Statistics Don't Lie; First Impressions are in the Measurements

(Original Post: January 16, 2010)

I had come across an old Nike ad that a FaceBook friend had posted on her page. It is relevant to say she is a very beautiful woman that posted this ad. The ad basically spoke of, in a very sympathetic tone, how a woman is measured by things she can’t control, like her body curves (36-24-26) and not what’s inside. Going on to state that statistics lie.

A woman is often measured for her body curves by design. It is the natural order of things for a man to be drawn to a girl’s beauty, the law of attraction. Ladies do the same thing except, it is financial security that is the measurement for her. It is unusual for a beautiful girl to be with a guy that does not financially have a lot to offer, unless he is very attractive. It is very common to see a not so attractive man that is financially secure with a beautiful woman. Look around if you have doubts, it’s all around us, on television, at work, in the movies, etc…..

If liberals had their way what would be their solution? I think it would be obvious for those of us that have paid attention to liberals over the years. The goal would be the same has the goal of socialism always is. In order to make everyone equal, you would have to make everyone look the same. Since we will never see a day where above average looking people would be subjected to operations to lessen their beauty and equal the dating field (at least I hope not), they would have to turn to liberal members of congress to pass a beauty tax.

It is unfair in the liberal point of view that people are born looking more beautiful than others, it is necessary to punish those with beauty with a tax. Has we know with liberals already, what they can't convince the masses to do they turn to our willing members of congress to legislate for them ignoring the constitution in the process. This would make above average looking liberals feel better about themselves while, fleecing beautiful Americans everywhere. This money of course would go to less than average looking Americans for plastic surgery and other methods of alteration to beautify themselves.

Sorry average looking Americans, not only will you not benefit from the plan but, this plan will eventually grow too large needing more money and average looking Americans will have to pay this beauty tax to keep the program a float. Sound familiar? If liberals can convince the public on a theory to pay a Cap-N-Trade tax, a beauty tax would not be a far stretch. Remember, the goal for liberals is to feel good about themselves, outcome does not matter.

Is there some hypocrisy in the Nike ad? After all, I do not recall a Nike commercial with many women, if any, with less than beautiful measurements. Do you think that Nike is going to sell a product using a woman with less than average looks, or for that matter average looks? This ad sends a confusing message to young women, and this is why an ad such as this one is so amusing to me. Many women do not like the price that comes with their beauty, and the intentions are to make people feel better about themselves however, lets not ignore basic facts of nature and our sex sells society in order to make ourselves feel better.

I am sure there are a lot of beautiful women just as beautiful on the inside but, beauty comes with a price and that price usually comes in the form of objectification. Statistics don't lie they continue the work of beauty that nature fights so hard to keep and protect. This does not mean all beautiful women are dumb. It means that statistically speaking, the first impressions are in the measurements.

- Micheal Garry

The Shame Of It All

(Original Post: Tuesday, December 22, 2009)

Once upon a time in a time a couple generations ago there lived shame. Shame was a sort of check on society’s behaviors, a kind of neighborhood watch on bad behavior, society’s conscious. The people on the watch were your parents, grandparents, neighbors, and even politicians (believe or not).

What happen to shame? Where did it go? When did shame leave town?

The fall of shame can be traced to the “New Deal”, governments attempt to solve all of society’s problems with other peoples money. This was a big part of the extinguishing of shame. It did two things; it made begging easier to do (Welfare), eliminating the shame of it by making the beggar anonymous, and strong arming the public into giving money to the anonymous beggar or taking from Peter to pay anonymous(Paul). The second thing it did was to eventually make it easier to get divorced, by making the spouse pay (most cases men) for support in the name of child support or alimony. This made it easier to divorce; this was the beginning of the climb towards a 50% divorce rate. Again showing, governments attempt to fix a problem through social engineering, made the problem worse not better.

