Author Archives: Danny Quinney

FACEBOOK

Posted on February 8, 2013 | Comments Off

FACEBOOK

Anyone who knows me knows I’m a normal guy. In fact, I hate to brag, but I’m average in everyway. I have zero marketable skills. You know what, now that I think about it, not once have my younger siblings thanked me for how low I set the bar for them. “But Danny,” you whine, “you enjoy writing”. That is true. I’ll give you that one. I do enjoy writing. But I wouldn’t say I’m good at it. I’m okay. I’m a blogger’s equivalent of a “Wendy’s value meal”. Really, a trained monkey could write like I do. In fact, the other night I fell asleep with my head on my keyboard, and when I woke up I had written a “Twilight” novel.

In personal news: Lifezilla will be one year old on the 15^th of this month. Yeah!!! I’m pretty excited. On the 16^th I’ll finally be able to take off the train bra…er…wheels. I said wheels. I SAID TRAINING WHEELS!!!

I’m still trying to figure out how to manage the “website” thing. It seems I hate every other change I make. I did create a new Lifezilla Facebook page. I have a personal Facebook page were I regularly post my miscellaneous rantings, ravings, quick thoughts, or whatnots. But I want to inflect my dumbery to a bigger audience so I’m hoping I can sweet talk to you into liking my page. I envision it’ll be like a unstop party full of people taking breaks from stalking exs, tossing ticked off birds into walls or tending their virtual farm. Just imagine a site full of people who ought to be working, talking to their kids, or improving their relationship with their spouse, but are simply too jaded, bored, or bitter to bother exerting themselves. Serious, don’t those people sound like the people you should be hanging with? (What? It just sounds like your family and co-workers? The ones you’re already sick to death of because they’re such killjoys about everything? Well, come on over then!!!! I’ve got brand new killjoys you’ve never even met before!)

It’ll be fun. You know you want too.

LIFEZILLA: I swear I love every single some of you.

Comments Off on FACEBOOK

Posted in Uncategorized

That is Soooo Gay

Posted on January 29, 2013 | 4 comments

That is Soooo Gay

Apparently the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is considering lifting its ban on gay leaders. I have thoughts on this. But before I launch into my thoughts I want to give you some background. For full disclosure, I’m an Eagle Scout. I’m a father of four boys; two of them have earned their Eagle. I suspect the other two will as well. I have been involved in Scouting for much of my adult life. I was a Scout master for six years, and I am currently a Cubmaster. I have never been employed by the BSA. I am not a spokesperson for them, nor am I a spokesperson for the church that sponsors the Scouting organization I’m involved in. The opinions I express here are my own.

I am sensitive to the feelings of members of the gay community. I have a member of my immediate family who is lesbian, and a member of my extended family who is gay.

In my latest BRILLIANTLY written article I said, “I’m a Conservative: as such, I don’t care about other adults. I expect other adults to care about themselves.” I want you to know that this applies to ones sexual orientation as well. It would be impossible for me to care less who consenting adults sleep with. I don’t care. The only thing that bothers me, as far as someone’s sexuality, is if you throw children or animals into the mix. If you are the pedophile you should be thrown in jail forever and if you’re into animals (literally or figuratively) you need therapy.

“But Danny,” you whine, “just because someone is gay doesn’t mean they are attracted to children.” Ummm…ya. I didn’t say they were. In fact, I want you to know that I completely agree with that statement. 100%. There is not a gay man alive who is more attracted to men than I am to women. Not one. I look at men around my age chasing after young women (early twenties) and I think they are idiots. To me a woman isn’t a woman until she is in her late twenties. (Quick side note: this is one of the reasons the Islamic faith doesn’t appeal to me. The idea of spending the eternities with 70 virgins sound like a nightmare. Promise me 70 porn stars and we’ll talk. I would rather be taught stuff. Ya know?) So if I, as a straight man, know I’m not attracted to young women or girls, why wouldn’t I extend the same courtesy toward gay men? Do I believe there are gay men who are also attracted to boys? Absolutely. Just like there are straight men attracted to boys.

So now that we have established a baseline, I’m almost ready to get to my point. I just need to say this. As you know I have been involved in Scouting a while. As such I believe I can speak with authority when I say it is a major, major pain in the butt. Is it rewarding? Yes. But you have to sift through a grotto of fossilized bat dung to find the one little nugget of reward. Most of the time it is PAINFUL. I question the sincerity of the members of GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) and the members of Scouts for Equality. I doubt that they are really interested in investing the time it takes to be a good scout leaders. They just want to make a point. My guess is if the BSA lifted the ban tomorrow they would wave their rainbow flag and never be heard from again.

When camping there are rules that have to be followed. No adult leader can be in a tent with a Scout unless you are the parent or legal guardian of the young man. If said parent is sleeping in the same tent as a scout, no other adult leader is allowed in the tent. I believe these rules are brilliant.

