Two business practices I never understood.

1. Sell, sell, sell, whatever it takes..... SELL IT. 

We all know that when a company is a profit driven business, it wants to make money. If the company offers goods and/or services, it obviously wants to sell them.

However, there are times said companies will sell a product or service even when it knows full well that A) the product it's selling is not going to fit the customer's needs, or B) when they sell a service that they simply cannot adequately provide to the customer.

Many times these companies have a high amount of returns or cancelations, or they constantly get bad reviews on many consumer reporting websites.

What begs the question: What is so bad about turning away a customer when you know that the product or service that you're selling will either not meet their needs, or you know that you will not be able to adequately provide it?

The biggest example I have is a high-speed landline ISP that mainly services people in rural areas. If you go into websites like DSL Reports, you'll notice that the number one complaint is that once peak times hit, the speeds drop to near dial-up levels. Reason?

Because instead of saying to prospective new customers:

"We can sell you phone service, but we can't sell you internet because it will slow our current customers down. We'll notify you when a slot opens up."

This company will say:

"Yeah sure high-speed internet is available! We'll be glad to take you on and give you internet service right away. Would you like me to sign you up?"

This in turn causes the equipment to become "oversold" and that's what causes the speed issues. Also, they are known to not want to spend money to upgrade their equipment, so unless a customer moves or changes providers (If there is even one, this provider has no competition in many of their service footprints) there is basically no relief for this issue. All because the company is greedy and cheap.... the worst things combined into one.

That is the biggest example. I'll list something that happened to me....

Back in 2002/2003, I used to work for a computer store that is no longer in business. A customer was looking at a color laser printer. Now back then, even a "low end" color laser cost upwards of a grand or more. I asked him what he was going to be printing, and he said photos.

Now keep in mind, back then color lasers were great for printing out things like pie charts in mass quantities, but were not exactly great for photos (Maybe they're better now, I haven't done enough research to check). The lack of any sort of glossy photo paper for laser printers at the time was evidence enough.

So I told him that, and steered him turns a very nice wide-format inkjet printer that would better suit his needs. He wanted to know why, so I began with, "At the risk of boring you with the tech talk...." then I told him the reasons why.

You know what he told me? "There is always a compelling reason why a salesperson would want to sell me a cheaper solution rather than the most expensive thing. I'm sold." He bought the printer, extra ink, some photo paper, and the service contract. After the sale, he told my sales manager of my accomplishment. I really wish he hadn't....

....Because the sales manager wrote me up for "costing the store over 600 dollars."

I told him, "Yeah but the moment he would print out photos on that color laser and they sucked, he would return it! Not only would it make me look bad, but my commission would get taken away!"

He responded with, and I kid you not, "If he is that dumb enough to look at a color laser for photos then he is certainly not going to be smart enough to notice the quality difference."

I refused to sign it, mainly because I knew I was correct. Oh, and that customer? He was so impressed with my honesty that he came back a week later to buy a black-and-white laser printer for his main office work. That still didn't faze my manager, who insisted that despite the extra sale, I was still responsible for "losing out on over 600 dollars."

Maybe that's why the store eventually went out of business and was bought be another company? Makes you wonder.

Being that I used to work sales, here is what can solve this mess, and it might surprise you:

Make the sales team commissioned based, BUT with three important aspects:

1. Do not give them a minimum quota that they have to meet in order to stay employed. Employees who are in fear of losing their job will get desperate and sale anything, and that increases the risk of "inappropriate" selling.

2. Have the sales team connected to the returns/cancellations department, so if someone sells a product or service that is not right for the customer and they return or cancel it within, say, 30 days, their commission gets taken away.

3. Properly train the employees and encourage them to do research so that they can sell a proper solution to the customer, not just the most expensive shiniest thing on the shelf. Remember, every product has a purpose. If a customer sees that a salesperson is willing to make less money on a sale because he knows that is the better solution, that will make the customer keep coming back.

For internet services, to prevent overselling an area or possibly selling the wrong service to the customer for what they are going to use it for, there are some very simple solutions to that:

1. Develop a feature in the database where if the area reaches capacity, it disables the sign up button so the sales team cannot sign up new customers at the expensive of slowing the current customers down. However, have a feature where as soon as a slot opens up, that customer can be contacted.

