novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts published in February, 2012

So says Sandra Fluke.  It seems that the main concern is all the sex that is happening at school and how it depletes the money supply so there is nothing left for, say, crack, coke or alcohol.  It can cost upwards of $1,000 a year for birth control and when you are on those public scholarships, oh how on earth will you be able to pay.  Then you have those people with zits or cysts that need to have them.  What?  Birth control cures zits and cysts?  Another friggin’ wonder drug.  What bullshit for wanting others to pay for whoring around.  Get a job.  No, better yet, get a life.

I know about cysts and ovaries.  I know about different birth control procedures and devices.  I’ve lived through it and still am.  This scam being perpetuated on the tax paying public is nothing more than another freebie for irresponsible people.  A girl got raped and didn’t think she could go to the doctor?  Wait a minute.  This is a college student that doesn’t know how to research or read an insurance policy to know what is allowable?  Ask questions of the policy provider?  Call a nurse?  Only the Dems would swallow this shit whole.  “You have to pass it to read what’s in it”.  Do they think that everyone is a valley girl from Ca.?

Go here and see what side effects come from birth control.  Look at the damage and danger that comes from abortion.  What are the medical costs to the general public for your careless acts of promiscuity?  Oh, no one bothered to think about that aspect or even look these things up?  Nothing but another freebie scam that we all will pay forever for.  Use a condom.  Have your sex and take your chance.  Birth control is already free.  It’s called abstinence.  Take responsibility!

Around every corner is someone lurking to take your freedoms because of “their beliefs” or “how they feel”.  In other words, they don’t need stats, data or justification–they just initiate BOHICA on the citizenry because they can.  Wilder was one of those liberal “I know better than you” believers that helped curtail Va. gun rights.  The same guy that wanted the Confederate soldier memorial statue removed from the circle at King Street in Alexandria.  Don’t know what pissed him off more; the gun, the drive around or just history.  Doesn’t matter because he is gone and so is the one gun a month for regular citizens.  Stats proved it wouldn’t prevent crime and it hasn’t.  Shoot, only 4 other states had it and South Carolina dumped theirs 8 years ago.  The only thing kept it around here was the Dems.  Wonder how the liberals will forecast our future on this issue, especially when they have a 0% chance of ever getting it right.

“Yes, I would like one of the full size Kimber 45′s and then one of the concealable sizes.  Oh, yes.  Same caliber.  Yes, I would like that to go, thank you.  Ammunition?  How about a case of the hollow points.  I want to get to the range this afternoon and practice.”

Gotcha!  There isn’t any accident to owning or using a firearm for defensive purpose. Guns save lives.  If you don’t believe me, send an e-mail to this man who is an unbiased researched authority on the matter.  I know that I will never convince the ignorant until they have been “informed”.  Then they become the “deniers” for refusing to accept conclusive statistics from a pertinent sources.  What ends up making believers out of these people is a near tragic end that is saved by a firearm and the person holding it.  It usually is never the “obvious” situations or circumstances that convince these people but the “unforeseen” and accordingly, the ill-prepared.

I really don’t care how you wish to run your own lives and what you choose to partake/not partake in for preparedness in defensive circumstances.  I do care what is readily available to be utilized and will always fight for those options of choice.  I will leave you with an article of a gun saving a life/lives and intend to do this regularly so that the left has something to bitch about.  I will not be addressing the shootings at schools for one simple reason.  Even though it is always tragic to read about, we will continue to have this type offense repeated.  Criminals know the law.  Criminals know schools are “gun free” zones.  Duh.  For those kids who don’t have a good mental and spiritual foundation, they will continue to commit this type offense but usually others “know” ahead of time and refuse to speak out and stave it off.  And the kids will use whatever “means” they can to meet their intended goals.  Guns are but one of those means.

