Guest Blogger

Dedicated reader of TRR, "Reid" will be guest blogging in this space now and then on topics of interest to him. He's new to the web log game so please be nice, at least at first.

This is the only known image of "Reid" using his computer. It is said that he surfs sometimes for days on end, his pasty, sunlight-deprived skin reflecting the soft electronic glow of the screen. His only nurishment being Milo's burgers and Jolt cola thrown down the basement den stairs by members of his family.

Anybody who reads his comments on TRR knows Reid is at least as opinionated as me, so be on the lookout for his posts and if you disagree with what he has to say, sock it to him.

Choice for me, but not for thee

Who would have imagined that the free market could determine whether a fast-food joint survived in a community without the health nazis getting involved?

McDonald's is closing its outlet in a town known for quality food and healthy, local produce.
The fast food chain in Tavistock, Devon, simply wasn't being used enough by locals.
So after seven years struggling to make ends meet in a town that has won many accolades for the quality of its food, McDonald's will finally shut up shop on Saturday.
John Taylor, chairman of Tavistock EatWise campaign, said: "Because of the quality of our local food McDonald's has not been able to compete."

Why, it's almost as if what I've been saying about free market competition was absolutely true. Citizens exercising parental and personal responsibility, making free choices in the interests of themselves and their families actually have an effect on the market...an effect that is hundreds of times more efficient and reflective of what that community desires, and without the tiresome meddling of liberal do-gooders who foist their personal preferences on their fellow citizens.

I wonder what the trans-fat nazis up in New York have to say about letting free market competition determine the ingredients of food here. They'll say that average U.S. citizens won't make the "correct" choices, so those "choices" have to be made by someone more enlightened. Elitist liberals disgust me.

dumb hippie of the week

You'd think smelly hippies would have more sense than to lock metal collars around their own necks.....but then, they are dumb, smelly hippies after all...

ENVIRONMENTAL activists were arrested in Newcastle yesterday after attempting to block the first shipment of genetically engineered canola coming into Australia.
Police used cutting equipment to free three Greenpeace protesters, who used neck locks to chain themselves to vehicles blocking the gates to the Cargill processing plant at Kooragang Island. One of the protesters required medical assistance after she was cut on the neck by machinery used to free her.

Locking yourself up by the neck to protest canola oil?

Seriously folks, you can't write comedy like this.

The results of this little study caught my eye this evening...

The rich really do own the world
A major study of wealth distribution reveals the richest 2 per cent own more than half of global household assets

ESTANISLAO OZIEWICZ
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

For those who aren't wealthy, it seems blindingly obvious that the rich own the world. Now, in a first-ever exhaustive study of global wealth, it's clear just how inequitably the riches are spread around.

The richest 2 per cent of adults own more than half of global household wealth, and almost all of the well-heeled live in North America, Europe and richest Asia-Pacific countries.

"We find there's a lot of inequality, which is what we expected and is not that surprising," said University of Western Ontario economist James Davies, who was a co-author of the study, conducted by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations. "But it turns out, the world distribution of wealth [assets minus debts] is more unequal than the world distribution of income."

Look out, the corrupt U.N. is going to demand that the richest nations contribute even more of their wealth to the poorest nations in order to rectify this injustice. Why else would the U.N. commission a study like this if it's ultimate goal wasn't to take from wealthy countries and give to poor countries in the name of fairness and equality? The most cursory glance at the list of wealthy nations reveals that they represent the most capitalistic, free-enterprise driven economies in the world, while the poorest countries represent the most oppressive, corrupt, evil dictatorships and theocracies on Earth...that's no coincidence. Here's a breakdown of the global wealth holdings but it mirrors roughly the U.S. wealth holdings...

What the rich own:

1% of richest adults own 40% of total global wealth

2% of richest adults own 51% of total global wealth
5% of richest adults Own 71% of total global wealth
10% of richest adults Own 85% of total global wealth

Notice anything familiar about this list? Anybody who pays taxes in the U.S. should recognize these numbers as roughly identical to the percentages of the federal tax burden borne by the wealthy by percent rank. The top 1% of wage earners in America pay about 40% of the taxes collected by the government, and the top 10% pay roughly 85% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners in the U.S. collectively contribute only 5% of the taxes that are used to pay for the goody bags they get from the government each month...and by "government", I mean fellow tax payers.