2. Disable options for certain speeds that are going to be too low for a customer to perform a certain task, and I'm not talking about download speed either. If a customer, for example, wants to sign up for a high speed service to upload to his cloud account don't sell him a service with only a 1 meg upload speed just because the download speed may be 10 megs!

3. For DSL services, I wish that these ISPs would stop selling "best effort" services. For those not in the field, DSL only works up to a certain distance away from the central office (That distance is usually referred to as a loop length). Too far away - typically over 16,000 feet - and the connection starts getting crappy. "Best effort" is when the ISP sees that the loop length from CO to the residence is too long but will sell DSL service anyway and hope the customer never notices the crappy connection. I believe the sales reps are supposed to tell prospective new clients that due to the long loop length on a best effort service line stability is not 100 percent guaranteed but don't because they're afraid they'll lose a sale. Gotta make that money, right?

Anyway, let's move on to another business practice....

----

2. Dealer markups: legalized price gouging.

Price gouging is illegal in most industry. Yet, for some odd reason, it's still perfectly legal for cars.

One of the reasons why this is allowed to happen is because nearly all states force carmakers to sell through franchised dealerships, you cannot "buy direct" from the manufacturer through a company storefront.

Now I know that some people who love to read the auto news sites will tell me, "But Tesla does it!"

Yeah, and if you read the auto news site you'll see that Tesla has been barred from selling their cars in some states because of their "direct to customer" sales model.

There is a reason why states think that carmakers selling their cars directly should be outlawed, and it has to do with....

....A myth of "getting a better price."

The reason why most states have the direct-sales ban on cars is because the dealership shills say that having to buy a car through a franchised dealer affords the consumer purchasing power that simply would not be there if you were to buy a car directly from the manufacturer.

I'll paraphrase an article covering Michigan's tesla ban said:

"If you are looking to buy, say, a Fusion from your friendly neighborhood Ford dealer, if you don't like the price that one dealer is charging you, you can take a drive to the next one a few miles away and see if you can haggle down for a better price. With Tesla, no matter how many times you refresh the website, the price is never going to go down. It's to give fairness to the consumer."

BUT.... that might be true if it's a common car like a Fusion. What if you are looking to buy something like, say, a Challenger SRT hellcat, the new Mustang, or a Corvette Z06? It's a little different, and that's why I am going to refer to dealerships that gouge as "stealerships" from now on.

Stealerships engage in extorting the customer on the "cool cars".... because they can.

Yes, seriously.

Right now, my favorite car is the Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat. If I was going to get one, with the options that I want, the MSRP would be $65,475 before tax, tag and title.

A quick look on Autotrader shows that just about every dealer is charging close to $90,000 for one, some are even charging close to the $100K mark. So why are they doing this?

Most dealers call the extra 20-35K a "Market Adjustment." On a forum I checked out, one member said that the salesman told him that since these cars are not going to be around long because of the impending fuel economy regulations, they are essentially collector's items and the 20 grand they tacked on was a "collectability fee."

Even though this is price gouging and to be honest is extortion, it's completely one of those things that is totally legal. Sucks, but it's true.

Just to give you an example of how ridiculous this is, there was a member on one of those LX-car focused forums who tried to buy a Hellcat straight up outright, with a "suitcase full of money," with enough for the car, tax and plates. He told the dealer, "I am willing to give you straight up cash money for the car but I am not paying a penny over MSRP plus tax, plates and title. I am not paying a markup so let me know right now if you are going to refuse to remove the markup so I can walk out and take my business elsewhere...."

He ended up walking out of 3 local stealerships before finding out that there was a dealership (See the difference?) 3 states away that is well known and respected in the Mopar world. He flew out there, told the dealer what he wanted, and the dealer not only sold him the car for MSRP but also reimbursed him for the plan tickets and gave him free delivery to his house!

The moral of that story? Three local dealers could have made an easy 70 grand. But because of their greed and stupidity, they lost out.

However....

Even though markups should be illegal, it's not, and there are actually people (idiots) that defend the practice as just another part of the free market.

Quite often you'll hear lines like, "If you don't like the price that one dealership is charging you, go somewhere else!"

Or...

"The S in MSRP stands for suggested, meaning that dealers do not have to abide by it. Don't like it? Go somewhere else."

Or even this:

"If you're too cheap to pay a little bit over sticker on a new, hot car, then don't buy it. Someone else will be willing to pay extra to be an early adopter if you won't."

Gotta love these lines from stealership employees:

"We know that you guys want a good deal, but we need to eat!"