Saw this over at Nice Deb.  Maybe things aren’t as rosey as Obama says.  It appears that stronger tactics are necessary for donors to cough up those much needed “party” funds to the campaign (you don’t really think he will use all that money against the GOP candidate, do you?).  Of course, it always helps when the campaign maligns others like the Koch brothers.  Well, maybe not in this case where the Prez was shat on by stinging rebuke.  I wonder what the next strategy will be.  Government electronic fund transfers from your personal savings and checking accounts?  You didn’t really think that they forgot about access when they requested electronic deposit of your tax refund, did you?  Silly rabbits!


Very interesting commercial from the Knights of Columbus. It appeared when the Obama administration started their push against religious groups, having them provide benefits and/or care inclusive of birth control. This may have been the original intent but I derived something more important. It was George Washington’s quote:

“Of all the dispositions and habits, which leads to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

Morality in relation to political prosperity.  It is something that I have always known to go hand in hand.  How can you hold office and do the bidding of the people without having morality?  This has been an issue with politics since the birth of governments.  Our founding fathers knew this when they created the laws governing our nation.  Elected officials have bypassed their ethical moral code for selfishness, power and recognition.

I bring this up now because social conservatives have been taking a beating on their stances.  They are being portrayed as a fanatical group which the people don’t want involved in their lives.  What usually happens when you are scared of something?  You deny it and then you destroy it.  Welcome to our path of destruction as a nation.  We have all but replaced God in every form and place other than in church “where He belongs”.  And the more you imprison God, the more our woes will multiply.

Social conservatives are not our enemy.  Social conservatives are not always right.  Who is?  But social conservatives keep God as part of our freedom which the framers intended.  To continue to dismiss them is nothing more than shredding the Constitution and what it stands for.  With God we prosper; without Him we whither on the vine.

The GOP has 2 distinct secret weapons to use to win the White House.  The first being Barack Obama who is his own worst nightmare.  With months to go, we will see failed policy after failed policy, broken promises and lies upon lies.  He even looks at old campaign films and commits or condones the same failures which have proved themselves. He is either and/or arrogant/stupid.  Time is proving that he is both.

The second secret weapon is Debbie “I’m a loudmouth who is in your face” Schultz.  She was a Hilly backer but promised to be faithful to the party.  Then she was approved by BHO to be head of the DNC if she remained loyal to him and his teachings.  Two peas in a pod.  She can only exacerbate BHO’s downfall.

On the Dem side there are also two secret weapons.  The first are the mindless, irresponsible, government teat sucking liberals who are the biggest detriment to the working class citizen and the economy as a whole.  As long as there are “freebies”, these mooches will continue to vote for Obama.  There is also a sub-class here who want the above but will mostly vote, like Samual L. Jackson did, just because Obama is “black” which is only half true.  But half a vote for half a “black” individual is still half a vote.  The dead voters will round it out to whole votes.

The second secret weapon are the establishment Republicans that want the status quo of the party to remain intact.  It doesn’t matter that citizens want a conservative and a social conservative is beating the pants off a moderate McCain style opponent.  I consider the “social” part very important because that is where politics went awry from the people.  Politicians lost their decency and moral compasses over the years and that is why this country continues to fall into the abyss as it were.  maybe we should try another party for conservatives which would probably drain the GOP base into a status of inconsequential.  I don’t know but I do know that this is a time for conservatives to win if we can just keep the RINO conservatives at bay.

According to BLS, the dollar value of the United States’ manufacturing output has doubled since 1975 [Rugy].  The downside is that the number of manufacturing jobs has declined by 31% over that period.  Of course, our labor force has expanded from about 94 million people to about 158 million people over that same period.    Manufacturing accounted for about 24% of the jobs then, and about 10% now, and so-called “service jobs” have grown from 70% to 84%. [Lee] There is no question that ours is a service economy.

Having a service economy is, to me, a Good Thing.  For the most part, it means that we produce plenty of food and stuff, and we mostly want services.  We want to pay people to do the things we don’t want to do.  Don’t want to cut the lawn?  Hire a lawn care service.  Don’t want to clean the house?  Hire a cleaning service.  Don’t want to cook?  Order from a pizza delivery service.  Don’t want to do your taxes?  Hire a tax preparation service. Don’t want to pay your taxes?  Hire a campaign manager to get you elected — politicians don’t have to pay taxes.

