Constipation Is an Advantage When Flying American Airlines

Members of any airline frequent flyer club have seen the benefits of membership gradually erode under the relentless assault of airline bean–counters. The yearly mileage necessary to qualify for even the lowest membership level has increased dramatically over the years.

At the same time the member’s accumulated miles have been devalued as the mileage cost of free tickets has been increased to a minimum of 25,000 miles. Other perks, like upgrades and airport lounge passes, associated with climbing up the frequent flyer status ladder, have also been reduced or eliminated.

Milt Priggee, Oak Harbor, WA

The only airline club where the benefits have remained largely intact is the Mile–High Club and now American Airlines has declared war on that collection of randy flyers.

On AA’s new 737–MAX aircraft one would have to be Tyrion Lannister to have even the remotest hope of conducting an induction ceremony, and even then it would be very close. Passengers flying on the remodeled 737 would do well to gate–check their claustrophobia.

The new bathrooms on that aircraft are so small the usage experience more closely resembles that of a human cannonball than it does of relieving oneself. At the circus the human cannonball knows, given the dimensions of the gun tube, once inside he’s not going to have the luxury of repositioning himself.

The same is true for the cruelly–named 737–MAX.

The ‘MAX’ bathroom is 25 percent smaller than the telephone booths flyers have grown accustomed to using in the past. The new comfort coffins are so tight it is impossible to turn around once inside with the door closed. This presents no problem for women or men who want to keep their options open, but for the rest of us, we’re going to have to commit before we close the door.

Plus–sized passengers may require the assistance of Crisco or their fellow passengers to get in and get out.

And that’s not where the similarity to Ringling Brothers ends.

Just as the human cannonball is expelled by the expansion of hot gases trapped behind him in the tube, passengers following an exiting flyer too closely into the aircraft lavatory may find themselves wishing they could eject when encountering a large hot aroma trapped in a small confined space.

These indignities are only confined to healthy passengers. Nervous flyers or those with sensitive stomachs would do well to start practicing hurling while standing erect, because it is impossible to bend over in those bathrooms. This will be no problem for drunks and three–year–olds, but for rest of us abandon all hope of privacy as you are forced to leave the door open to bend over and be sick.

I always assumed when it came to mobile evacuation nothing could top the combination of indignity and excitement one experienced using a bus bathroom while the vehicle was in motion. It would have made perfect sense for Greyhound to install timers in those ‘restrooms’ so passengers could try and remain seated as long as the average bull rider.

Yet even in the worst bus bathroom I never got the impression the company had it in for me. Not so with American Airlines. Only a corporation that’s part of a lock–step oligopoly could exhibit such utter contempt for the comfort and dignity of its customers. To say nothing of its own reputation.

Starbucks shut the entire company down to atone for its sin after offending two black guys that weren’t even customers. American Airlines insults its entire customer base while laughing all the way to the bank.

The indignity doesn’t stop after you’ve finished your business. The sink in this washcoffin is so tiny passengers can only wash one hand at a time. It would have made more sense to dispense with the sink altogether in favor of waterless hand cleaner and devote the added room to the preservation of male kneecaps.

Flight attendants are on the passenger’s side in this dispute. The two shoebox bathrooms are located across from each other in the rear. Attendants have discovered that if doors open simultaneously, the two frequently snag, forming an impromptu wall that traps them in the galley.

Our loss in comfort and privacy is naturally American’s gain. Smaller bathrooms, thinner seats and less distance between seats allow more passengers. AA has increased the load from 160 passengers to 172 with the letterbox–sized bathrooms.

Flyers like me who avoid AA aren’t safe either. Airlines are in figurative race to the bottom and I fear my United will soon adopt AA’s malign one–holer design. The only bright spot I can see — and limited to longer flights — is the reduction in bathroom size might force American to institute a corresponding reduction is flight attendant size. In the interest of safety, of course.

Advertisements

NFL Limits Demonstrations to the End Zone

It required a high level of self–absorption and a correspondingly low grasp of irony for bench–warming quarterback Colin Kaepernick to begin protesting “racial injustice” during the Obama administration.

In all of recorded history there have been exactly two Western nations that have elected black presidents and in Haiti’s case I’m using the term ‘nation’ loosely. Also, ‘elected.’

Rick McKee, Augusta Chronicle

The protest didn’t offend Obama, who lacks an emotional investment in football. I imagine he’s more of an Ultimate Frisbee kinda guy. The interesting speculation is wondering what George Bush would have said if Kaepernick had begun taking a knee during his administration.

I’m thinking Bush would have deployed his standard response: Hunker down and hope it goes away. At best we would have received a statement much like Obama’s on–one–hand–and–on–the–other deflection that equated the loss of a United States soldier or Marine as the moral equivalent of the shooting of strong–arm robber Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO.

Bush was one of those caretaker conservatives who knew better than to rock the Cultural Marxist’s boat. He certainly wouldn’t get into some unseemly social dispute that might matter to conservatives, particularly when the disagreement involved a minority.

That’s why Trump in the White House is such a danger to the leftist elite that currently rules our culture. He will get into those fights. Trump relishes those fights. And the leftist bullies running roughshod over the culture hate it when the victim finally fights back.