Now let’s turn this 180 degrees. Let’s say I’m a male leader of a girls camp group. Would it be appropriate to sleep in the same tent as them? No, it wouldn’t. Hey, wait a minute, we have already established that I’m not attracted to girls. So what’s the problem? Okay, fine, whatever. I get it, I’ll just sleep in the same tent as little Becky Sue’s mom. Wait, what? That’s not appropriate either? Why not?

Because it’s not appropriate. That’s it. As a straight man I instinctively get that. Why wouldn’t gay men extend the same courtesy?

Scouting isn’t the place for social engineering. Scouting is about teaching young boys to be men. Real men are: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent (Scout Law). Real men “Do a Good Turn Daily” (Scout slogan). Real men believe they should “Be Prepared” (Scout motto). Can you be a gay man and exemplify these qualities? Of course.

Let boys be boys. Sex has no place in Scouting. Gay or Straight.

LIFEZILLA: How old do I have to be before I get this “adult super-vision” everybody insists I need? It sounds awesome.

If you are interested I wrote about a funny scouting experience HERE

4 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged Boy Scouts of America, BSA, Gay community, GLAAD

Smoke ‘Em if Ya Got ‘Em

Posted on January 23, 2013 | 11 comments

Smoke ‘Em if Ya Got ‘Em

So, I have a friend who follows me on Lifezilla. I mean, why wouldn’t you, right? I was talking to him and he mentioned that often in the comment sections, I, your humble narrator, gets “burned every time.” He said, “It is like they smell blood in the water and they just attack you. I always look forward to your reply, but you never do. Why do you take it?” If you go back and look I have only replied to a comment once or twice. There are times I want to do this:

Oh, that was harsh…

I have a clever response…
Type Type Typety Type Type
Backspace…backspace
Type Type Typety Type Type Type
Backspace…backspace…backspace
Type Type Typety Type Type Ty…

[Highlight – Delete]
[Close]

This may sound harsh. But the truth of the matter is I really don’t care that much. I’m a big boy. I have my opinions on stuff. I figure the commenters (is that a word) are big people too, so I let them have a voice. I’m a Conservative: as such, I don’t care about other adults. I expect other adults to care about themselves. Capisce?

And besides, let’s be honest. Life is too short to worry about how other people feel. I have a decent job, my kids fill my day with laughter and my wife has a killer rack. Why stress?

ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL that being said I want to tell you a story about what happened today.

I have a drinking problem. I drink Diet Coke like it is my JOB. I love it. I have six reasons why I love it:

1) Because
2) Because
3) Because
4) Because
5) Because
6) Because, of the wonderful things it does.

So, I’m in line at the convenience store I frequent daily and in front of me is an older gentleman. He is EASILY in his mid- to late- eighties. He points behind the counter and asked for his brand of cigarettes. The cashier puts them on the counter and asked for the gentleman’s I.D. He reached into his pocket, pulled out a wad of cash, but had (apparently) forgotten his I.D. The cashier kindly apologized, but said he wouldn’t be able to finish the transaction. The older gentleman was agitated. I spoke up and said he could use my I.D. Because I’m not a smoker, I was unaware that there is a bar code on the back of our driver’s licenses that needs to be scanned before you can purchase things like cigarettes (this tidbit of information ticked me off on a whole bunch of new levels). I was informed by the cashier that because he knew I wouldn’t be purchasing them for myself that is considered a “third party sale” and is illegal.

Now, I’m not a smoker. But because I’m conservative, I’m consistent. That whole situation was wrong, Wrong, WRONG. Should you check identification to ensure you are not selling cigarettes or alcohol to minors? YES. If someone is found buying these things for minors should they be fined or put in jail? YES. Should we practice common sense and allow a man who is clearly of age to finish an adult purchase instead of making him walk home to retrieve his identification? HELL YES.

The problem with these types of laws is it turns everyday citizens into the police. It shouldn’t be the cashier’s job to police the old man’s or my purchases.

Now I understand they are considering legislation to make it illegal to smoke in your car if you have kids with you. Again, I don’t smoke so this wouldn’t affect me at all. Smoking in the car with a kid makes you a dumbass. Being a dumbass isn’t illegal. What’s next, you can’t smoke in your house?

When did it become illegal to be an adult?

Should there be laws? Absolutely. Do I appreciate the “no smoking in public places” laws? Absolutely. Smoking laws don’t affect me. I’m not a smoker. But they’re symbolic. We have to be careful. It is a slippery slope.

In an article I read last year there were 40,000 new laws put on the books at the state level in 2012. Forty Thousand!!! An average of 800 laws per state. Are there really that many problems that we need that many laws? Is society really that outta control?

Ayn Rand once said, “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

Let’s bring back common sense.

LIFEZILLA: It’s exciting President George W. Bush began his fourth term on Sunday, January 20, 2013 as the official source of all economic problems in the country.

11 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged alcohol, cigarettes, common sense, conservative, Diet Coke, Government over-reach, Identification

Gun Control and Unicorns

Posted on January 16, 2013 | 5 comments

Gun Control and Unicorns

So I was driving home from work and heard a sound bite of the President talking about gun control. He said “If there is a step we can take that will save even one child from what happened in Newtown, we should.” (Click here for the clip)

I’ll agree what happened in Newtown was a tragedy. I wish it hadn’t happened. That being said, the Presidents sound bite is typical of most things liberals say. It sounds really, really good. The problem is most of it isn’t grounded in reality. They are just “foo foo” words which mean nothing, like “We saved or created a gazillion jobs.” How do you measure a job that was “saved”? How can you measure if a policy saved a child in a tragedy like Sandy Hook? I’ll give you a hint: Ya can’t.

On Tuesday, January 15 Toure’ on MSNBC said, “[We] need the president to save us from the gun epidemic.” Gun epidemic? Really, an epidemic? I don’t think America has a “gun” epidemic, America has a “whiny little bitch” epidemic.

But “foo foo” words help the uninformed liberal feel better, that someone is doing something. Of course not being informed is what keeps most liberals liberal.

You know how much I hate to cloud the issue with facts (see link for article) but someone has to. The President wants to prevent things like what happened in Sandy Hook. He wants to prevent mass public shootings. So does every American. If only there was a study that looked at public shootings and compared the various laws and frequency of the shootings. Ohhhh, wouldn’t it be cool if such a study existed and concluded what the single best deterrent of public shootings is?

Oh look!!! There was one. You can download the study here.

Several years ago William Landes, of the University of Chicago and John Lott, of Yale, conducted a study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States. The study looked at mass shootings between 1977 and 1995 and compared how the different legal changes affected their frequency and death toll in the various states. They examined several of the policies being proposed now: waiting periods and background checks for guns. They also examined the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

Guess what they came up with? Only one variable was shown to be effective in reducing the death rate in these crimes. Any guesses what that is? If you guessed concealed-carry laws you would be correct.

Now if I was a crazy person, and I was thinking about going and shooting a bunch of innocent people where would I go? Well if history is an indication I wouldn’t plan my mass shooting at a gun show, or police station. In fact when was the last time you even heard about a gun store being held up? It doesn’t happen. Why? Because people who commit these crimes are crazy – not stupid.

They go to “gun free zones.” Schools, churches, movie theaters.

Why does the media suppress the stories where armed citizens stop mass shooters? Easy. Those stories don’t fit the narrative that guns are bad.

Three examples:

I remember watching the news when the Portland mall shootings were taking place during the busy Christmas season. I was grateful and amazed to learn the killer only killed two people. Gratefully, concealed weapon owner Nick Meli didn’t notice the mall he was in was a gun-free zone and he had his gun with him. As the murderer paused to reload Meli pointed his gun at the killer (he didn’t shoot because there were people behind the shooter). The killer saw Meli, and turned his gun on himself.

The shooter in Aurora Colorado had seven movie theaters showing the Dark Knight within twenty minutes away from his apartment. One theater was 1.2 miles away (three minutes). Of the seven theaters only one didn’t allow concealed handguns into the theater (they only allow illegal handguns). Any guesses which theater the killer chose? I’ll give you a hint. 12 are dead and 58 are wounded, arguably because of the ban enforced on law abiding citizens.

On December 18, 2012, shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting, Jesus Manuel Garcia arrived at the Mayan Palace Theater, in San Antonio, Texas guns blazing as he shoots at the movie theater, a police car and bystanders. As he entered the movie theater he was shot to death by an off-duty officer. The only death was his own. Good thing she, the off-duty officer, had a gun.

Harvard University concluded where gun ownership increases, violence and murder decrease, and the Landes-Lott study kind of concluded the same thing. Of course “foo foo words,” butterflies and unicorns are important too. That is if you don’t mind more mass killings.

LIFEZILLA: Just because you have boobs doesn’t mean you’re better than I am. Unless you’re a woman.

5 Comments

Posted in 2nd Amendment

Tagged 2nd amendment, Concealed Weapons, Gun Free Zone, Guns, Liberal, MSNBC, Newtown, President Obama, Sandy Hook, Toure'

Step Toward Social Decline

Posted on January 14, 2013 | 3 comments

Step Toward Social Decline

Several years ago I was driving home and passed a neighborhood I pass every day. It is backed away about a 75 yards, semi-secluded, from a very busy street. I was rounding the corner on this busy street and saw a child, no more then three years old, on a corner. There wasn’t a parent in sight. I quickly went through the options in my mind. Do I keep driving and hope the kid doesn’t get struck or abducted, do I stop, put the kid in my car, or walk with the child and try to find his home? Being a man, and a father, I immediately knew I wasn’t going to allow the child to come near my car. I also knew I wouldn’t be thrilled if I saw someone I didn’t know walking up my street with my child. So I figured I would tell the kid to go home. I pulled over, rolled down the passenger side window, and kindly said, “You need to go home”. The kid looked up at me, with snot running down his binky. “Go home”, I said again, “You need to go home”. I received a blank stare. “Your Mom wants you to go home. Go home”. Nothing. So I switched tactics. I furrowed my brow and yelled, “GO HOME RIGHT NOW!!!” The child let out a sod, turned around and cried home.

So, I hear you asking, what’s your point?

I’m getting there.

A few years ago there was a Baltimore conference aiming to “normalize” pedophilia. Oh, you read correctly. A conference to “normalize” pedophilia. A conference. That means more then just Pervy McPervertson, from Perv-ville, and his cousin Sicky McSickyson were in attendance. I’m talking a group of some of the “best and brightest” researchers from several prominent U.S. universities were there as well. What was the goal of this conference? Well, according to the sponsoring organization’s (B4U-ACT) website they want to discuss ways to revise of the American Psychological Association (APA) classification of pedophilia.

Why?

How it works is these groups of pedophiles (it makes me wonder how they initially meet) sponsor meetings with members of the ADA, to persuade them to redefine or remove “several long-recognized categories of mental illness” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Why would that be bad, why should we care? According to Linda Ames Nicolosi, who is the publications director of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) “Normalizing” pedophilia would have enormous implications, especially since civil laws closely follow the scientific community on social-moral matters”, she continued, “If pedophilia is deemed normal by psychiatrists, then how can it remain illegal? It will be a tough fight to prove in the courts that it should still be against the law.”

Well guess what? In just a few short years later it has reared its ugly head again. Recently in the UK there is an article entitled Paedophilia: Bringing Dark Desires to Light. According to the article, “There is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that pedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality.”

The article continues, ““If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don’t have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won’t label paedophiles monsters; it won’t be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us…by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else”, and by “respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint”. Only then will men tempted to abuse children “be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed”.

Ohhhhh….isn’t that super cute? They are concerned about the feeeeeelings of pedophiles.

This is wrong, Wrong, WRONG. There is no such thing as a “pedophile who chooses self-restraint”. I’m not a thief until I steal; I’m not a driver until I drive, I’m not a gun hating, sniffling English pansy until I have a self-titled show on CNN.

Sadly this isn’t new. Years ago they tried to “normalize” pedophilia by calling it “intergenerational sex”, arguing there was nothing wrong with it as long as the adult involved with the child/children was not an “authority figure”.

I KNOW!!! The first time I heard that I rolled my eyes so hard I fell out of my chair!

And thus, the point of my story. EVERY child considers an adult an “Authority Figure”. I barely flexed my “authority figure” muscle and scared a child into running home. Any adult can scare or manipulate children. We need to make sure parents are aware of this agenda and take steps to make sure their plans don’t take a foot hold.

LIFEZILLA: I kinda just had kids to have somebody to watch cartoons with.

3 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged American Psychological Association, APA, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM, pedophilia

Why Work When You Can Get Lap Dances for Free

Posted on January 9, 2013 | 3 comments

Why Work When You Can Get Lap Dances for Free

I don’t even know where to start. It is days like this where I feel I wasn’t born with nearly enough middle fingers to full express my annoyance. I’m sincerely at least four middle fingers shy.

I just read a couple of articles. The first is from the New York Post. It bugged, bugged, bugged me, but not a “New York Times” kind of bug. After reading almost any article from the “Times” I feel like I just threw up in reverse. This “Post” article just really ticked me off.

Apparently the New York Post, though the Freedom of Information Act received a data base of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) records from January 2011 to July 2012 and found dozens of cases were the Welfare recipients accessed their tax payer funded EBT cards for such lifesaving purchases as “liquor stores, X-rated video shops, hookah parlors and even strip clubs.”

Oh yeah, you read that correctly. People are using their EBT cards in Strip Clubs. Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the CATO Institute was quoted as saying, “This is morally scandalous.” He continued, “I have nothing against strip clubs, but that’s not what benefits are for. I don’t blame [recipients]. If you are poor, it’s a crummy life and you want to have a drink or see a naked woman. I blame the people who are in charge of this.”

Ya think?

Now as a rule I do not judge other people (unless, of course, they’re stupid, ugly, smell bad, wear shoes with individual toes, listen to crappy music, or drive a smart car), but I sincerely think that unless you are physically or mentally unable to work, and you knowingly and willfully shift the burden of supporting your worthless ass to someone else and spend the taxpayers’ money on things like, oh I dunno, STRIPPERS and stuff, you’re a piece of crap. I don’t want to necessarily quote myself, because it comes across as cocky and arrogant, but several months ago I wrote what can only be described as a brilliant article that touched on welfare abuse and government waste. You can access the brilliant article HERE.

According to the article (the one from the Post), “Welfare recipients receive food stamps and cash assistance under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Both benefits are accessed through an EBT card, but only cash assistance — meant for housing, utilities and household necessities — can be accessed at ATMs.”

In a COMPLETELY unrelated article from the “Wall Street Journal” Speaker of the House John Boehner said that at one point when he was talking to the President about the Fiscal Cliff the President said, “We don’t have a spending problem.”

Apparently the President believes the country just doesn’t have enough revenue (read taxes) coming in. It makes me wonder who paid the bills in the Obama household before he became President.

Several months ago a Facebook friend of mine said this “I think the mistake most conservatives make is in thinking that austerity has ever worked once. It never has, the great depression was lengthened by austerity.” It confused me at the time, because it went contrary to what I thought the word “austerity” meant. I did a quick Wikipedia search and it turns out I did know what it means. “In economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided. Austerity policies are often used by governments to try to reduce their deficit spending and are sometimes coupled with increases in taxes to demonstrate long-term fiscal solvency to creditors.” My question is in the last several years have we, the United States, ever tried deficit cutting? I’m going to go out on a limb and say NO.

Here is food for thought: in a time where it is clearly acceptable for a news agency to post things like a map of law abiding gun owners imagine the uproar if a news agency did the same thing to welfare recipients? Wouldn’t it be interesting to see the names, amounts and locations of the funds being spent?

I think raising taxes is a mistake. But it happened. Why aren’t the Democrats even trying to come to the table with entitlement reform? Every year the number of Americans who receive government assistance increases. President Obama is the “Food Stamp President.” But we are told we are in the middle of an economic recovery. So why the increase in assistance? Could it be to mask the pain? If everyone has assistance and is able to “get by” wouldn’t they be less inclined to notice pesky things like food prices? I don’t have a problem with a “hand up.” I don’t have a problem with a safety net, I just don’t think it should be a hammock.

LIFEZILLA: If I typed as carelessly as I spoke then ;lksdafjk nh; ‘&8jjfsjkladfjsdf

3 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged Democrats, EBT, Facebook, Food Stamps, Freedom of Information Act, Gun Control, John Boehner, President Obama, Strip Clubs, Wikipedia

2 + 2 = 5

Posted on December 30, 2012 | Comments Off

2 + 2 = 5

Anyone who knows me knows I’m an idiot. There (whew) it’s been said. There is no mystery. It is what it is. BUT (and that is a big “but”) if here is one thing I do well, I’m a master of dumbing things down. Despite my obvious “dumbassery” I have been reading Paul Krugman a lot the last few months (I recently wrote a little bit about him) and I’m amazed that someone so smoort can be so…off. He, and his type of cronies, have been going to great lengths to cite data that “proves” America has had times of great economic growth during times of high taxation. And if you look at what they say it’s true. Let me give you an example (this is me dumbing it down). Let’s say I made out with this girl in High School, several years later she announces she is a lesbian. Based on the data presented you could conclude making out with Danny will drive a woman to lesbianism (or a more politically correct term “a vagetarian”). That’s what Krugman does every time. He offers two separate data points and allows the ignorant and gullible to draw an incorrect conclusion. Was there stronger economic growth under Clinton than under the first George Bush? Yes. Were there higher taxes under Clinton than the first George Bush? Yes. Did Danny make-out with the girl? Yes. Is she now a lesbian? Yes. Are the two facts necessarily connected? NO.

“But Danny, (you whine) how can you explain the economic growth under Clinton with higher taxes?” Pfffffffffffffffffff…okay. Taxes aren’t the only economic factor. During the Clinton years the Internet came bursting on the scene, unleashing the most powerful burst of economic innovation since the Industrial Revolution. There was a new excitement–almost frenzy–of economic activity that Clinton’s high taxes didn’t have the power to squash. (FYI, I just had the hardest time spelling the word “squash.”) This is one of my beefs with Krugman. He lays out his arguments, not-so-subtly, implying that Republicans are idiots for openly acknowledging that taxes stifle economic activity, when he doesn’t have the gonads to suggest higher taxes encourage economic growth. I guess even he can’t be that intellectually dishonest. I can prove higher taxes don’t encourage economic growth. This is me dumbing it down.

I give you Dr. Seuss’ “The Lorax”

In the Lorax (I read the book, I have never seen the movie) there was a man called the Once-ler. The Once-ler made and sold an item called a Thneed. “I’m being quite useful. This thing is a Thneed. A Thneed’s a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need! It’s a shirt. It’s a sock. It’s a glove. It’s a hat. But it has OTHER uses. Yes, far beyond that. You can use it for carpets. For pillows! For sheets! Or curtains! Or covers for bicycle seats!”

For easy math let’s say in today’s economy you could buy a Thneed for $100. For something so useful a hundred bucks is a screaming deal. You save until you have the required “Benjamin” and then you remember taxes. You figure if you go with $108 you should be able to make your coveted purchase. You go to the store and there you see two Thneeds (a Thneed’s a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need) one of them for $100 plus tax the other (for whatever reason) is a hundred dollars even. You look and compare and they are both completely identical. So the question is which would you buy?

Any idiot would purchase the cheaper item.

Now you have $8.00 burning a hole in your pocket.
You go to Wendy’s and purchase a small chili with cheese and onion, and a baked potato for $3.05. Then to the local convenience store and purchase a large drink and a pack of gum. While there you see a bucket with a sign asking for donations to the “Dyslexic Dalmatian Society,” and because Americans are the most generous people in the world, you decide to donate the rest of your Thneed money there.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a dumbed-down example of how lower taxes encourage economic growth.

Of course there needs to be taxes. But we really need to get the spending under control. You can argue all day that there can be economic growth with higher taxes; of course you can also argue 2+2=5.

You’re still wrong.

LIFEZILLA: You really should subscribe to Lifezilla. What are you waiting for, Christmas? Ahhh…ya just missed it.

Comments Off on 2 + 2 = 5

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged Dr. Seuss, Economic Growth, Economy, Paul Krugman, taxes

Memory Lane

Posted on December 26, 2012 | Comments Off

Memory Lane

Before I launch into today’s article, I hope you all had an inoffensive politically correct seasonal period of celebratory behavior with variations of traditions and significance!!! Errrr…I’m sorry. I hope you all had the Merriest of Christmas’.

In the “Personal History” category, I thought I would go down memory lane with you. Many, many years ago the company I work for purchased a program were I could, from my computer, fax my customers a monthly newsletter. I would write little witty articles about what was going on at work and set the program to fax them after midnight (when the rates were the cheapest), so my customers would have them when they got to the office.

And then when we finally got email, I would do the same thing, only in email form. I would have a business related article and then I started adding witty little stories to the article that had NOTHING to do with business. It was SOOOOO MUCH FUN.

Many years ago I wrote a few things regarding “New Years Resolutions”. I’m just going to pretty much copy and paste it here. I changed the dates, removed a name and updated some things, but it is pretty much the same.

I hope you have a happy New Year.

New Year’s Resolutions

Shhhhhhh. . . Can you keep a secret? If you are in an office like mine, then you probably have one of those annoying co-workers who carefully records his New Year’s resolutions, and then, 4 months from now, ridicules those of us who didn’t follow through on our own. Well, this year I’m outsmarting him. I’m telling him my resolution this year is “abstinence.” Moooowahahahaha, let’s see him make fun of me if I happen to get lucky.

I actually do believe in setting goals, and making New Year’s resolutions. Anyone who knows me knows “Self Improvement” is almost an obsession. From the time I was a wee little lad my mother taught that “a goal not written down is only a wish.” So with that in mind I thought I would take this opportunity to chronicle my goals and resolutions for the year 2013.

I resolve:

To exercise less – Total waste of time

To watch more TV – I’m missing a lot of good stuff

To use my credit cards more often and for bigger purchases – It ticks me off my neighbors have better stuff than I do.

To stop eating fudge, after just these 15 more pieces. Maybe 20.

To “scoop poop” in the yard BEFORE the Humane Society sends a cease and desist letter.

Too pay bester attension too my speeling and grammer.

To exceed the office “Annual Fitness Goal” by striving to be 7.63% fatter, thus wresting away the good parking spot from that “Slack bastard” I work with. You know what? I am not sure I understand the Fitness goals.

To finally get that flatulence-emission reduction surgery. . . . Again.

To be a more caring and attentive father to little What’s-His-Face over there.

To stop basing all my personal decisions on things I learn from watching “Jersey Shore.”

To appear on COPS again, this time wearing a shirt.

To give a little more to Charity. . .thus ensuring her continued silence to the wife. —–TOTALLY JOKING!!!!

To consider all people worthy of equal attention, no matter how distant they may be. Including that hottie on the 18th floor of the apartment building three blocks away who never uses curtains, especially now that I’ve recently given myself a telescope for Christmas.

To do a better job of keeping the Five Commandments.

To pay less attention to the voices in my head and more attention to the SWAT team surrounding the building. (What the. . . ? You’re kidding me, right? I don’t know why you’re being all pissy. I told you I was going to write it down. You seriously can’t be mad at me. Oh, that’s reeeeeally mature, ha ha ha, let’s ALL repeat exactly what I’m saying. Shhhh, all of you!!! I think they’re still here. Quick!!! Everyone act natural. I don’t know! Like THEY are. All of you shut up!!!!!)

Pfffffffff. I’m telling you. I told them not to do it. I just haven’t been the same since they took away my blankie.

Hey, now that Christmas is over, can we all agree that the Christmas song, “Baby it’s Cold Outside” is really not so much a song about Christmas as it is about date rape? I’m serious. Google the words.

LIFEZILLA: Your favorite website to “make-out with” on New Year’s Eve.

Comments Off on Memory Lane

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged Christmas, New Year, Personal History, Resolutions

I Hate to Cloud the Issue with Facts

Posted on December 19, 2012 | 8 comments

I Hate to Cloud the Issue with Facts

On Friday, December 14, 2012 a deeply troubled man entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut killing 20 young children and 6 adults. As a father I can’t even begin to imagine what the parents are going through. Because of my deep sympathy I have struggled, and struggled to write about the annoying knee jerk reaction to increase gun control that is being touted by the media and politicians. But I need to. Rahm Emanuel, former Chief of Staff for President Obama, said it best with his famous quote, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” I think any politician who could come up with a phrase like that is an opportunistic jerk. When feelings are tender and passions are high is not a time to make long term policy.

Let’s put some stuff into perspective. On the Friday morning, before this tragedy happened, I was on Yahoo looking at the news. I saw a little article that talked about a man going into a school and stabbing 22 children before being subdued. I learned there had been six knife attacks like this in a seven month period in 2010 were nearly 20 were killed and more than 50 wounded. This happened in China. Why isn’t that being widely reported? Simple, it doesn’t fit the narrative that guns are the problem. After the tragedy in Connecticut, I went back to Yahoo to bookmark the China story and couldn’t find it. I actually had to do a Yahoo search (I’m sure the entire search staff of Yahoo were high fiving each other).

Some more perspective: For years the biggest mass killing in US history happened in Bath, Michigan in 1927. Apparently the man felt the government raised his taxes so high he had to foreclose on his land. The government used the land to build a school. This sick individual retaliated by setting off a bomb that killed 44, including 38 children. No gun was used.

And a little bit more perspective: Timothy Mcveigh killed 168 innocent people. 19 were under the age of six. He injured over 680 people. He didn’t use a gun. He used fertilizer, racing fuel and a box truck. You can still purchase all these items.

What’s my point? Murderers are going to murder. Evil is evil and evil is real. Closing your eyes denying it exists won’t help. That will only cause a paralysis when it crashes into your life.

“But Danny,” you whine, “it just makes sense that fewer guns mean less crime.” Hmmmmmmmmmm no. It really doesn’t. Let’s look at two major cities in the United States, Chicago and Phoenix. Chicago has some of the most strict gun laws in the nation, Phoenix the most lenient (you can carry a gun without a permit in Phoenix). Gun crime violence in Chicago is TWICE as high as Phoenix. I hate to use things, like I dunno, facts and stuff, but it’s true. Another fact, in 2007 a study from Harvard University concluded there IS a correlation between gun ownership and murder. But it isn’t what you think. Where gun ownership increases, violence and murder decrease. Hmmmm? Harvard is hardly a right leaning organization. From the study:

There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

“But Danny,” you continue to whine, “lots and lots of other countries have restrictive gun laws. We come across as hillbillies.” And!?!?!? Again I hate to bring up facts. Whenever any city, state or country institute more restrictive gun laws they experience an increase in almost every form of violent crime. Canada, England and Australia all experienced double digit increases in violent crime immediately following their most recent crackdowns. And if you look at Switzerland, where half the citizens own guns, they have the lowest crime rate in the world.

“But Danny (sob, cry, sob) do we really need citizens to have ASSAULT RIFLES (sniff, sniff)?” Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffff…okay, full disclosure. I own guns, but I have never considered myself a “gun guy”. I like the fact I can own them. It is my Constitutional right. What part of “shall not be infringed” do people not get? I was watching the news the other day and this guy was whining about “semi-automatic weapons”. Again, I’m not a gun guy, but even I know the phrase “semi-automatic” means you have to pull the trigger every time you want a bullet to come out. I guess the word “automatic” sounds scary.

The United States isn’t the only country in the world to deal with the problems of mass killings in schools. Israel and South Africa have faced similar problems. Do you know what they did? They armed the teachers and administrators. If you think about it, we hire people who love kids. We trust them to teach, why not trust them to protect? I’ve heard some suggest hiring security guards for every school. Again, this is a knee jerk response. Taking the money it would cost and putting that on the back burner, to properly guard a school you would need around 6 or so guards. That is six people who would be VERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRY bored 99.999999999999% of the time.

There were 8,583 murders last year that included a gun in the United States, in a country that has an estimated 300 million guns. I can’t even figure out what the percentage of guns NOT used in a murder is. I think if the states had mandatory prison time for any crime that included a gun the usage would go down.

I know these aren’t answers. They are suggestions. No gun legislation would have prevented the tragedy of December 14, 2012. No one, as an individual, can control the morality, spirituality or mental health of others. If someone is determined to be violent they will figure out a way to do it. Banning guns won’t save lives. Banning guns make the problem worse.

The founders gave us the 2^nd amendment to insure we could always have the 1^st.

LIFEZILLA: Trust me, it works SOOOOOO much better than just mistletoe alone.

8 Comments

Posted in 2nd Amendment

Tagged 2nd amendment, Gun Control, Harvard University, Rahm Emanuel, Sandy Hook, Timothy Mcveigh

Much to My Annoyance

Posted on December 11, 2012 | 5 comments

Much to My Annoyance

I have a friend who sends me articles every once in a while. A few weeks ago he sent me one from New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. Krugman, if you don’t know is a Nobel Prize winner. A fact which used to be a huge accomplishment, today doesn’t mean that much.

I’m too lazy to explain why, so I’ll insert this picture:

See what I mean? I know, it’s sad isn’t it? It is like a Nobel Prize has become the elitist equivalent of a participation metal. “Yeah, for us!! Everyone gets a trophy.” Anyway, back to Krugman. Even though I read it a couple of weeks ago, it took this long to fully annoy me. Keep in mind I’m STILL amazed at how stupid the American people are for re-electing a President who’s done nothing but make the economy worse. But, the people have spoken. If the economies of Greece and California are lookin’ OH SO FINE to you, and if Santa Claus is your idea of a President who am I to complain? But, oh yes, I will complain.

Krugman began spewing his editorial vomit by pointing out that in the 1950’s American survived a 91% income tax rate. So apparently it’s time to bring back the good ol’ days. Of course, I’m not surprised by this. The last election confirmed the majority of Americans believe higher taxes somehow create prosperity. They just ignore the plethora (a word I learned from watching the “Three Amigos” as a kid) of historical evidence and common sense that suggest otherwise.

But that’s not the part that annoyed me. Here is the paragraph that did:

“There are, let’s face it, some people in our political life who pine for the days when minorities and women knew their place, gays stayed firmly in the closet and congressmen asked, “Are you now or have you ever been?” The rest of us, however, are very glad those days are gone. We are, morally, a much better nation than we were. Oh, and the food has improved a lot, too.”

So, Mr. Krugman (if that’s your real name) just so I’m clear, “some” in our “political life” pine for a more oppressive society based on race, gender, and sexual orientation? My question is WHO? Give us a name of one politician who is calling for the oppression of women, minorities and gays. Enlighten us with the name or number of any Republican bill, in any Committee that calls for these things. With someone as super smart as Krugman to say “let’s face it,” these people have to be front and center in our “political life,” right? Or am I missing something?

Remind me, didn’t the recent RNC have more women and minorities giving speeches than the DNC? OHMIGOSH, it did. But anyone as super smart as Krugman would be able to see right through that, it’s obviously smoke and mirrors. Clearly, there is an underlining tone of sexism, racism and homophobia that is the ONLY reason that ANYONE could POSSIBLY be conservative. Right?

Then there’s the, “We are, morally, a much better nation than we were” thing.

What the hell is he talking about?

Whenever a jackass like Krugman talks about morality, your walls of defense should really shoot up. Morality isn’t food, where everyone’s opinion is valid. As long as it tastes good to you, that’s all that matters. To understand morality you have to have an understanding about standards. What is right and what is wrong.

Killing someone because they have a nicer car is wrong. Period. The state can’t legitimately make laws that say otherwise. Regardless of societal whims. Our nation was founded on the idea that all men (including women) are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.” I hate to break it to you, but rights and morality are linked, all morality originates with God, not government.

If the government is what decides morality, than morality, just like everything else is economical. How moral is it that more Americans live in poverty than ever before? If morality is all about the living conditions of women and minorities, how are we more moral now with 72% of black children being born into families without a father? Doesn’t that all but guarantee a continual cycle of poverty? Of course we couldn’t POSSIBLY suggest the God-given morality of being married if you’re going to start cranking out babies. Or, at a bare-ass minimum, suggest that fathers MAN UP and take care of their kids. No, no, no. It’s more moral to give free contraception.

Well, at least they will all continue to vote Democrat.

I’ll agree with Krugman on one thing. The food has improved over the past several decades.

LIFEZILLA: Having more fun then two monkeys in a poo throwing contest.

5 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged DNC, Morality, New York Times, Nobel Prize, Paul Krugman, RNC, taxes, Three Amigos

Author Archives: Danny Quinney

Search

Archives