The “service industry” is a more acceptable term for what Adam Smith called unproductive labor.  This was not a derogatory term, just a statement of fact.  When you buy a car, for instance, you can turn around and sell that car to someone else.  You may not get from him what you paid for the car, but you can get something.  Buy a haircut, and you come away with less money and less hair.  And no-one will want to buy your trimmings.  For all the work the barber put into cutting your hair, you come away happier, but he produced nothing.

So, referring to the title of Adam’s famous treatise, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, how is the wealth of the nation increased by the service industry?  Some people would simply say that it is not, because the service industry does not give us more stuff.  I disagree.

First, there is the problem of what is a service?  Let me give two simple examples.  I hand-load ammunition.  I do not make the brass, powder, primer, or bullets, but I do assemble them into ammunition.  Before I do that, those components sitting on my shelves are not ammunition.  Therefore, that is manufacturing work.  But what if I were a bartender?  The rum, ice, sugar, and strawberries are not a daiquiri, but my assembling them into a daiquiri would be classified a service.  So, if I make shots for your gun, I’m a manufacturer; and if I make shots for you, I’m a service provider.

Another example is an auto-repair shop.  That’s a service, right?  Theoretically, I could repair my own car.  I hate doing it though.  We always seem to exchange bodily fluids — oil and grease on my hands, sweat and blood on the car.  And if the transmission goes out, I’m outta luck.  So a car manufacturer (mostly just assembling parts made by suppliers) is a manufacturer, but keeping the car out of the junkyard, and thus obviating the need for a new car, is a service.  Does that service not increase the general level of wealth in the nation?

A contrary example is that of a teacher.  Teaching is a service industry.  Yet, when a person has received that education, he can turn around and sell that knowledge by teaching someone else.  Does that not increase the wealth of the nation?

Second, there is the fact that services make us happier.  Isn’t that the point of having stuff, too?  Isn’t that the point of having wealth? Sure, the dollar value of the service may depreciate to zero instantaneously, but the dollar value of stuff also depreciates — if not to zero, then darned close — just over a longer time-frame.  By making us happier, both stuff and services improve our quality of life.  And that is wealth.

So now, we are in a recession.  Oh, yeah, the recession ended two-and-a-half years ago, according to the economists.  But when you’re walking in the woods, and you go down into a valley, you don’t consider yourself out of the valley when you start up the other side.  Anyway, everyone talks about how to create jobs.  You can’t just create jobs by printing more money (“quantitative easing”) or by getting money from some people and giving it to others.  Companies are sitting on wads of cash and are reluctant to hire.  If you borrow money to give to the people, the people turn around and pay off their debts — generally to the same group from which the money was borrowed at the beginning of this sentence. Or they save it themselves.

Being a service economy, jobs will be mostly created when people start wanting services again.  This is in stark contrast to a manufacturing economy.  In a manufacturing economy coming out of a recession, a manufacturer flush with cash can hire workers at lower wages than before, and have them increase inventory in anticipation of future sales.  However, one cannot hire barbers to build up an inventory of haircuts.  Demand must drive a service economy, while supply can drive a manufacturing economy.  My daughter works in an up-scale Arlington restaurant.  The servers are paid mainly in tips, not by the owner.  The owner can hire waiters to stand around with few customers without doing significant damage to his bottom line.  I have no evidence to back up this hypothesis, but I suspect that such restaurants recover faster from recessions that do other service industries.

I also suspect that a service economy reacts more strongly to consumer sentiment than a manufacturing economy does.  Even if people think their jobs might be precarious, they might be willing to buy stuff because even if they get laid off they will still have the stuff.  But if they buy a services, they will have neither the services nor the money if they get laid off.  Coming out of a recession, people may focus on paying off debts accumulated when they were laid off, or perhaps on replacing the stuff that fell into disrepair, rather than in buying services.

Such are my musings on the Service Economy.  No point, really, just somewhere to start a discussion.