My response: Are you telling me that you don't make enough commission if you were to selling a nearly $70,000 dollar car for straight up MSRP?

Or....

"Profit is almost non-existent on cars like a Hellcat or Z06, so those markups exist so we can stay in business."

My response: What a load of bovine excrement! Want to know why? Dealers make money on lower-end cars and make tons of money on trucks and SUVs, which Dodge and Chevy dealers have tons of. Selling their inventory of HC's and Z06's at MSRP is not going to kill them!

I actually saw a stealership salesperson write this on facebook to another dealer rep:

"If your dealership is selling hellcats at MSPR then your sales department is weak. It's a limited production vehicle, why not try to squeeze as much money out of the sale as possible if they're willing to pay it?"

My response, which I actually did say to this idiot: "Please let me know what the name of your dealership is, so I know to avoid it if I get into position to buy a Hellcat. You're the reason why many dealerships are known as 'stealerships' in the Mopar communities."

Did he respond? Of course not!

Now, here's a question for anyone who does support this legal price gouging:

Let's say you wanted to buy one of those new OLED TVs. You find that despite their high price, are selling for hot cakes and find it tough to get one. You finally find a place that sells them, and they have the one you want. Only problem is, when you go to the store, cash in hand, you see the MSRP then an additional charge that is called a "early adopter charge" of a grand on top of the MSRP. You ask the sales staff to remove the charge, and they tell you, "Sorry, if you really want to own this TV you'll pay the markup."

I am willing to bet my lunch money on it that you'll have a shit fit and walk out of there. Not to mention a call to the BBB is in order, as it's illegal. Plus the maker of those TV's have what's known as a "unilateral pricing policy" (UPP), meaning stores have to sell for MSRP, otherwise they could lose their ability to sell that brand. So let me ask you another question which brings this full circle....

If it sounds ridiculous to do it to a TV set and is illegal, why should it be perfectly OK for stealerships to do it on cars?

I hate to get political, but here's probably what I can imagine the biggest reason: Lawmakers have probably tried in the past to introduce bills that would make it illegal to sell vehicles over MSRP. Sort of like a government-mandated UPP. I surmise that the dealership lobbying groups bribed enough politicians (most likely republicans) to kill these bills before it gets a chance to get off the ground. Don't you love it when you elect politicians that decide to help corporations and not the people they voted for?

To end this part:

I'll tell you what, if I get a Challenger Hellcat, and have to walk out of a stealership because they wanted to charge me a markup, I'll buy the car from a dealer that is honest and will sell me the car at MSRP. I'll then drive the car to the original stealership, and yell out through a megaphone in the parking lot (So that all their customers can hear) that they could have made a nearly 70,000 dollar sale but lost out because they were greedy and stupid, and let people know to shop at the dealership I went to instead. Oh, and I'll make sure to record it and put it on Youtube. Can anyone say, "viral gold?"

----

In conclusion:

"Sell, sell sell" and legal markups only make short term money for the companies that practice them. In the long term, it eats away at their reputation and eventually, people go elsewhere. I wish that they were to think long term instead of short term, but alas, that isn't the case.

End of.

The holdup in getting marriage equality passed is similar in principal to why pot isn't legal yet.

So earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled to make marriage equality legal across the land.  Great! 

But why did it take so long?

Sure the republicans and religious zealots had a hand in it.  But there is also another reason: people actually believing others who were crying that if marriage equality was made law of the land, then people will want to marry things that aren't.... human.

I have a family member that shall remain nameless, that openly expressed concern several times that "If same-sex marriage is made legal then you'll see people wanting to marry their dog, or their cat.... hell I'm willing that bet that some porn addict is going to want to marry his computer!"

Yep, this person actually said that, and sadly many others have shared the same view.  Except it's stupid.  You can't compare a gay person who just wants to marry his/her partner to some sicko who's into bestiality.  You just can't.   

So what does this have to do with the Supreme Court ruling?  It's the reason, to be honest, why this had to go to the Supreme Court in the first place: all those politicians listened to these same people making these idiotic arguments that about how same-sex marriage is going to do all sorts of things like "destroy marriage" and "open up floodgates" etc.   

It does not help when you have idiots like this giving the anti-equality crowd ammunition:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2623231/Is-real-life-Her-Army-veteran-wants-MARRY-laptop-says-computers-preferred-sexual-object.html

Yes, he actually wanted to marry his porn-riddled laptop.  Yes, he was a lawyer for the US Army.  Yes, the request was tossed (thank goodness!).  And yes, he was kicked out of the Army for mental illness concerns (Well, duh!).