They like it even less when the victim wins.

Only in America could a black quarterback who was raised by white parents, attended a prestige university and earned millions as a professional football player think it made sense for him to insult the flag and the patriotic Americans who love it. Not only that, this emotionally immature narcissist thinks he should be praised for his ‘brave’ stand and embraced by the league.

That’s why Kaepernick is currently suing the NFL and alleging he was ‘blacklisted’ and denied the job that’s rightfully his.

This is like a waiter, who moonlights as a member of PETA, demanding he be hired by Outback Steakhouse so he can tell customers: “Meat is Murder.” Or a car salesman demanding he be hired by GMC trucks so he can tell potential buyers that not driving an electric car makes them climate criminals.

Using someone else’s business to deliver a message that insults the customer is economic appropriation. NFL owners decided indulging a leftist–approved protest was one thing and watching TV ratings plunge after the protests began was quite another. That’s why owners, after a boot in the behind from the unhousebroken Trump, have decided to confine all demonstrations to the end zone, while banning them from the sideline.

If the under–the–man’s–boot millionaires of the NFL want to work in a quick protest during the end zone touchdown celebration they can pantomime away, but there won’t be any protest during The Star–Spangled Banner.

Naturally, much of the Opposition Media considers changing employee conduct rules to prevent insulting the customer a racist act.

Kevin B. Blackistone, an oppressed black man who is a Washington Post columnist and university professor, believes Making America Great Again involves putting blacks back on the plantation. His column blasting the new anthem policy begins with the harrowing tale of NBA player Sterling Brown’s encounter with Milwaukee PD.

It’s proof of how debased America’s political culture is when the hero of Blackistone’s tale of oppression crying out for justice is a jerk who takes up TWO handicapped parking spaces and refuses to follow lawful police orders. Brown is perfectly healthy professional athlete who doesn’t believe the rules the rest of us follow apply to him. And besides, didn’t those cops in their ratty polyester pants KNOW WHO HE IS?

That’s the type of injustice Kaepernick and the rest of his hey–look–at–me followers are protesting. Somehow it escapes their notice that the athletic merit that allows blacks to dominate the rosters of NFL teams all out of proportion to their percentage of the population has a flip side. The lack of behavioral merit exhibited by some members of the same racial category results in their being over represented on the arrests and incarceration side of the ledger.

Unfortunately, being a ‘social justice’ advocate means never having to acknowledge the law of cause and effect.

None of these fanboy reporters ever asks the question that any movement should be able to answer, which is: How will you know when you’ve won?

Is it when blacks are allowed to vote? When a black woman has the top rated national talk show? When the US elects a black president?

The fact they can’t answer the question shows how empty their movement really is.

Starbucks Seeking Volunteers for Sociology Experiment

Previously Starbucks’ customer base had its own individual criteria for choosing a favorite coffee spot among the company’s many outlets. It might be a comely barista, the pastry selection or the free Wi–Fi signal’s clarity.

For the immediate future, however, I suggest abandoning all criteria but one: The strength of the cellphone connection, because chances are you’re going to need it.

Since two trespassers were arrested in a downtown Philadelphia Starbucks in April, the corporate has been doing the Social Justice Limbo where management sees just how far it can bend over backwards and still maintain a functioning business.

Now that headquarters has decreed it’s ‘Come One, Come All’, everyone is welcome to use the bathroom, occupy furniture and log on to the Internet. If they happen to buy something, so much the better, but it’s no longer required.

It’s a brave new business model that’s a combination of temporary office suite and homeless day shelter.

This week saw the company issue new guidelines for employees who might want to tempt fate and call 911. It’s a bureaucrat’s dream. The decision–making process includes observation, self–doubt, second–guessing, second opinions, re–checking the manual, calling corporate and then hoping the problem went away while the staff was negotiating with itself.

Incidents that qualify for an immediate 911 include: Fire, robbery, selling drugs, destruction of store property or a gas leak (although God help the employee if the leak was simply Venti bean burrito exhaust).

Other incidents are a judgment call and require a corporate–choreographed decision–making process. First the ‘partner,’ as Starbucks laughingly calls its employees, is to “assess” the ‘guest’s’ behavior. Is it culturally appropriate or is it cultural appropriation? It’s important for the partner to separate the behavior from the individual. The process resembles Evangelicals and homosexuality — hate the sin, while loving the sinner.

Behaviors that are currently held in corporate disrepute include “being unreasonably noisy, viewing inappropriate media, verbally abusing people, making unwanted sexual advances and indecent exposure
.”

Step three of the pre–emergency call journey is the partner “[considering] how any decision will affect the customer’s experience.” Will not cursing out the person who tripped over his shopping cart mean the guest suffers increased stress? Will he/she/zir experience heightened sexual tension if they’re prevented from groping an adjacent guest? And could the partner be judgmentally assuming “indecent exposure” when the guest was only trying to increase air circulation?

