope YOU got a lemon for SURE.

Please send the link for this blog to as many people as possible. I can only hope some of the idiots who cancelled charitable donations, or turned in vehicles worth more than they received for this program, recognize their old vehicles and see how stupid, short-sighted, and selfish they really are.

I am curious what the government officials that started this debacle drive to and from work every day.

With all these perfectly good vehicles being thrown away, this begs the question, if the government can trick us into letting them do this to our vehicles, what can they trick us into letting them do to US as people? Government healthcare, anyone?

Obama, you're an idiot. Congress, you're even worse. The Senate, worse still.

Is Nothing Sacred?

I actually posted this on MySpace some time ago, but had trouble importing it. I read online awhile ago where Bill O'Reilly was running his mouth about Michael Jackson.

Also, a video has been posted of Congressman Peter King calling Michael Jackson a low-life and a pervert. I think Mr. O'Reilly AND Mr. King BOTH need to have a Coke and a smile and STFU.

I've not seen anyone accuse Mr. King of being racist. But tell me, Mr. King, just what kind of "low-life" attacks the character of a person who isn't around to defend themselves anymore?

Michael Jackson was certainly not perfect, and did some rather strange and dumb things. But no one on Earth is perfect, and we all do strange and dumb things sometimes. The only truth we will know is that only Michael Jackson and his accuser will ever really know the truth. The man is dead, and where I come from, it's very disrespectful to speak badly of the dead.

Mr. King, you say you're tired of hearing people grieve for Michael Jackson, but I'm getting tired of hearing people beat on him even after his passing for something he was never convicted of.

I have a few things to say about this.

1) Does being found innocent in a court of law not mean anything anymore? If so, then something is VERY wrong here.

2) Do either of these pompous gas-bags have some earth-shattering evidence that proves King's allegations beyond a reasonable doubt?

3) Has anyone stopped to think why Michael Jackson's friends and colleagues would risk their careers to stand by him (and as far as I know, they did) in his darkest hour? Maybe because they know him better than that?

4) Has anyone stopped to think that the child who said he was molested may have been pressured to make an accusation in order to sue? The "American Way" of working hard and getting ahead seems to have given way to suing and retiring. Anyone with a brain can see that the man was a huge target to this sort of thing.

5) Whoever thinks kids never lie has blinders on. There are some very mean-spirited jerk-offs in this world who do not care who they hurt, as long as they get what they want, and will stop at nothing to get it. Washington is full of them, and so is the media. And guess what? They were ALL kids once!

6) I have noticed that politicians, particularly Republicans, have an annoying tendency to jump on whatever wave seems best to ride to get votes, even if it means ruining someone's reputation. It's all a guise to draw attention away from their own shortcomings and faults. My father always told me as a kid, "The guilty dog barks the loudest".

7) Sometimes these things are done even in the name of religion. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? I'm not necessarily religious or spiritual, but if there IS one Almighty God controlling everything, I would venture a guess that He wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts. If you really want to bring religion into things, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Now just let that sink in for a moment. You have accused a dead man of being a pervert and a low-life. How are you really any better than Shirley Phelps Roper, the idiot who shows up at dead soldiers' funerals to attack their character? Link to her interview on Fox shown below.

Fox News Interviews Shirley Phelps Roper

So, all I have to say to either Mr. O'Reilly, or Mr. King, is, fuck you very much. I don't let the puppetmaster media or my corporately-owned government make up my mind for me. I tend to think about things a bit before I form my opinion, unlike the lemmings that Mr. O'Reilly preaches to, referred to in this video by Green Day as "one nation controlled by the media".

Green Day - American Idiot

These guys are absolutely right. The media is just a tool of the government to keep their lemmings, I mean, constituents, under control.

And by the way, Mr. King, what of the accusations against your buddy Mr. O'Reilly by his former producer of sexual harrassment? Here's the link to a story where he settled the claim.

Bill O'Reilly Settles Sexual Harrassment Suit Out-Of-Court

Tell me, Mr. King, just what kind of "pervert" buys their way out of a sexual harrassment suit? If he was falsely accused, and a victim of a "shakedown", as he says, why did he settle the case out-of-court?

And what about your own record of voting on issues relevant to illegal aliens, a key issue directly pertinent to the economy in this country? If you don't believe me, consider this.

Illegal aliens mean cheaper labor, which means Joe Legal loses his job to Jose Illegal and forces the economy to tank because he has no money to spend. Meanwhile, Jose Illegal enjoys many benefits at government expense, paying no taxes on his undocumented income, which he does not spend in this country, rather, it goes home to his family.

Peter King's Stance On Illegal Immigration

Could your inconsistency here be for your own personal benefit, while you sell out the working class? I think our founding fathers would be ashamed of both of you. If you live in a glass house, it's best not to throw stones.

And just for the record, Mr. King, while you may THINK you're speaking for millions, rest assured, you DON'T speak for everybody. And I doubt you speak for as many as you THINK you do, you self-righteous prick.

I hope someone publicly bashes BOTH of you on YOUR bad points and YOUR names are dragged through the dirt after YOUR passing. What goes around comes around.

A great many people say that Michael Jackson disgusted them, touting what are essentially little more than rumors. Does anyone have any actual EVIDENCE? It disgusts ME that the dead cannot truly rest in peace, even when they are falsely accused.

Since Michael isn't around to tell Mr. King to go to hell like he did Gloria Redall in the infamous baby-dangling incident....... I will.

I don't defend Michael's actions in that incident, but I do agree that Redall is a busybody who had severely overstepped her bounds in that example, and I, for one, salute Charles Barkley for telling her to shut the hell up and mind her own business. Must we forget that the man realized and admitted in his own words that it was a "terrible mistake"?

I agree it was not a good thing for Michael to do, but it was quite obvious that the child's safety was not her primary concern, and when it happened in another country, how was it her place? I'll have to bastardize one of Michael's songs to make my point....

Peter King does all this talkin'
But we don't wanna hear him squawkin'
Tellin' lies and throwin' boulders
So we called his mouth a motor
Someone's always tryin' to start my baby cryin' ........