Fortunately, this is going to be the exception, rather than a common occurrence.  Thankfully, the Supreme Court decided to side with reasoning rather than idiocy.  

You have to ask yourself, what is really "destroying marriage" anyway?  The people I'm referencing think it's letting same-sex couples marry, but what about the guys who marry the dumb-as-rocks bimbos just because she is great in bed (Or reverse, the women who marry the brainless jocks for the same reason), the marriages that end because the couple has one measly fight over dinner and decide to get a divorce instead of working it out, or the marriages where the husband gushes about his wife in public then cheats on her with multiple women?   So what is really "destroying marriage?"

As to the title....

The holdup with getting pot legal across the land is very similar in principal to why it has taken so long for marriage equality to became legal across the land, the people in charge keep listening to idiots making idiotic statements, in this case:

Lawmakers keep listening to anti-drug crusader idiots making the same bullshit talking point every time: That pot is a "starter drug," or a "gateway drug."

Except it has been proven time and time again that it is BULLSHIT.  98% of pot smokers never move to harder drugs, and the 2% that do would have done so with or without them smoking weed to begin with.

Thanks to these people, there are lots of people that are suffering.  Pot has a number of healing powers that, if legal, would bring lots of people relief.  You don't even have to smoke it.  In Canada, for example, doctors are injecting cancer patients with cannabis oil and within just a couple of months, the patients are coming back cancer-free (look it up, it's true!).

That's actually another reason why pot is not fully legal yet: Big Pharma knows that pot will replace pills for people, and their profits will suffer.  In the eyes of their CEOs, "Can't have that..."  But that's another topic for another day.

Like marriage equality, it's time for lawmakers to step up and stop listening to idiots making the same tired old, proven false arguments and listen to reason.  It will help out a lot of people.   

Subjects that are now politically incorrect or impossible to "call out" or criticize.

                                                                       Preface

Thanks to the PC-brigade, there are certain subjects that are "taboo" to talk about outside of a private conversation.  Say or write these in public, and you're bound to get some backlash from the PC-brigade.

I am now going to do just that, and if people want to say shit, then so be it....

Let's begin, shall we?

1. Sexual harassment.                                                                         

Yes, I begin my blog with SH.  Now I will admit there are legit cases of SH, but sadly the legit ones face an uphill battle in just being taken seriously.  The reason?  Because of the high amount of bullshit ones.  How high?  Each year, about half the SH complaints get thrown out or dismissed due to "lack of merit," which is legal speak for "don't waste my time with this frivolous crap."

Why so many bullshit SH complaints? 

I blame the feminists and their brainwashing.  In the not too distant past, you could pay a polite (read: not lewd!) compliment to a female colleague, and you'll get a thank you and a smile.  Maybe even a kiss on the cheek if you play your cards right. ;) 

But now, if you compliment the wrong woman you might be called into human resources only to find out said woman filed an SH complaint against you.  You probably thought, "How could this happen?!  I only told her she looks pretty today!"

Simply put, a guy is almost always completely innocent when he says "You look pretty/nice/whatever today."  Feminists go around saying that men have no business complimenting women on their appearance, that if a woman decides to "doll herself up" for the workplace one day it's to make herself feel "empowered," she doesn't need a man to validate her efforts to look good, and the best way to "teach them a lesson" is to file an SH complaint.

Please!   I shouldn't have to explain on how ridiculous this is.  Makes me want to puke, actually. 

Another thing that feminists have tried to brainwash women on is when they say that an innocent, polite compliment is somehow a coded message for sex.  Bonus points if they tell women to watch out for a "pattern."  Yes, I actually heard a feminist say "If you notice a pattern where a male colleague only compliments you when you wear a certain outfit it means he has a 'thing' for that outfit and he wants to have sex with you!  File a sexual harassment complaint as soon as you can!"

Ugh.  Can I barf now, please?  This is why feminists get a bad name, because of shit they say like this.

It's not just about compliments, either.  It can also go for asking a female colleague out on a date.   Let's face it, if you work for a large company for the majority of the week and you're not seeing anyone, you're bound to find someone that you are attracted to and want to ask out.