Assuming the incident hasn’t been resolved by customers acting on their own initiative, the partner will then ponder “whether the customer or situation is safe to approach and whether an employee’s chosen response would be the same for any customer in the same circumstance.
”

Before this glacial minuet brings the partner within hailing distance of the disruptive guest, another partner must be asked to “observe and verify” the behavior. Only then is management to approach and introduce themselves and ask for the person’s name.

In no time at all I predict Starbucks will be home to the type of colorful human–interest stories — often featuring bodycam footage — that are commonly associated with Waffle House and Walmart parking lots. As one observer commented to CBS, the new Starbucks “will be a homeless camp. But at least we won’t have to deal with them on the street.”

That’s the current action plan, but savvy Starbucks employees know corporate policy can change on a dime. The Philly manager was following store policy when she called the cops, but that didn’t stop her from being fired when the media called corporate.

The real partner policy will be a series of informal questions designed to insure they keep their job. The first will be: Is the unruly guest a minority or passing as one? If the answer is ‘yes,’ the call decision is ‘no.’

If the guest isn’t a minority, but is also not wearing a MAGA hat, the partner must investigate further. Is the guest part of a protected group that may include whites? This normally involves something of a sexual nature and may require the use of intuition, Gaydar or checking for wallets attached to pants with a chain.

If the answer is even a remotely possible ‘yes’ the call is still a ‘no.’

The truth is no Starbucks employee was ever fired for the customer calling 911, and since under new policy the customer is always right, let them make the call.

And all this is before the May 29th shutdown of all Starbucks’ outlets for ‘Re–Education Day’ where highly paid trainers will hector the white partners in an attempt to stamp out “unconscious bias.” My last prediction is once that’s complete, all 175,000 Starbucks employees will be easy to spot: They’re the people not on the phone when all hell breaks loose.

What If Obamacare Sold Homeowner’s Insurance?

If homeowner’s insurance worked like Obamacare, in no time at all homelessness would be a viable option for residents trying to lower their insurance cost.

Under Obamahome, construction contractors would talk endlessly about how compassionate their employees are. Edgy companies would assert that dealing with an English–speaking crew makes rebuilding your home a breeze. But no company would be talking prices or making binding estimates.

Instead homeowners would hire the company that was closest or had the most caring spokesperson. Really shrewd homeowners might check a Yelp review, but that would be the extent of the research. When it came time to sign the contract the homeowner would pay his deductible and the bill for the covered procedure would go direct to the insurance company.

The homeowner would remain blissfully unaware of what his newly repaired roof, siding, basement or deck cost to fix.

Under Obamahome, renters are also covered, but renters wouldn’t be required to pay a premium. And homeowners who had a loss, but weren’t covered by insurance — because they opted to make the final payment on their Sistine Chapel tattoo — can both buy a policy and file a claim during the same transaction.

At premium–setting time, homeowners would discover Obamahome rates had to be set high enough cover their house and their prorated portion of the renter’s and the pre–existing damage claims.

Soon they’re confronted with Obama’s Choice: To get an affordable premium, homeowners must choose between a much higher deductible for the same coverage or the same deductible for much less coverage.

The result is a $12,000 deductible that covers everything up to and including Hurricane Stormy or a $1,000 deductible that covers tornados and fire, but excludes hail, wind, lightening and floods.

Fortunately, homeowner’s insurance doesn’t malfunction like Obamacare, and with any luck the Texas Supreme Court may force hospitals to adopt pricing reform.

The Dallas Morning News reports Crystal Roberts was rushed to an emergency room after a car crash. The good news is she was home three hours later. The bad news is accompanying her was a bill for $11,037.35 for X–rays, CT scan, lab tests and ‘other’ services. Crystal was charged the ‘This Is Gonna Hurt’ rate because she lacked insurance.

But she didn’t lack a lawyer, so Crystal sued. The Texas Supremes ruled that if the hospital intended to prove Roberts’ bill “reasonable” it must “share … details about the discounted rates it had with health insurers, data that’s generally seen as proprietary and confidential.”

I’ll say it’s “confidential.” You’d have better luck finding Trump’s tax returns. The only price information a patient gets on a visit to the hospital is what it costs to park.

One wouldn’t know that from the story, though. Economics illiteracy among journalists continues unchecked, “While few dispute costs are out of control and transparency would help, the ruling is seen as unprecedented by some, who worry it could deal a big blow to free market competition in health care.”

The statement couldn’t be more wrong. It’s like saying if we banned Consumer Reports Car Buying Service and prohibited window stickers on new cars it would increase competition and lower prices.

The ability to compare prices encourages competition, while concealing prices encourages price–fixing.

The decision is a tentative step toward my simple, Constitutional, solution for increasing healthcare competition. First, require any hospital taking federal money to post turnkey prices for the 25 most common hospitalized surgical procedures; the 25 most common out–patient procedures and the 25 most common tests. All charges must match the best price offered insurance companies – the information the Texas hospital doesn’t want to share.

Second, allow insurance companies to compete across state lines, creating a national market. Any national policy won’t be subject to state-level regulations. This means state politicians with itchy legislative fingers can’t force companies to cover pap smears, prostate exams, birth control, or any medical fad do-gooders want to force on consumers. Individual buyers will be able to pay for the coverage they want and not be forced to pay for coverage a major campaign contributor wants them to have.

Policies must be offered in all states to escape individual state regulation. Any company selling a policy within a state must conform to that state’s financial stability rules.

Third, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions if the patient can prove continuous coverage for the prior six months. Otherwise, a six-month waiting period. Patients who don’t want to buy private insurance can participate in a federal high–risk pool.

Depending on judges to reform healthcare is spotty and imprecise.  We need Congress. The only negative impact my reform might have is on hospitals and the Medical Industrial Complex. That’s why it won’t happen. Those insiders make large campaign contributions and the likes of Crystal Roberts don’t.

Mitch McConnell Is Just a Clerk at Heart

Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell has decided to re-define his role in public life. McConnell is moving away from characterizing himself as a conservative legislative titan. According to an obsequious profile in The Weekly Standard (a Never–Trumper hotbed), McConnell has found his true calling.

The curator believes the best use of his talents is to serve as the Human Resources Department for the federal judiciary. In his new role as head of HR McConnell contends that whatever happens to those losers in the House this November, the Senate must remain in his swampy hands.

Pat Begley The Salt Lake Tribune, UT

The Emperor of Inertia has come to the belated realization that voters were listening when he promised them electing a Republican–controlled Senate, House and White House would mean a rebirth of conservative legislation.

The reality was different. Voters got premature ejaculations on election night and nothing has been conceived since.

“The stuff we did last year was clearly a Republican agenda,” McConnell rationalizes. “…judges, taxes and regulations — that’s what we live to do, and virtually all of those are forever done on a party–line basis.”

Like Union Civil War Gen. George McClellan, in his mind McConnell is always outnumbered and facing overwhelming odds. Mitch is convinced LBJ couldn’t have done a better job, but the voters aren’t. That means McConnell’s first task is political alchemy. He must turn stagnation into steak.

 

Yet two of the three “accomplishments” are reactive at best. The only vaguely conservative legislation passed thru his initiative was the tax bill and taxes weren’t the driving issue during the 2016 campaign. None of the conservative legislation voters said they wanted has been passed. None of the leftist legislation conservatives want eliminated has been repealed.

The cocktail conservatives at the Weekly Standard don’t mind. They depict this weak, elderly placeholder as a victorious boxer with both gloves raised overhead. They would have you believe, “Republicans are better off than they look. The midterm election is six months away, and their chances of preserving a good–sized chunk of their power in Washington are good.”

This is supposed to be good news? Up until this November Republicans had 100 percent of the power and did nothing. Losing half their legislative clout is supposed to raise our morale? Any perceptive conservative voter will ask the obvious question: What’s in it for me?

The truth is, nothing, but McConnell gets to keep his big office if the GOP wins.

Hence McConnell’s makeover. He doesn’t want to move. The way to conceal his failure to repay the conservative base for its loyalty, is by completely changing voter expectations. Now instead of being Mr. Legislator, McConnell is telling voters he’s Mr. LinkedIn! The one–stop networking source for Republican lawyers looking for a soft landing in the judiciary.

“If we hold the Senate,” McConnell explains, “we can continue to confirm nominations to lifetime appointments for a full four years and finish the job of transforming the American judiciary, which is my number–one goal.” You might say it’s one lifetime incumbent eager to recruit more lifetime federal employees, which he hopes won’t ‘grow in office’ once they land on the bench.

Forget about resetting the dial on the family, immigration, religious freedom, federal spending or reducing the size of a bloated, wasteful federal government. Who has time for that when Mitch is conducting job interviews for circuit court?

Even if you’re a conservative who buys into Senate–as–headhunter, there is this nagging question. Where do those judicial nominations that McConnell is so eager to ratify originate? Is there a ticker–tape deep in the bowels of the Supreme Court building that generates a candidate whenever an opening appears?

Or does Mitch man a booth at legal job fairs where he lassos likely candidates?

All that’s immaterial to the Standard. They are in awe of the process, “In this ambitious effort, it takes two — a leader and a [Judiciary Committee] chairman — to tango.”

Well, no. Truthfully this matchmaker isn’t making any matches. Instead the nominations originate in a White House occupied by the dreaded President Donald Trump. I’m no cheerleader for Trump. His waffling on DACA, his short attention span and his embrace of the spend–a–palooza budget bill are infuriating.

Still, without Trump in the White House there wouldn’t be any nominations to “transform the American judiciary.” Hillary would be president and she’d be sending the names of leftist politicians who think they look good in black. But we are 800 words deep in a 994–word puff piece before Trump’s name is even mentioned and then it’s in connection with impeachment!

Mealy–mouthed, multi–chins like McConnell are the reason Trump won in the first place. Their continued failure to grasp that fact explains the trouble they face in November.

The Left and It’s Angry Brand of Comedy

What do Chipotle and the White House Correspondent’s Dinner have in Common?

Easy. After the meal, everyone’s a little queasy.

Except for Kathy Griffin. She’s furious. The White House Correspondents’ Dinner proved conclusively one picture is still worth a thousand words. The photo of Griffin holding a decapitated Trump head torpedoed her career. For months her reputation was in such bad shape that when Griffin appeared in the news it was like a sighting of Sasquatch or Harvey Weinstein.

Steve Sack, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, MN

And irony of ironies, Kathy was at the correspondent’s dinner! She sat through Michelle Wolf’s crude and vulgar 2,400–word routine that savaged President Trump, the Trump family and his administration. Griffin defended Wolf in the face of widespread backlash, but I’m guessing when she got home, Kathy’s Trump head was in for a very rough time.

It was the injustice of it all. After only one photo Griffin can’t book a lunchtime public appearance at Costco giving away pot stickers, while Michelle Wolf will enjoy an audience bump when her Netflix series begins later in May.

If Kathy had waited until after the Correspondent’s Dinner to unveil her decapitated Trump on a #Resistance–filled world, she could have had a co–hosting gig with Joy Reid on MSLSD. But Griffin was too early. And, as any good comedian will tell you, timing is everything in comedy.

Dinner organizers and Opposition Media attendees are still having trouble digesting Wolf’s routine. Even employees of media outlets regularly slow–roasted by Trump were taken aback by the sheer unfunny savagery of Wolf’s rant. It’s fortunate the one–year term of the WHCA president concludes shortly after the dinner, otherwise there might have been calls for resignations or an Adam Schiff investigation.

When the dinner controversy popped up on Drudge, I assumed the unprofessional vulgarity–fest must have been part of an open mic portion of the program, and Wolf was the first exhibitionist to reach the podium. Instead, Wolf was recruited and paid to perform. Outgoing WHCA president Margaret Talev didn’t go so far as to apologize for the Wolf pack assault but she did her best to spin the disaster and shift the blame.

She told CNN, “Comedy is meant to be provocative. My interest overwhelmingly was in unifying the country, and I understand that we may have fallen a little bit short on that goal.” Unless her idea of unification only extends from Antifa to the Deep State. Talev also assured America that she didn’t see or otherwise examine Wolf’s monologue prior to the event, as if ignorance was absolution.

That’s not a dog–ate–my–homework excuse. It’s a dog–did–my–homework excuse.

You could tell Talev was perplexed that anyone would hold her responsible for Wolf’s performance. This is probably due to leftists’ unfamiliarity with how capitalism functions. The person who signs the check, bears the responsibility — unless he has really good lawyers.

Talev, a Bloomberg News reporter, simply employed the industry–standard OpMedia research practices when she booked Wolf. Verification was confined to discovering if Wolf hated Trump. With that established, it’s a given that what would come out of her mouth was sure to be enjoyed by the audience.

And what a potty mouth it was!

I read the complete transcript of the speech to save my readers the trouble. What struck me was buried under the steaming pile of invective was a very funny speech that would have been perfectly acceptable to a nationwide audience. Cutting the vulgar, unfunny and insulting portions would have reduced the length by 1,000 words. The edited version was sharp, creative and parts were slightly risqué. Wolf’s membership in the ‘Resistance’ would have remained unchallenged and association honchos would not have been fielding high, hard ones,

Unfortunately, as far as the left is concerned, today there is no room for peaceful coexistence with Trump and/or conservatives. This is why for Michelle Wolf poking fun wasn’t enough. She had to poke out some eyes.

The WHCD program held no surprises for the Trump administration. They know the OpMedia hates them. The dinner simply revealed the truth to the rest of America.

The Morning Consult did a nationwide survey in early April a few weeks before the dinner. One of the questions asked if the respondents considered the “national news” to be “liberal, conservative or centrist/non–partisan.” 36 percent of the pre–dinner sample either had no opinion or thought the media was centrist/non–partisan.

Meg Kinnard, of the virulently anti–Trump Associated Press, had an epiphany after the dinner. She tweeted, “If the #WHCD dinner did anything tonight, it made the chasm between journalists and those who don’t trust us, even wider.”

Exactly. It revealed the ugly truth to the confused 36 percent who formerly gave the news media the benefit of the doubt.

The Constitutional Work–Around for Term Limits

I’ve always wondered why the National Education Association (NEA) and the country club conservatives in the Republican House and Senate leadership aren’t allies, instead of enemies. Both organizations use the same tired talking points to defend inert members from the forces of accountability.

When education reformers urge legislative bodies to adopt merit pay for teachers and thereby reward the best teachers with the most money, the NEA counters that experience is crucial and paying teachers according to seniority rewards that excellent system.

Bill Schorr, San Clemente, CA

In the same fashion, when congressional reformers urge House and Senate leadership to adopt an amendment adding term limits to the Constitution, leadership rejects the proposal out of hand, claiming seniority is crucial to keeping Congress the paragon of competence it is today.

It’s no accident that education, Congress and penal institutions all grant more privileges based solely on how much time you’ve served.

Cong. Francis Rooney (R–Doomed) wants to remove Congress from that list. Rooney has formulated a brilliant method of implementing term limits that does not require an amendment to the Constitution. Rooney’s Thomas Jefferson Public Service Act would place no limits on how long a member could warm a seat in Congress — that requires an amendment — instead Rooney would reduce a member’s paycheck to $1 per year after they served six terms in the House or two terms in the Senate.

My wife is skeptical. She believes after 12 years our ‘public servants’ have already made themselves millionaires, so the $173,999.00 pay cut won’t bother them. She is not alone.

FedSmith.com downplays Rooney’s bill, too, “…most Congressmen make a career out of remaining in Congress (often moving on to the Senate). Many become millionaires within a few years after their election and, of course, they also receive a pension under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS).”

What both overlook is the loss of status if Rooney’s bill passes.

When Newt Gingrich was running the show, Republicans imposed term limits on committee chairmen. In the House and Senate, Republicans are limited to six years as the jefe of any committee.

At the end of their term as chairman these members must surrender the gavel, without any reduction in salary or benefits. Many retiring chairmen look upon that gavel as the closest thing to Thor’s Hammer they will ever wield. Giving it up is such a personal Ragnarök that they retire from Congress rather than revert to being hammerless rank–and–file member regardless of their salary.

I’m thinking not getting an envelope on payday would have the same effect. It’s one thing to talk about being a ‘public servant.’ Becoming one and working for free is something entirely different.

I’m willing to grasp at Rooney’s straw if there’s even a slim chance of success.

Rooney is so serious he’s prepared to become very unpopular with his colleagues. In an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, Rooney correctly termed arguments against term limits legislation as “elitist paternalism.” He already has seven co–sponsors for his bill and he intends to put the heat on nominal term limits supporters.

“There are 90 co–sponsors on term limit by [constitutional] amendment bills and there’s something called the ‘Term Limit Caucus.’ Let’s see what they want to do,” Rooney explained. This is where Rooney drops off Christmas card lists.

Co–sponsoring a term limits constitutional amendment is exactly like promising to repeal Obamacare. It’s showy and consequence–free.

The chance of the amendment coming up for a vote is exactly the same as the chance of Donald Trump being named Man of the Year by La Raza. If the unthinkable happens — see Obamacare vote — and term limits comes to the floor, co–sponsors will cheerfully betray their voters just as Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins did.

Rooney’s bill will put these poseurs on the spot. There are 26 members of the Term Limits Caucus, yet only two are co–sponsoring his bill. Rooney should have 31 co–sponsors and that’s before he goes after the amendment popinjays.

Baier went to Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell for a comment on Rooney’s bill. In a voice dripping with disdain, McConnell gargled, “I would say we have term limits now, they’re called elections, and it will not be on the agenda in the Senate.”

True and the current system has given us McConnell as an example of what term limits would prevent.

Rooney’s only misstep so far came in his announcement. He quoted former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (R–Great American) who said Americans “are frustrated with the federal government.” True again. But Coburn is no longer in the Senate, because he imposed term limits on himself.

I fear the time–servers Rooney is trying to persuade will hear that name and ask themselves, “yeah, and when was the last time Coburn was on TV?”

Starbucks to Manage Concessions for Homeless Encampments

Today we live in a society constantly buffeted by waves of hysteria and that’s just what’s coming from corporate America. And the panicked plutocrats are unable to formulate a proportionate response, something that was routine 25 years ago.

In 1993 four children contracted E. coli and died after eating a ‘Monster Burger’ at Jack in the Box. In response, Jack in the Box suspended hamburger sales, but kept the stores open for the rest of its product line while corporate dealt with the emergency.

Milt Priggee, Oak Harbor, WA

In 2018 Starbucks is accused of “racism” after two black men are arrested without incident and later released without charges. This time in a frenzied response, Starbucks’ corporate introduces “Try Our Competitors Day!” on May 29th when all stores will be closed and employees required to attend a one day re–education camp. No word on whether customers will be reimbursed for coffee purchased from Dunkin Donuts on the 29th.

Disbelief was my first reaction upon reading about this latest bigotry brouhaha. I assumed it was a typo. Instead of ‘Cracker Barrel’ someone mistakenly typed ‘Starbucks’ into the Online Racial Incident template. Why Starbucks is more conscious of racism than Rachel Dolezal! Forty percent of its workforce is a minority of some kind.

Accusing Starbucks of racism is like accusing 7/11 of banning turbans inside the store.

This is the first instance of Starbucks joining the system–wide shutdown trend, but not the first time Starbucks has signaled its virtue. Earlier, in a hysterical over–reaction to Ferguson and Black Lives Matter, corporate chairman Howard Schultz wanted a “frank conversation on race” and instructed baristas to write “Race Together” on the customer’s coffee cup. It became such a farce the idea was quickly dropped.

Starbucks will probably pattern its shutdown on the model established by Chipotle. The illegal sanctuary and restaurant shut down for employee training after repeated outbreaks of customer diarrhea. The Chipotle workforce was told that here in the US everyone washes their hands after a bathroom trip. At the Starbuck’s session I’m assuming employees will learn that here in the US everyone is a racist.

Schultz and Starbucks are so fearful of being accused of ‘privilege.’ If it weren’t for the unfortunate social connotations, I wouldn’t have been surprised if Schultz ordered his white employees to wear blackface just to atone.