It did not take long before the mainstream media and the interchangeable Hollywood elites followed suit in extinguishing shame. This was done by; vilifying any institution that followed a code of morality, mocking religion and family values has narrow minded and outdated, the destroying of the “Nuclear family” by promoting single moms and even glorifying them, the Promotion of gay marriage with or without children involved, saying that the presence of a father is not required to raise a child. Government replacing the father with a check. Let’s not forget trying to make legislation in the name of civil rights for a sexual preference. The whole point of this is to gain acceptance, for that you need to eliminate society’s shame of it. This can be achieved by forcing it down the public's throat(Gay Pride Parades) or by forced acceptance through legislation(Hate Crimes)

It is a natural tendency to want acceptance from everyone and shame was inconvenient for those who wanted to do, promote, or make money from shameful things and gain acceptance. The beautiful thing about shame is it requires no legislation and is society’s conscious. Without shame people accept things without care of consequence and only care about the present feeling, with everyone being right and nothing being wrong. Our leaders have no shame anymore. These leaders will offer things to voters for votes, ignoring the constitution. The voters lack shame in selling there vote for a promised bridge, post office, city/state project, etc..., enabling a politician to violate their oath of office. Society has not benefited from the absence of shame but, has suffered from the lack there of.


- Micheal Garry

Would Jesus drop bombs?

(Original Post Sunday, November 8, 2009)

I saw a bumper sticker a few days ago that asked the question, "Would Jesus drop bombs?". I mulled it over a few days to figure out what was behind the question and than to address the question. Would Jesus drop bombs on his enemies? After some pondering and an education in Christianity that goes back to Sunday school, I came up with a way to respond to such a puzzling question. Puzzling because, I really do not believe the driver really was seeking the truth or really cared what Jesus would do. Instead, the driver was trying to catch Christians who support the war in hypocrisy. I discuss this only by using the Bible has a reference not my own beliefs. If you do not believe, it would be silly to even debate the question. It would be a moot point.

At this point before going on, we have to agree on the premise that God and Jesus are one of the same and that anything Jesus would or would not do would be the same of God (A part of the Holy Trinity). Those of you still with me now can proceed in having an honest look at the question, "Would Jesus drop bombs?". After thinking back about what I have studied from the Bible the answer would be undoubtedly, yes. I do not see how one reading the Bible,or at least the Cliff notes, could avoid the very same conclusion.

The Great Flood, God decided to punish mankind, by flooding the Earth for 40 days and 40 nights, because of their evil doings by wiping out a great many more people than with a bomb. Sodom and Gomorrah, because of sexual deviance it was written God had wiped out an entire city, without rebuilding it afterward. Kind of like the destruction that would occur by dropping a nuclear bomb today. Judgment Day, the unimaginable horror that will happen to those of us that are left behind is far worse than any bomb that man can drop in the arena of combat. These are to name a few of what the wrath of God has done and will do according to the Bible, to Gods enemies.

Granted some Christians themselves refer to these examples I have given as stories and some interpret them as real occurrences but, The Wrath of God, beyond bombs, is a constant theme in the Bible. It would appear that Jesus would do a lot more damage to his enemies in the end than to merely drop a bomb. I will go further to say that, Jesus would support a war that battles against an enemy that kills the young, rapes women, and enslaves their subjects. The better question to be asked is, "Would Jesus want man to live freely or under tyranny?".

- Micheal Garry

A Visit to the Doctor

Original Post: Wednesday, June 24, 2009

I have visited the doctor in the last couple months more than I have in the past 10 years, not your hypochondriac. I am insured, not because I was one of the lucky ones but, because I chose to work for a company that offered good care. Anyways, I digress.

I pulled and than 9 days later tore my calf muscle, a visit to the doctor was in order. I called to schedule an appointment choosing the times available (11am the following day) and even requesting a specific doctor.

I showed up at the registration desk and after identifying self, it took less than 2 minutes and I was off to the doctor’s office. There were not too many people in the lobbies, probably because of their efficient screening process over the phone to screen out people with hang nails or a headache. It was about 5 minutes and I was called into the waiting room. A nurse observed me and the doctor saw me within a 5 minute time period. The doctor asked me some questions and looked at my injury than came to a diagnosis. I was treated with care and was in and out before an hour’s time.

Sounds like a pleasant experience. Now, imagine the government running health care, the same government that brought you the efficiently run BMV (waiting in line for hours), Medicaid and Medicare (and still were told, by liberals, choices are being made between dog food and prescriptions), social Security (that we can no longer afford to pay for), Welfare (One of the most quotable topics by the Founding Fathers, warning us against not for our current state of welfare.), and I’m sure you can add to the list. Not to mention, that you could get in trouble, under Obamacare, for not having Health care Insurance. Is that freedom of choice? So, in the eyes of a liberal, a woman has a right to kill her baby but not the choice of being insured or not? I’m not making this up. The scary part is, the Obama Administration and Congress are making this up has they go. Their main goal is to make you pay not only someone’s groceries but now their health care also.

- Micheal Garry

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."-- James Madison

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson