Friday, January 6, 2012

A NATION OF MOOCHERS

A NATION OF MOOCHERS..America's Addiction to Getting Something for Nothing, a book by Charles J. Sykes.   I just heard this author interviewed and he's very articulate and covers so many things good Conservatives are so concerned about for America.  Here's a review:

Have we reached a tipping point where more Americans depend on the efforts of others than on their own? Are we becoming a nation of moochers?

In A Nation of Moochers, Charles J. Sykes argues that we are already very close to that point, if we have not already crossed the line: from the corporate bailouts on Wall Street, to enormous pension, healthcare, and other entitlement costs, to questionable tax exemptions for businesses and individuals, to the alarming increases in personal default and dependency, the new moocher culture cuts across lines of class, race, and private and public sectors.


A Nation of Moochers explores the shift in the American character as well as the economy. Much of the anger of the current political climate stems from the realization by millions of Americans that they are being forced to pay for the greed-driven problems of other people and corporations; increasingly, those who plan and behave sensibly are being asked to bail out the profligate. Sykes’ argument is not against compassion or legitimate charity, but distinguishes between definable needs and the moocher culture, in which self-reliance and personal responsibility have given way to mass grasping after entitlements, tax breaks, benefits, bailouts, and other forms of feeding at the public trough.
Persuasively argued and wryly entertaining, A Nation of Moochers is a rallying cry for Americans who are tired of playing by the rules and paying for those who don’t. (end)

I highly recommend getting this book if for nothing else but to show your friends who don't quite grasp yet what danger we're facing in this country due to creeping socialism, class warfare and entitlement grabbers.

To which group or circumstance do you attribute the most blame for the 'shift in the American character'  ?    And can America shift back to the American character which wasn't expectant upon someone else to support them?  Isn't it one thing to understand people may need help in their lives and a whole other thing to be raising people who expect it or who don't feel working is worth it?  I'm curious in hearing what you have to say.  Thanks.

z

94 comments:

beamish said...

To which group or circumstance do you attribute the most blame for the 'shift in the American character'?

Warning, landmines ahead...

We'd have to go back to right before this Deal was New, and witness that peculiar political oxymoron known as "social conservatives" and their church communities one by one abdicating socio-religious responsibilities and service to Hoover and Roosevelt's growing mandate of federal employment and entitlement programs. Perhaps they did so innocently, figuring that if God could run the Universe on 10% of their income, Uncle Sam could do so much more for just America with 63%, 79%, 81%, 94%....

Roosevelt had the most help popularizing his New Deal poverty assistance and entitlement programs from good-intentioned church communities across America.

God, after all, is a "grandma killer."

beamish said...

...or as the third Messiah-American President often reminds in his teleprompted sermons, Americans have allegedly become "soft" and "lazy" and "in need of making shared sacrifices."

Sacrifice your children's future for your needs now. Their children will pay for it, honest.

Always On Watch said...

To which group or circumstance do you attribute the most blame for the 'shift in the American character'?

It used to be that people looked to the government for "help" as as last resort. For example, when my grandfather tipped over into violent dementia back in the early 1940s and became a danger to the entire community as he was very physically fit and took to chasing people around with an axe, his care was taken over by Western State Mental Hospital. A terrible place! My grandfather died after a mere year -- strapped down and screaming. At that time, no private facilities would even accept him as a resident, and taking care of him at home was absolutely impossible -- elderly wife, all adult children working, etc. The state seized all of my grandfather's assets, of course, thus resulting in my grandmother having to move in with one of her children (my father). I actually know of a similar case today in my homeschool group; the father of one of my homeschool parents has had all his assets seized, and only the state hospital will admit this man for warehousing.

And can America shift back to the American character which wasn't expectant upon someone else to support them?

I don't see how. When you come right down to it, the public school system depends on the support of those who aren't using it. The same can be said of the public library system. Yes, we can talk about "the greater good." But so often, "the greater good" is the mantra of socialism.

How did we get to this point? Well, to a certain extent, we got here because of the pickpocketing by the government via taxes. When people pay for something, they (rightly?) believe that they are entitled to that benefit.

We have already reached the point that the tax base is too small to support even the necessary components of government. This problem extends to much more than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

Always On Watch said...

BTW, when Social Security was enacted, what was the average life expectancy? And at the start, wasn't Medicaid supposed to apply only to children -- and not to the care of the elderly?

Always On Watch said...

Catch 22! If we make children and grandchildren legally and financially responsible for the care of their elders or their disabled family members, the tax base will shrink even further as individuals will have to be pulled from the work force to effect that care.

BTW, one cause of the growing government is the fact that women have been FORCED to work. How many houses today can actually be purchased via the one-earner family? Unless that one earner is making big bucks, that is.

It used to be that women worked outside the home so as to "have stuff" (luxuries). That's not the situation now, particularly for the middle and lower class.

-FJ said...

God, after all, is a "grandma killer."

Not be changing the Laws of the Universe in mid-stream, Grandma Killer.

-FJ said...

America was "slowly" weaned TO the government teet. It needs to be slowly weaned back OFF it.

-FJ said...

...and women were never FORCED to work. They were "affirmatively enabled" by the government and business so as to drive down wages and create the circumstances that make it NECCESSARY for an average household to draw two incomes. What are the sq. ft.s of a modern house compared to the past? 4x as big? 8x?

What passed for luxury housing in 1920 would be considered "slum" housing today.

-FJ said...

...and ALL this happened over LONG periods of time, so making dramatic/radical and immediate changes to remedy the economic system is extremely INADVISABLE, unless we want to do as Beamish suggests and sacrifice a vulnerable segment of the population on the altar of another.

Silverfiddle said...

Progressives. To take the charitable view, the industrial age of the late 1800's and early 1900's combined with waves of immigrants coming to our shores and hayseeds from the country flocking to the cities for work was making a mess of our cities, diseases, sanitation, uneducated kids with rickets etc...

Government stepped in to put some order to things, and never stepped back out.

This is what is most frustrating arguing with today's (very illiberal) liberals. You just can't get them to see that government has gone to far.

Silverfiddle said...

And FJ is right. Can't go cold turkey. Trying to do so would end in failure and we'd be right back where we started from.

Always On Watch said...

FJ,
I'm not speaking of affording bigger and bigger houses -- and vacations in the Cayman Islands.

Look at the real-estate taxes today. I live in a small house (quonset hut compared to all around me -- no central AC, only one bathroom), yet I pay $400/month in real-estate taxes.

Some women were indeed FORCED to work. My family is filled with young widows (age 27, age 33 and with a child with osteogenesis imperfecta, etc.) -- not to mention the single women in the family. Few divorces, BTW.

Right now, what is forcing me to work is the cost of health insurance. Sheesh. It's over the moon!

Always On Watch said...

FJ,
You are absolutely correct that weaning off is required!

Always On Watch said...

Full disclosure: The AOW household is living for March 1, when Mr. AOW health premium drops from $700/month to $138/month. My insurance (basic coverage -- catastrophic type) will go to at least $300/month on April 1. And I don't have any pre-existing conditions!

Always On Watch said...

Silverfiddle said: And FJ is right. Can't go cold turkey. Trying to do so would end in failure and we'd be right back where we started from.

Yep!

Households would go medically bankrupt and thus end up on the taxpayers' backs. **sigh**

FairWitness said...

Instead of trying to right all the wrongs in society today, let's concentrate on reducing unemployment and under-employment. This requires cutting taxes, repealing regulations - especially those that stifle domestic energy production - and ending unemployment compensation extensions. If we got unemployment back under 5%, much of the problems we're facing would be remedied. Then we can tackle the rest of these massive problems.

-FJ said...

I'm not implying that women went to work so as to afford bigger houses. But the net result of more and more women entering the workforce LED to households slowly being able to AFFORD larger houses... and these "new/larger" and more expensive houses REPLACED the older housing stock of quonset hut houses... and drove up property values AROUND those smaller houses. Free and easy credit enabled those owners to borrow money based upon those higher property values, and lead to additional sq fts. being added to the older living spaces.

This all required TIME to happen. Which is why a dramatic CHANGE to our economic course is inadvisable. We need to chart a new course to self-reliance and smaller and more limited government (instead of simply going along with "progressives" and expanding government w/o limit). And this needs to be a LONG-term project, not simply electing a Ron Paul who withdraws America's defense umbrella from the world stage overnight.

-FJ said...

Educating generations of voters in a Democracy to view economics realistically and embrace self-reliance is not an easy project, and will NOT succeed if progressives can re-write or gin up alternate "histories" at will. I'm not optimistic that such a long-term project can be sustained. Witness that few civilizations have ever succeeded in surviving and sustaining their progress more than for a few hundred years at best.

-FJ said...

Who is responsible for this mess? Keynes, for one, who made the "progressive" case for large scale government intervention in redistributionist economics.

The "Cambridge" school of economics that couldn't stand the thought of boom and bust cycles.

Ron Paul may be wrong on a lot of things. But economics isn't one of them.

Z said...

the government has gone way too far and is going farther and no, we can't stop today, cold turkey, sadly...we have to wean people off or it would be demoralizing and we'd have soup lines miles long.

Here's a tough one:

DO YOU THINK WE COULD START WEANING BEFORE THE ECNOMY'S DOING MUCH BETTER OR MUST WE WAIT SO LESS HAVE TO BE WEANED (HOPEFULLY, THE INDOCTRINATED COLLEGE GRADS WILL EVEN WANT TO WORK AFTER HAVING BECOME USED TO CAMPING OUT AND 'OCCUPING' THINGS)

ALSO, DID YOU HEAR THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWING FOREIGNERS TO COME IN TO WORK AND HOW MANY TEENAGERS' JOBS THAT'S ELIMINATED? DO YOU EVER SEE AN AMERICAN TEEN FLIPPING BURGERS ANYMORE?
I WAS AT A MCDONALDS RECENTLY WHERE I SIMPLY COULDN'T UNDERSTAND THE WOMAN IN THE DRIVE THRU WINDOW, AND NEITHER COULD THE MAN BEHIND ME WHEN I HEARD HIM ALSO SAY 'I SIMPLY CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOU'.
I MIGHT HAVE ORDERED WHATEVER SHE WAS OFFERING AFTER TAKING MY ORDER IF I'D UNDERSTOOD HER....HE MIGHT HAVE, TOO...SO IT LOST THEM BUSINESS. SIMPLY COULD NOT UNDERSTAND HER ACCENT AND THEY PLACE HER IN A POSITION OF TALKING TO PEOPLE THROUGH SPEAKERS? TYPICAL.

So, we need to cut back NOW to save some money, but cutting back now on the entitlement babies would create an even bigger bunch of dependents...what now?

Fredd said...

It's human nature at work. We all instinctively seek the paths of least resistance.

And De Toqueville noted this back in the 1820's: once people see that they can vote themselves a piece of the public pie, the party is over.

Democrats understand human nature better than Republicans. It's easy to stick your hand out, but it's hard to put your nose to the grindstone.

Democrats represent all the grasshoppers out there, and Republicans are on the ant side of things. Unfortunately, the GOP tends to compromise with the grasshoppers much to the cost of all the ants out there.

Always On Watch said...

FJ,
Thanks for the clarification about the two-earner households.

Back later! I really do have to get out the door to tutor a homebound student. Lyme Disease is so debilitating!

-FJ said...

DO YOU THINK WE COULD START WEANING BEFORE THE ECNOMY'S DOING MUCH BETTER OR MUST WE WAIT SO LESS HAVE TO BE WEANED

NOW is the perfect time to start "weaning". NECESSITY (not politicians) should be our primary "teacher" and "educator". And by not subsidizing "green fantasies" and re-committing America to an energy self-sufficiency policy, those "green fantasies" will either materialize, or they won't.

Let the coal mining and natural gas "earthquake generating" (BOO! Are you scared yet?) "fracking" BEGIN!

Z said...

Fredd, you say "Democrats understand human nature better than Republicans. It's easy to stick your hand out, but it's hard to put your nose to the grindstone."

In this case, yes...and don't we all know it's 'easier' to take than to work.
But, normally, Dems completely miss human nature and want to prevent every natural occurrence from happening lest one person suffers again, so ALL have to suffer via laws the left creates....ridiculous.

I START TO WONDER IF WE HAVEN'T HIT ON SOMETHING HERE; THE DEMS BELIEVE IT IS HUMAN NATURE TO TAKE WHAT YOU CAN GET AND EXPECT OTHERS TO HELP VIA MANDATE, REPS BELIEVE HUMAN NATURE IS ABOUT SELF RELIANCE AND INDEPENDENCE AND HELPING OTHERS WHEN WE CAN, BUT MAKING SURE SOMEONE ELSE CAN HELP AT THE TIME WE CAN'T.

I DO NOT BELIEVE ALL DEMOCRATS FEEL THAT WAY, HOWEVER...EVEN THO IT'S MY EXPERIENCE THAT ENTITLEMENTS MAKE THEM HAPPy!

-FJ said...

Energy is the key to REAL progress, economic and otherwise. Sending hundreds of billions of $$$ to Saudi Arabia and the Middle East is NOT "America empowering". THAT is one idea that Rick Perry had RIGHT!

-FJ said...

Juche, however, much as with all things, be adopted in "moderation". There are times in everyone's life (and every nation's life) when they need a "hand up".

beamish said...

God, after all, is a "grandma killer."

Not be changing the Laws of the Universe in mid-stream, Grandma Killer.

Forgive my blasphemy, in the left-wing looney-verse of Naderites for Mitt Romney's Tea-stablishment, the "law" is that any talk whatsoever of reforming or privatizing entitlement programs must be demogogued and shouted down as "grandma killing."

It's the ONLY hymn they know.

Kinda sad isn't it?

-FJ said...

You offered no plan to "reform" anything, Grandma Killer. Your "plan" was to end Social Security and Medicare payments tomorrow.

Demagogue has a new synonym,to "Beamish."

beamish said...

Ron Paul may be wrong on a lot of things. But economics isn't one of them.

And he'll pay back the Baby Doomer generation's $15+ Trillion national debt in gold bullion how?

Is there gold in them thar planets?

-FJ said...

"Old people must be sacrificed for the greater good of the young!"

Pitting one group of Americans against another has NEVER been a strategy which has benefited the ENTIRE country, beamish. You should have learned that by now.

-FJ said...

...and I don't have any idea what Ron Paul's ideas for reforming Social Security are. But I can say one thing, they're not "throw grandma off the train, tomorrow".

Each of the candidates has had at least one good idea. 9-9-9 sounded pretty good. Energy independence (Perry) sounded good. Paul advocates moving in the direction of the "Framer's" Constitution. Bachmann wants to roll back Obamacare.

But they're all "Leftists" to be ignored at worst and demonized at beast in the "beamish" worldview. How sad and narrow that worldview must be!

beamish said...

You offered no plan to "reform" anything, Grandma Killer. Your "plan" was to end Social Security and Medicare payments tomorrow.

No, my plan was to not allow any of you children born before 1966 to have a voice in how the bill gets paid, since those of us born afterwards had no voice in your forging our names on the bad checks you've cashed over the last 70 years.

beamish said...

Pitting one group of Americans against another has NEVER been a strategy which has benefited the ENTIRE country, beamish.

Yeah. Let's screw those people living in the year 2030 instead.

-FJ said...

Disenfranchise Americans. THAT's your REAL plan, Beamish????

Great plan, Cumwad Stalinish! Perhaps we should send them elderly "entitlement Americans" to the gulags to work off their debts with the rest of the freeloading kulacks.

-FJ said...

...oh, wait. THAT plan would actually allow them a chance to live. We have respirators that need unplugging, IMMEDIATELY!

-FJ said...

It's so easy to demagogue the Tea Party. Who has to think? Just become a nattering nabob of negativism... the beamish way.

Bob said...

"Catch 22! If we make children and grandchildren legally and financially responsible for the care of their elder"

I don't see anything wrong with my kids taking care of me during my feeble years. After all, I spent great sums of money raising them and sending them to good universities. As far as I'm concerned, it's time for some payback.

Damn the little ungrateful snots.

-FJ said...

btw - Didn't "young people" elect Barack Obama in 2008, beamish? It seems to me that the American voters "demography problem" isn't one which favours your goal of throwing grandma off the respirator.

Joe said...

To roll back government interventionism either incrementally or cold turkey would violate the primier tenent of government: power, control and reelection at all costs.

IMHBCO (In My Humble, But Correct, Opinion), the framers missed one point in the Constitution, and that is the need to assure that the same people don't remain in government long enough to attain the kind of power they now have.

Translation: Term Limits...4 years for the president, two years for congress and eight years for the Supreme Court.

beamish said...

...and I don't have any idea what Ron Paul's ideas for reforming Social Security are. But I can say one thing, they're not "throw grandma off the train, tomorrow".

Ron Paul is a Euro-socialist. His plan is to eviscerate the military and throw that extra budget cash into the welfare state Ponzi scheme.

Each of the candidates has had at least one good idea. 9-9-9 sounded pretty good.

Except for the raising taxes on 84% of American households...

Energy independence (Perry) sounded good.

But Perry couldn't remember it.

Paul advocates moving in the direction of the "Framer's" Constitution.

Neocon interventions ala Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe notwithstanding...

Bachmann wants to roll back Obamacare.

But that's torture! ::giggle::

But they're all "Leftists" to be ignored at worst and demonized at beast in the "beamish" worldview. How sad and narrow that worldview must be!

Keep swishing that enema. You can imagine it's got a pickle in there, if you think it will help your breath.

-FJ said...

Term Limits were overturned by SCOTUS. It would need to be a Constitutional Amendment, one that is unlikely to pass a Senate filled with bribe swallowing sychophants.

-FJ said...

...and beamish, ALL of the candidates have had a few BAD idea's as well. Just look at your own "Throw grandma off the respirator" plan. It's still no reason to demonize them, which is why I chose to go after YOU.

beamish said...

btw - Didn't "young people" elect Barack Obama in 2008, beamish? It seems to me that the American voters "demography problem" isn't one which favours your goal of throwing grandma off the respirator.

I'm just one of those midlife Gen-X "slackers" come to tell you that Gen-Why? kid whacking a bystander to death on the sidewalk with a baseball bat on his XBox Grand Theft Auto game (or in the alley behind your meth lab) doesn't give a shit about you, or me for that matter.

beamish said...

...and beamish, ALL of the candidates have had a few BAD idea's as well. Just look at your own "Throw grandma off the respirator" plan. It's still no reason to demonize them, which is why I chose to go after YOU.

And you hit like a girl, I mean demogoguing leftist.

beamish said...

Here's some "street wisdom" for you, FJ. Perhaps you'll understand when you grow up.

Do you know the difference between a crack-head and a meth-head?

A crack-head will steal your shit and you'll never see them again.

A meth-head will steal your shit and come back over to your house to help you look for it, casing out for something else to steal.

Crack-heads are leftists.

Meth-heads are populists.

Rita said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

It's so easy to demagogue the Tea Party. Who has to think? Just become a nattering nabob of negativism... the beamish way.

Mitt Romney's PAC supports the Tea-stablishment more than you do, wage slave.

Your Kool-Aid needs more sugar, Rev. Jones.

-FJ said...

... So which are you, beamish? The crack head or the meth head?

Oh, that's right, you're the one with the ideas for ending crack and meth addictions by killing them all.

Good plan... Until they're all dead and you've no one left to blame for your unhappy situation but yourself and the bad choices you've made personally.

It's a shame that in a democracy you have to sell your ideas and make them popular.

beamish said...

Disenfranchise Americans. THAT's your REAL plan, Beamish????

Who said anything about Americans? Americans work hard, get up by their bootstraps, pitch in, and make something of themselves.

Leave Americans alone. Let's your target your fellow entitlement junkies instead. There's a whole "nation of moochers" needing some remedial economic hygiene lessons, stat!

beamish said...

It's a shame that in a democracy you have to sell your ideas and make them popular.

Well, it was a republic, 'til you meth-heads took it.

beamish said...

...and no, thanks. I don't need your "help" finding it again.

Leticia said...

My personal opinion, is that it began with the 1960's. The 1940's and 1950's has been marred by a generation who spit on American soldiers as they fought against Marxism and socialism. This was the starting downfall.

These ridiculous radicals were embracing Marxism values and encouraged mayhem, disrespect of their parents and any authoritative figure. They encouraged social misbehavior, racism, segregation, and sexual immorality. Values that kept this nation strong were slowly being dismantled by a group of bored kids who were hell-bent on tearing down morality and decorum.

I could add a lot more to this, but I think I made my point. I am sure I will have many who will disagree, but it is my opinion.

Pris said...

I think there are several factors which led to this entitlement mind set.

Besides the New Deal policy, which became an automatic expectation and politicians not having the spine to gradually raise the age qualification over the years until the 1980's, we now have about 47% of the population who don't pay federal income tax.

Not only that, but now there are tax credits, (free money) to those considered at poverty level.
If all earned income was taxed, those paying it, who don't now, would have a different view of entitlement. They'd be paying for it too! Plus, they'd vote differently and fewer would have their hands out begging for more.

I see children all the time, who get what they want, when they want it. You can't spoil your children, and expect them to be responsible, and to learn they have to earn what they want.

IMO, working mothers contribute to this out of guilt for not being there for their kids.

Children are capable of understanding Mom having to work, vs Mom who works because she wants to or to have more stuff!

The women's movement had a lot to do with this, and the children are the ones who were victims of it.

In any case, children who are given everything, grow up to expect that to continue. They're not willing to accept that two letter word, "NO"!