Notice how the author of this article conveniently left that morsel out. All liberals want to do is show how the evil rich possess too much wealth and should be forced to give some of it, in the form of high taxes, to the poor, downtrodden of the world. They never acknowledge how much the rich already "give". The consumers of wealth, especially in the U.S., are getting essentially a free ride courtesy of the producers of wealth. No country gives a fraction of charity to it's own poor as well as to the poor of other countries that the U.S. does, yet the America-hating liberals here and at the U.N. can never get enough.

I've asked it before, and I'll ask it again...why are we in the United Nations?

Mission for the U.N.

Seriously, should we be interested, much less concerned, about a military coup in Fiji? We're a tad busy battling worldwide terrorists who've vowed to eradicate or subjugate all free, peace-loving peoples on Earth. I'm not sure how high on the interest-meter a coup on a tiny, tropical island somewhere in the South Pacific registers.

Now this would be a perfect peace-keeping mission for Kofi Annan to undertake as his last act in office. He should employ the awsome authority and power of the U.N. to solve the crisis in Fiji.

When good celebrities go bad

Man if it weren't for Nick Nolte's post-career mug shots, Rip Torn would be the celebrity-least-likely-to-take-a-good-mugshot winner. I was always a fan of Rip Torn's, he was great in the Jerry Sanders Show.

Nothing's more undignified for a celebrity than getting his picture taken after a two day binge. No makeup, hair guy, or favorable back lighting for the mug shot.

A cryin' shame

After all the weak, incompetent appointments Bush has made, he finally got one right in John Bolton over at the disaster known as the United Nations. Then this...

President Bush surrendered to congressional foes yesterday in his fight to install John R. Bolton as permanent ambassador to the United Nations, a harbinger of how the political world has changed since Democrats captured both houses of Congress.

The dreadful U.N. has done nothing worthwhile in it's entire existence...name one! The corruption at the U.N is singular in it's depravity, and the collection of theives and America-hating despots that suck at the teat of the American taxpayer daily, has no equal in it's incompetence and loathsomness.

That Bush rolled over so easily is a testament to his own incompetence and unwillingness to stand up for a good man and call a spade a spade. The Democrats hated John Bolton because he held the U.N. to some standard of ethical behavior. Democrats, like John Kerry, would cede American sovereignty to the U.N. because it fits in their world view of a one-world government. Bush may not have had the votes to keep Bolton, but he sure could have told the American people why he didn't have the votes...because the Democrats are vermin, interested only in the acquisition of political power and the destruction of political foes, like John Bolton.

You watch, Bush will nominate some "Mike Brown" weenie type of whom SanFranNan approves to the U.N. and it'll be business as usual....demanding more tax-payer money from the U.S., condemning the U.S. no matter what it does, condemning Israel no matter what it does, and raping and pillaging every third-world rat hole they occupy.

Remind me again why we're in the U.N.

A subversive on the bench

Most of you probably saw Stephen Breyer's interview with Chris Wallace this weekend. The following quotes illustrate just how dreadful liberal justices are, and how important it is to have a conservative in the White House because of the far-reaching consequences of their appointment's decisions...

In his interview, Breyer argued that in some cases it wouldn't make sense to strictly follow the Constitution because phrases such as "freedom of speech" are vague. Judges must look at the real-world context -- not focus solely on framers' intent, as Scalia has argued -- because society is constantly evolving, he said.

"Those words, 'the freedom of speech,' 'Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech' -- neither they, the founders, nor those words tell you how to apply it to the Internet," Breyer said.

Pointing to the example of campaign finance, Breyer also said the court was right in 2003 to uphold on a 5-4 vote the McCain-Feingold law that banned unlimited donations to political parties.

Acknowledging that critics had a point in saying the law violates free speech, Breyer said the limits were constitutional because it would make the electoral process more fair and democratic to the little guy who isn't tied to special interests.

"You don't want one person's speech, that $20 million giver, to drown out everybody else's. So if we want to give a chance to the people who have only $1 and not $20 million, maybe we have to do something to make that playing field a little more level in terms of money," he said.

Breyer echoed the same idiotic "living breathing Constitution" garbage that Al Gore invoked during his failed campaign for President. It should come as no surprise that Breyer is a Clinton appointee when he uses liberal code words like "level the playing field". Liberals always employ feel-good phrases like "level the playing field" to mask their attempts to skirt the Constitution.