When Tom Brady won one his first super bowls, he appeared as a host on Saturday Night Live.  Where he made this skit:

https://screen.yahoo.com/sexual-harassment-000000677.html

This is one those comedy bits that fall into the "sad but true" category.  Pretty much, many times the only difference between getting a female colleague to say yes to a 1-on-1 offer for dinner/ coffee or getting hauled into HR for sexual harassment is looking unattractive.... and looking like Tom Brady.

Again, I blame the feminists.  Many of whom would say "If a man has no business asking you out, best to teach him a lesson by filing a sexual harassment complaint!"  Only problem is, in this instance "no business asking you out" is translation for "he is not properly hunky enough."

However, I must admit that it's not always feminists.  Sometimes women are just stuck up and believe that only a certain type of man should dare approach them, and might get so offended that a "regular guy" asked her out that she goes an files an SH complaint against him.  Coincidentally, these same women are always complaining to their girlfriends that they can't seem to find a man.  Go figure....

What really gets me is when guys are hauled into HR for sexual harassment simply for making general commentary that is in no way sexual at all.  Case in point?  I was reading somewhere that a man was hauled into HR on an SH complaint for seeing a women's tennis match playing on the TV in his workplace's breakroom, and saying to one of his colleagues, "Tennis is only fun to watch if it's two hot babes playing like on TV right now, otherwise it's as exciting as watching paint dry."  What.... the.... hell?  (To him getting an SH complaint, not his comment)

---

2. Rape/sexual assault, or really the sympathy perks....

Okay, rape and sexual assault is a serious thing, and it is a horrible crime that needs to be punished accordingly.  Yet, this is another category where the legit cases have a tough time in getting taken seriously thanks to a lot of bullshit ones. 

Cases in point?

In New York many years ago (When I was still living there, that's how long ago it was), a high school teacher, very popular I might add, was arrested for sexually assaulting 3 girls that were part of his class.  They gave such damaging testimony that the jury unanimously convicted him of rape, even though he vigorously maintained his innocence.  The girls got money and also full college scholarships as part of a settlement.  Poor guy sat in jail for 3 years before the girls admitted that they made the whole thing up because they were pissed that he flunked them on a test that was going to affect their chances of getting into some fancy college.  Never bothered finding out what happened to the girls, but I hope that their scholarships were revoked.

Brian Banks was convicted of rape by a fellow high school student and spent years in jail that he could have spent on the football field.  The rape victim sued the school and won, claiming millions of dollars.  Years later, she admitted she lied about the whole thing.  Banks was released, and after trying unsuccessfully to make an NFL team is actually now working for the NFL's main offices.  Good for him!  The woman?  Statute of limitations prevented her from being charged with filing a false claim, but she was ordered to give all the money back that she won.... which is rather hard when she spent most of it.

Recently here in South Florida, a taxi driver was arrested after a female passenger claimed he lured her to a motel and raped her.  He sat in jail for over a month before she admitted the sex was consensual, but cried rape so she should stay in the country.  You may be thinking, "huh?"  Apparently, there is a state law in the books in Florida that states victims of sexual assault that are here illegally are granted a stay in the country and cannot be deported.  Thanks to this, I bet a lot of guys down here are going to be afraid of having sex with a woman who is not a US citizen!

What is the common denominator here?  Two words: Sympathy Perks.

I am going to just come out and say something that will probably cause a lot of feminists to want to throw something at me: Get rid of those fucking sympathy perks. 

Would it hurt legit victims?  Probably.  But if you remove a rape victim's right to sue (Or limit how much money they can get meaning they can get something, just not into the millions), don't give them free scholarships, or don't give them temporary Visas, or surely one of the many other sympathy perks, I have a feeling the amount of life-ruining false claims will drop significantly and make it easier for the legit ones to come forward. 

---

Now for people who are thinking that I'm hating on women, allow me to bash my gender for a moment....

3a. Men who complain they can't get a girl because they are "nice." 

I'm not going to go full court press on the topic of "Nice Guys," as I sure you can just do a little google-fu and find plenty of answers to whatever questions you have.  Urban Dictionary and Heartless Bitches International (A site ran by women) are a good place to start.

The simple truth is that Nice Guys do ridiculous favors for a woman that they would never do for a male friend in hopes that she is going to have sex with him.  NEWS FLASH: Women aren't vending machines where you insert a "niceness coin" and a sexual favor comes out!  Want to help a female friend move, for example?  Then do it because you simply want to help her move, not because you're hoping that she is going to rip your clothes off and hump you on that couch you just lugged up to her apartment!