If you think I'm wrong, take a look at the young people in the "occupy" crowd!

Finally, minorities are pandered to, and told they're victims, and need to be taken care of. Evidently they're considered by so called liberals, to be inferior, and not capable of caring for themselves. I call that racism btw.

They have been given victim status, simply because they are people of color. This now, has gone on so long it is now a mind-set for too many when it was never necessary in the first place.

Generally speaking, the result of all this, is a nanny state mentality, which leads to the class warfare agenda which Obama has embraced as his number one argument.

Obama, spoke of unifying Americans, and instead widened the chasm between groups, for his own political gains. This is not new, but it is more intense, and hateful IMO, and what socialists and Marxists have created and used for a long time to achieve and hold onto power.

A nanny state is a moocher state, and has come full circle!

-FJ said...

No "Americans" are mooches, beamish? That's REALly your argument? "Real" Americans like beamish are all can do and boot strap. The rest need to be locked up with the meth heads.

Aside from ad hominem, you realize that you have no argument skills, I hope?

beamish said...

I suppose it boils down to my beef with the oxymoron known as "social conservatism."

I don't want a government that promotes my values. That's my job, yo.

beamish said...

Aside from ad hominem, you realize that you have no argument skills, I hope?

Does the government pay you to be blitheringly ironic, FJ, or do they expect you to use your computer for something else at "work" from time to time?

-FJ said...

Now there's a surprise. Beamish hates social conservatives, Tea Party conservatives, libertarians,and Leftists. Apparently there is only one American left... Beamish.

-FJ said...

The government doesn't pay me anything, beamish.

-FJ said...

Btw - When are you going to stop mooching off the internet and invent your own communications network?

beamish said...

Now there's a surprise. Beamish hates social conservatives, Tea Party conservatives, libertarians,and Leftists. Apparently there is only one American left... Beamish.

Don't forget to clock out for lunch, derp.

beamish said...

Btw - When are you going to stop mooching off the internet and invent your own communications network?

As soon as you pay Fannie for your McMansion, derp.

-FJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
-FJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
-FJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thersites said...

Welcome to the new "Let's get personal" line of internet argumentation. It's fun to watch, and everybody gets exposed as a hypocrite that way.

-FJ said...

Oh wait. Only beamish would be a hypocrite under THAT scenario...

...as I'm already out as a meth head Social Security entitlement whore.

-FJ said...

You need to get yourself a pair of longer bootstraps, beamish.

-FJ said...

Don't blink, or you just might miss it.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Damn. How high will you ride your petard before it flames out, FJ?

Oh... there it is.

Pris said...

beamish abd FJ!! Are you trying to lose Geeez more commenters?

Damn it, take this fight into your own back alley where it belongs, will you please???

Z said...

Am going on moderation again,
Sorry to my loyal and respectful commenters who don't deserve that.

I never thought I'd have to worry about people I knew and had liked making my blog a nightmare. How many times do I have to ask for civility?

what a couple of DAMNED PUNKS.

Anonymous said...

PRIS,

I'm sorry to have to be the one to say it, but FJ is not to blame.

Having been repeatedly harassed, reviled and bedevilled, yourself by The Big Bad B, don't you think it's high time SOMEONE stood up to him?

God knows I tried, but got chastised, castigated, condemned and electronically excommunicated for my trouble.

I don't know what the solution might be, but allowing libellous nonsense, and malicious invective to be stated with reckless, maniacal intensity to stand unchallenged and undefeated is NOT going to improve the quality of communication on this or any other blog.

I returned here, because I saw Z tell The Big Bad Boy to take a permanent hike the other night.

He had always told me, back when I was constantly libelled, harassed, bullied, demeaned and excoriated simply for continuing to be a presence here, that he would meekly disappear if Z ever asked him to leave.

As you can see, it's never a good idea to take a pathological liar at his word.

Now, I expect this post will be summarily removed, but I hope you -- and Rita -- get to read it before that happens.

I had hoped to stay and make decent contributions once again, because this IS fundamentally a very good place, but I can see that will not be possible.

I don't enjoy being in the company of MALIGNANT human beings -- and neither do a whole lot of other decent people, yourself included.

If Z is losing contributors because of the fractious, disputatious atmosphere here, it is only because of the presence of ONE very sick individual.

Meanwhile, I wish you a very HAPPY NEW YEAR, Pris. I've never had any quarrel with you. Z should be very grateful for your loyalty and devotion. geeeeeZ is much the better for it.

~ FreeThinke

Average American said...

Ditto what Pris said!!! You two just made Ducky look rational! Smarten up!!

Just as information, women started being a large part of the workforce out of necessity, NOT their own, the countries, during WW11. Somebody had to make those tanks, planes, etc. Learn the REAL historic facts.

Average American said...

Shit Z, what bad timing--you just moderated me first! wah wah wah, I got feelings ya know! lol

Z said...

FT, let me just kindly tell you that I only posted one of your comments because I wanted the others you addressed to see it.
I've obviously not published your other comment, did you expect me to?!!...by the way, do you really think you're here, as you suggested in that comment, because you decided to come back? You're here because I'd enabled you to, technically.

I will deal with Beamish.

I won't say more....
all the best.


AMerican, I hope I didn't embarrass you by posting this last comment, it just cracked me up!

Rita said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Z said...

Rita, we have emailed and shared personal things and you don't think I'm a person whose name starts with Z, the full name of which I think you even know?

FT is not FJ.
The ONLY sock puppeteer here is SpeedyG/FJ/Thersites.......rarely, he'll pull another one out but these are the ones you see here.

Beamish is not a sock puppet.
FT is not a sock puppet.

I simply don't understand your choice here, but I guess I have to accept it. I'm really stunned but...I like you so much and was so happy you were blogging here...and I enjoy your blog.

Net is definitely a terrific guy from the East Coast. He and I email from time to time, too.

I'm stumped and hate to see you go.

I'm getting comments to me, into moderation, that this is all my fault. Some pretty nasty stuff I'd not have expected!!

Well, you think you have friends, you try to run a blog with open minds, you ask people you thought were friends to please be respectful and take the fight elsewhere, and now I've lost the fifth commenter at geeeZ to go; and the ones who've left are some of my faves.

Beamish and FJ/Speedy/Thersites.......I learn every day.

But, I'm happy for the commenters I have and I hope most of them stick around even if I decide to stay on Moderation. I know blogs die pretty quickly when they have to stay in moderation, and I loved blogging and getting so many good bloggers here so I'm deeply disappointed that this has happened, but I'll try to release from moderation the comments I get as quickly as possible, and we'll see how it goes.....

Z said...

Rita, I don't think you'll see this, but let me just say I hadn't seen your comment re this mess on my 'screw you' (how appropriate, now that I think of it) post..
Kid just responded that, of course, he is KID and has a blog to prove it.
I have to admit, in four years of blogging, nobody's ever said they thought I could be anything but me. !

Bob said...

Dang, Z. You have such an attractive blog that some people just have to take up mud wrestling and make it uncomfortable for some others.

FJ and Beamish would make up a really good antagonistic pair in some wrestling federation. I'll volunteer to tag team with one, while you take the other and we can have a grand fight. I think you would have fun.

I don't know why some people get fed up and refuse to participate in the blog just because of a little war going on. What's the point in commenting on an article if you only agree. It's the debate that is fun, even if it occasionally gets out of hand.

Rita said...

Z: My post wasn't intended to make you feel badly, if I did, I apologize.

The arguing among the commenters is one thing, but having the same guy post over and over as different aliases just wastes real people's time.

I realize you have a history with FJ, but his continual masquerading as someone else puts suspicion on everyone.

And I am not some pathetic, overly emotional blogger. I just enjoy a good debate with people who are honest.

FT, if you are not FJ, I apologize.

I wish you well Z. Really I do. :(

Z said...

Bob, "I don't know why some people get fed up and refuse to participate in the blog just because of a little war going on."
Thanks. I don't, either.
I'm SO glad you come and comment and I love the way you write your blog, too.

Kid said...

We have far too many dependent people, and among them far too many who see nothing wrong with it.

Speaking of Mac and Cheese, have you tried it with equal parts of Cheddar and Asiago ? Yum. Plus whatever else you put in it.

Kid said...

Rita, One option is to do what I do - simply don't read them. They might have valuable things to say from time to time, but when I see a person commenting 20+ times on a thread, let alone each and every one, I just send them to the good ship ignore-amous. Seriously, if a person can't get their point across with a few comments, it's a problem, and it is trollish behavior.

Pris said...

Average American, I know all about the Rosie the Riveter gals. What you say, is true. Most of them though, who had children went back home after the war was over.

I never said women didn't work before the women's movement, some did, like my aunts. However when they married and had children they stayed home, and I'm old enough to know that from up close and personal observation as a child at that time.

net observer said...

I think the ensuing natural sequence of events is about to awaken us all. We are responsible for ourselves.

The world is different. Smaller. Instant access. Fast. Competitors on a direct global scale. We don't have a choice. Adjust or lose.

Who's fault? Everybody from the so-called welfare queen to the CEO who lobbies for subsidies.

Elmers Brother said...

Sorry OT...please pray for my EOD brothers. Lost three in Afghanistan this week.

Always On Watch said...

Bob,
Late getting back to what you said about my earlier comment....

I don't see anything wrong with my kids taking care of me during my feeble years. After all, I spent great sums of money raising them and sending them to good universities. As far as I'm concerned, it's time for some payback.

Even to the tune of $20,000 in a nursing home?

Much to my chagrin, when my husband had a stroke in 2009 and was, of necessity, hospitalized for a full month, the hospital would not release him home. Had I taken him home against medical advice, then the health insurance company would not longer have paid a red cent. A lot of people are unaware of the power of the ama issue.

In order to get my husband back to our house from the nursing home, I had to threaten litigation. I wrote about it HERE.

Always On Watch said...

Z,
Running an open forum during an election year is very trying.

And not only during an election year -- for that matter.

Z said...

AOW, I agree, and I've expected some pretty tough stuff here before the election, but not this, especially from friends (as you know) and especially after I ask repeatedly for it to stop and have asked for them to take their war to their own blogs :-)

As I've mentioned here in the last 3 days or so, I've lost at least 3 of my regular and very appreciated commenters now via email because of this...difficult to navigate the threads when they're hijacked like this.

FairWitness said...

My dear friend, the real Lady Z,

I wish there was something I could do to remedy this mess. Please know that I will continue to read this blog and post comments when I feel compelled to do so.

The negative comments and nastiness DO NOT AFFECT ME in the least. We've been corresponding on and off for nearly a decade.

I REFUSE TO BE BULLIED BY RUDE LEFTISTS!

To Rita: please reconsider your decision to leave GeeeeeZ! If you do, those who were trying to intimidate and offend you succeeded. Don't give them that, they don't deserve it.

In closing, Lady Z, you are a class act, intelligent, passionate, funny, warm and a very compelling conservative. I am so very sorry you're enduring such ill treatment. You don't deserve it -- AT ALL!

Z said...

thanks FairWitness, you're a real friend and I appreciate your support..as usual.

Bob said...

"Even to the tune of $20,000 in a nursing home?"

AOW, my post was intended to be read as one of those little jokes with a little truth in it. As far as the $20,000 for a nursing home, it is a real problem, one that almost nobody will face until the bad news hits them.

It is all too common for people to not be prepared for the inevitable time when they will need a nursing home. Some people have long term care insurance, but it is expensive and most cannot afford it.

My wife's uncle had a stroke, and lived the last three years of his life in a nursing home. He rarely even recognized his wife or children, and truly needed the continuous care. Our aunt had to drain ALL her savings and investments they had worked so hard to accumulate, and then when she was broke, she had to resort to Medicaid to take care of her husband.

I don't qualify for long-term care insurance because I am a cancer survivor. Maybe the good Lord will take me quietly and quickly to allow my wife a little something to live on when I get old.

Back to the kids, it took the better part of $50,000 to send them to college in addition their scholarships. I financed some out of pocket, and they financed some with student loans.

I will check out your link, later.

Z said...

Bob, the story about your aunt is one that's, sadly, very common.
I have a friend whose 98 yr old husband died and she was paying $11K a MONTH for inhouse 24/7 care! They had bought longterm insurance and that helped but beware about that...as most of you know it's very expensive and they fight VERY VERY hard not to pay out, too...I've seen this MANY times. All too happy to take your premium, none too happy to pay you...you need to prove you need it even harder than our president has to show he's a citizen (smile!)

It wipes families OUT when someone's sick and needs that kind of care.
Here's the kicker, this dear man my friend had been married to for SEVENTY years, had had an septupal bypass 2 years previous! Medicare paid for it. SEVEN BYPASSES IN A 96 YEAR OLD MAN. MUCH time in th hospital, etcetc...
he had two weeks to live if they didn't do this.....
He was lying right there when the heart specialist told them (I was there, too, and heard it).."two weeks or the surgery"...how do you say "we'll just let you live another 2 years, pops"?