Since when is it the role of the judicial branch to decide fairness, and then legislate from the bench in a way that rectifies that perceived unfairness? Legislation is the role of Congress. See, to liberals, the Constitution is an obstical to be gotten around in order for them to foist their subversive agenda on the rest of us. Liberals(democrats) think that anything that makes them feel good and wins them votes should be law and so they appoint liberal judges who will agree with them. Conservatives look at the Constitution first, regardless of whether it makes them feel good or wins them votes.

The problem with allowing huge donors now is that they can do it in relative secret. Why not have absolutely unlimited political donations by anybody in any amount but with full and immediate disclosure? If ALL donations were immediately and fully disclosed in newspapers, radio, TV, and Internet, the candidates would be seen for exactly what they are...up for sale. What would be the chances of a candidate getting elected who took 20 million from the Sierra Club, big tobacco, or Hollywood? Not very good once the voters saw what was expected for that money.

Breyer wants to limit the free political speech of Americans just because they might be rich. Why should one American's political speech be restricted in favor of another's?

Airhead of the week

Nothing's more insufferable than a cockney, airhead actress pretending to be a cultured, British elitest...

Oscar-winning US actress Gwyneth Paltrow feels dinner talk is far more interesting in her adopted homeland Britain than back in her native country.
"I love the English lifestyle, it's not as capitalistic as America. People don't talk about work and money, they talk about interesting things at dinner," she told "NS," the weekend magazine supplement of daily Portuguese newspaper Diario de Noticias on Saturday.

"I like living here because I don't fit into the bad side of American psychology. The British are much more intelligent and civilized than the Americans," the 34-year-old added.

She said having US pop star Madonna, 48, who married British film director Guy Ritchie six years ago, nearby was another advantage to living in London.
"She's like an older sister. Everything I have gone through, she went through ten times worse and ten times longer. She gives me good advice about how to say no and take care of myself," said Paltrow.

How can you claim to be "more intelligent and civilized" when you name your child Apple? Gwyneth can stay on her side of the pond for all I care...and keep Madonna over there.

Good point

I was just listening to Neal Boortz and there was some caller complaining about the unfairness of America by pointing out the existence of "haves" and the "have-nots" in this country. Neal made the excellent point that unless you are mentally retarded, if you were born in this country, you, by definition, are a "have". No country on Earth offers more opportunities, regardless of socio-economic status at birth, than America. The only question is the degree to which you take advantage of them.

Here are a few other phrases popular with democrats which all conservatives should recognize as red flags of liberalism...

"filthy rich"...textbook class envy from liberals which conveys the idea that if you are rich, you must have gotten your money unfairly by stepping on the back of the common man, and are therefor dirty. This is how liberals justify the hideous progressive tax scheme they use to seize money from the achieving, productive class and give it to the loafing class...aka, democrat voters.

"income redistribution"...this deceptive liberal favorite is based on the assumption that income is "distributed" in the first place. Income is not distributed, it's earned.

"tax cuts for the rich"...this is a class envy ploy used by liberals when talking to their hand-out voters. It impunes Americans who earn and achieve as having gotten their wealth infairly. Tax cuts are for people who pay taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners(democrat voters) pay only 5% of the federal taxes collected by the government. How can you give a tax cut to people who don't pay taxes?

"working Americans"...this is also a class envy ruse which conveys the idea that the rich don't work. The truth is that if you are willing to work in America, you will never be poor for long. With the exception of the trust fund babies like Ted Kennedy, the rich are rich precisely because they worked harder than anybody else. (Reminder: Ted Kennedy has never done anything productive. He has sucked at the public teat his entire professional life.)

"giving back to society"...use of this phrase assumes that success or wealth was "given" to begin with. Giving is great, but it's not "giving back" when one chooses to simply give.

"winners of life's lottery"...this was a favorite phrase with democrat "Tricky" Dick Gephardt. He used it to convey the message that success and failure in life is total chance--like a lottery. If wealth and poverty are doled out at random, he reasoned, then that is patently unfair and we should take from the winners and give to the losers....socialism in a nutshell.

Are you detecting a pattern here? Fostering envy between phony classes of Americans is how the Democrats divide and conquer. And that's one of the biggest differences between liberals and conservatives: liberals say, "Those evil rich took what rightfully belongs to everybody. Hate the rich." Conservatives say, "If you make good decisions and work hard, you too can be rich."

Which one are you?