And make no mistake, atonement for Starbucks is coming and the company may not survive.

After the shutdown session no employee with a rating of IV or higher on the Fitzpatrick skin tone scale will call the cops on a minority ‘customer’ for any offense. Minority managers can see which way the wind blows, too. Soon this will escalate to refusing to call the cops for any ‘customer’ for any offense short of murder. They’ll see what happened to the manager in Philadelphia — fired and scapegoated — listen to the moralizing by Schultz and will conclude Starbucks is now Times Square circa 1988.

I’ve never liked the pretentiousness that permeates Starbucks. I’m secure in my manhood. I don’t require coffee to be extra–strong and extra–bitter to prove my toughness like the beta males and alpha–females that frequent the bistro. I predict their brand commitment will erode quickly as Starbucks goes from an upscale coffee bistro to a San Francisco public library.

Schultz’s stores will now function as the concession stand in a homeless encampment.

Already the American Mirror reports a black man who calls himself “Hotep Jesus” waltzed into a Starbucks and demanded free coffee reparations, “I heard you guys don’t like black people, so I came to get my Starbucks reparations voucher.” And he got it.

KTLA had a story about a Southern California Starbucks. A man reposted a video — made in January — where he contends he was denied the code to the bathroom because he was black. This won’t be a problem when homeless move in, they are very flexible when it comes to bowel movements.

After the staff undergoes Schultz’ “unconscious bias training” store rules will go out the window. I’m sure a handful of customers will cling to their ‘white privilege’ and place an order, assuming they can make their way past the shopping carts, backpacks, discarded syringes and Hefty lawn & leaf bags. Getting their order is something else entirely. Hearing their name called over the random shouts, boom boxes and urgent entreaties from panhandlers may prove quite the challenge.

Conservatives and Christians won’t have to worry about boycotting Starbucks ever again. Corporate will have driven off all the business without our assistance.

I’m going to enjoy watching the feeding frenzy. It’s going to be fun. And God help the clueless employee that puts the brownies on the bottom row of the display case and the corn muffins on top.

Mark Zuckerberg’s ‘Listening Tour’ Stops in DC

It’s ironic that privacy vulture Mark Zuckerberg’s first day of Senate testimony so closely resembled the action in a first–person shooter: 44 waves of poorly programmed, time–limited attackers that didn’t come close to doing any real damage.

It was like Zuckerberg was shooting tunnel rats in Fallout.

Adam Zyglis: The Buffalo News

The Senate questioning was so ineffective Zuckerberg could have gone all Microsoft on the ancient incumbents and just repeated “re–install the system from the original disks” and most couldn’t have told the difference. As Breitbart pointed out, Facebook’s stock price increased the longer the questioning continued.

What do you expect when there’re 44 camera–hogs on the committee and each wants a chance to utter the soundbite heard ‘round the world? There’s only so much time available when chained to Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell’s grueling half–day schedule.

The Opposition Media was filled with breathless accounts of Zuckerberg’s unstinting preparation for the high–stakes event. He hired media consultants, message consultants and crisis consultants. It was almost as if the nation’s eavesdropper was preparing to convince Kim Jong–Un to add an extra helping of sawdust to the menu for North Korea’s Juche Day celebration.

What he should have hired was a Trump voter.

The question Zuckerberg was totally unprepared to answer explains everything. I tell clients to read the newspaper on the way to a news event. That’s because, regardless of what the session is supposed to be about, a splashy headline will render all the ground rules irrelevant.

The Zuckerberg bubble appears to be impervious to any information from conservatives. He was taken completely aback by Ted Cruz’ (R–Presidential Aspirations) question regarding the banning of black Trump supporters Diamond & Silk.

(Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating. Zuckerberg claims Facebook AI is already screening terror–related information, but judging from the national peeping–tom’s robotic answers, I’ll wager the AI has also seized the Zuckerbrain. How can one tell when a vape store wooden Indian is expressing emotion?)

Cruz: “There are a great many Americans… deeply concerned that Facebook [is] engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship…Facebook has initially shut down the ‘Chick-fil-A appreciation day page,’ has blocked the post of a Fox News reporter and most recently has blocked the Trump supporters Diamond & Silk’s page after determining that their content and brand were ‘unsafe for the community’.”

Zuckerberg looked like Cruz had accused him of being a member of the TEA Party.

His response was pure insincerity, “I understand where that concern is coming from…This is actually a concern that I have…I think it’s a fair concern…”

Cruz then followed up, “Are you aware of any ad or page that has been taken down from Planned Parenthood? How about MoveOn.org? How about any Democrat candidate?”

Zuckerberg: “I’m not specifically aware…”

That means no.

Another disturbing development was how Zuckerberg got away with dodging questions. He carried a briefing book into the hearing room that was almost as thick as the booster seat placed on his chair to make him look taller. Evidently the book only contained buzzwords, not answers.

Repeatedly the all–seeing Zuckerberg was able to get away with telling senators, “my team will get back with you.” This is 21st Century’s equivalent of taking the 5th. Instead of using that unpleasant “tend to incriminate me” language, modern dissemblers refer the question to the “team.”

The problems with this are legion. There’s no guarantee his people will get back with the senator’s people. There’s no deadline. There’s no assurance the answer will be true. And worst of all the answer will be given in private, not in public, defeating the purpose of a senate hearing.

Senate and House hearings should extend for two days minimum. The first day politicians attempt to pin down slippery witnesses and the second day the witness has to provide detailed answers to the questions dodged on day one.

This won’t happen for a number of reasons, mainly because it would require effort on the part of Curator McConnell and he’s too busy planning the “long game” for when his feckless ‘leadership’ returns him to the minority.

Trump 2020 campaign manager (at least for this week) Brad Parscale has an excellent, conservative solution to remedying Facebook’s conservative censorship. Zuckerberg boasts about providing “an opportunity to connect with people.” As long as people don’t wish to connect with Facebook.

Parscale suggests Facebook should be required, encouraged, bribed or coerced into publically posting a daily, cumulative listing of all pages, posts and users that have been banned or blocked or otherwise stifled.

“Connect” the public with Facebook’s content decisions so they can judge for themselves if Zuckerberg’s censorship leans left. Sunshine is a great disinfectant, let’s see if it will clear up Facebook’s rash of conservative bans.

Democrat’s Latest: Jim Crow Meet Juan Canto

It’s been a decade since I agreed with the Democrat platform, but I must give the party a great deal of credit for its consistency. There is a direct correlation between Democrats in 2018 fighting to increase their political power by demanding vote–less illegal aliens be counted in the census; and Democrats in 1818 demanding equally vote–less slaves continue to be counted in the census to increase their political power.

In both instances Democrats are exploiting the downtrodden for their own advantage.

Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle, GA

When the Constitution was written each slave was counted as three–fifths of a person. History ignoramuses contend this proves the US was founded as a racist nation. The opposite is true. Slave owners wanted each of their charges counted in the census because it would increase the population of the South and grant slave–holding states more representation with additional power to encourage the growth of slavery.

Anti–slavery Founding Fathers didn’t want slaves to be counted at all, thereby reducing the number of congressmen allotted to the South. Three–fifths was a compromise that unfortunately wound up giving Democrats in the South a third more seats in Congress and consequently a third more electoral votes than counting just the free population alone would have done.

Counting the powerless worked so well for Democrats then, they want to repeat the process with illegal aliens in the 2020 census. Plus, showing leopards never change their spots, this new counting scheme is a twofer: It will continue the tradition of penalizing blacks, while exploiting vote–less Hispaniards.

Standing in the way of this power–grab are the normally piñata–like Republicans who want to include a question on the census form that asks the citizenship status of the respondent. This makes perfect sense to me. Even better it makes perfect sense to American citizens. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that an overwhelming 89 percent of the surveyed 1,000 adults think including the citizenship question is important and 69 percent say it’s very important. (Although to be truthful, I’m not sure how many ‘Press #2 for Spanish’ adults were included in the survey sample.)

The census is crucial for enhancing political power because the results are used to apportion the 435 congressional seats between the various states, based on each state’s population.

If I happen to be visiting Cancun to attend the most recent severed head display and the Mexican government is simultaneously conducting its census, I wouldn’t expect to be counted, even though I have strong opinions regarding the Mexican government. The same should go for citizens of other nations who happen to be in the US, legally or otherwise.

Leftists disagree. Faster than you can say “Jim Crow” Democrats are accusing the GOP of wanting to keep the brown man down.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D–Senility) told the AP adding a simple question regarding citizenship “will inject fear and distrust into vulnerable communities and cause traditionally undercounted communities to be even further under­represented, financially excluded and left behind.”

It would also significantly reduce the number of Democrat congressmen. California maintains its population by importing illegals to replace citizens who flee to other states in a desperate effort to escape high taxes and intrusive nanny–state government. Currently the U–Haul trailers heading east are more than compensated for by the huaraches heading north.

That’s one of the main reasons California leftists fight to keep the state a sanctuary for illegals. If we take the conservative estimate for the number of illegals in the US at 12 million, counting those people in a census meant to apportion representation for citizens would mean the illegals produce 17 extra members of congress for the states that harbor them.

The effect of this policy is to make a Hispaniard vote count more than a black vote. Gerrymandering and the Dept. of Justice pressure state legislatures to carve out districts for ethnic groups based on their population within the state. It’s a complete victory for Cultural Marxists originally enabled by bigoted Southern Democrats.

In effect, it means a congressional district with 700,000 Hispaniards is allotted one congressman, but of those 700,000 only 500,000 or fewer may be citizens eligible to vote. While a district with 700,000 blacks, all of them citizens, will also get only one member. Black votes are counted once, while in our hypothetical example the individual Hispaniard vote counts as 1.4 votes.

Jim Crow is replaced by Juan Canto.

Keeping the citizenship question off the census form isn’t a matter of fighting racism. It’s a matter of Democrats using any means necessary to enhance their power and control over American culture. If illegals are discouraged from participating in the census, so much the better. They always have the option of being counted in their real country.