On that note...

3b. Men who think that women should flock to them because they're "loaded."  Or.... thinks a woman who is looking for financial stability is a "gold digger."

I was reading an article by one of my favorite relationship consultants and one of his readers asked this question:

"I have a question I hope you can answer.  6 months ago I received a huge uplift in my financial situation. One that many people dream about but never actually hit.  I was able to buy my first home totally outright, I have a couple of nice cars that are also completely paid for and due to smart investing I have a steady stream of income that will last me for pretty much the rest of my life.  Yet, I am still single.  I don't hate it as much as I thought I would, but it would be nice to meet someone.  However, recently a buddy of mine told me that one of my problems is that I don't advertise the fact that I am financially secure.  He said since I'm not the pinnacle of male evolution, I should make the fact that I'll always have money coming in as my top selling point.  Only thing is, I don't want a gold digger who is only going to like my bank account.  Should I take my buddy's advice, or just keep trying other things?"

This is a snippet of what the consultant wrote back:

"When you're in sales trying to sell a product, it's best to list that item's top selling point as it's best feature.  Well in the dating world when that product is YOU, it's best to list your greatest selling point.  In this case, you didn't list how you got this 'financial uplift' and I am not going to speculate, but regardless, if a woman knows right away that there is not going to be a problem with being able to put food on the table or how she is going to make the next mortgage payment, then that is automatically a major plus right away in her eyes.  However, keep in mind that once you 'sold' her on this selling point, you have to know how to keep her with your other qualities.  Money is not the final answer in a long, healthy relationship.  Take Donald Trump for example.  He is one of the richest men in the world but can't seem to make a marriage last.  Why?  Because his wives discovered over time that his money wasn't just his biggest selling point, it was his ONLY selling point. 

Now, about your line about not wanting a gold digger.  That's fine, but keep this in mind: While some women do want a sugar daddy, when most women say they want a man who is financially secure, what they mean is a man who is smart with his money so if god forbid he gets sick and loses his job, for example, they won't have to move into a homeless shelter or an efficiency apartment.  Back to what your buddy said, if you're not the pinnacle of male evolution then by all means go ahead and use your financial stability as a selling point.  Just make sure that it isn't your only selling point, otherwise the money you have is going to be seeped away in divorce court.  Good luck!"

The consultant hit it right on the head with his gold-digger response and nearly all other points, BUT.... there is something that he fails to mention in his response to the guy on using wealth as your top "selling point," and that is....

IT DOES NOT WORK!

Reason?  I blame Elliot Rodger, the maniac who did a series of vlogs complaining that girls wouldn't go near him even though he wore designer clothes, wore Gucci sunglasses and "drove a bitchin' BMW".... then proceeded to kill a bunch of people, mostly females. 

Side note: Bitchin' BMW?  Please, his BMW was a 1 series!  Much like a low-rung BMW 3 Series, Mercedes CLA class or Audi A3, that is the car that someone gets when he or she has a false sense of self-importance and only cares about being noticed!  If he really arrived he'd be driving around in an upper-end 5 series or 7 series!

Back to the blog, the reason why I blame Elliot Rodger is because ever since his murderous rampage, women are very weary of guys who try to list any sort of wealth as the top reason why women should date them.  Weary because the first thought they probably have is, "What is this guy trying to cover up with his money?"  Granted, I'm sure a woman will be more attracted to someone that isn't living in a cardboard box, has a car and has some sort of steady income.  However, "screaming from the rooftops" so to speak that women should go for you because your car is a fancy foreign make and your house was paid for with lottery money (It's obvious that was the "financial uplift" the dude writing to the relationship consultant was talking about) is a quick way for you to be looked at as the next possible Elliot Rodger.... and then you're screwed, and not in a good way.

That is why it doesn't work.

----

4a. The LGBT community.

Let's start this section by saying something: I do not care if someone is gay.  I know plenty of gay people who are awesome.  I also fully support same-sex marriage, because if they want to bet half their stuff that they can live with the same person for the rest of their lives then by all means, let them!

But this isn't about same-sex marriage.  This is about the number one reason why so many members of the LGBT community catch so much flak from the members of the straight community:

That many of them are just as much, if not more intolerant than the people they claim are discriminating against them.

This is due to one reason: They can't fathom the idea that you are never going to get 100% of the straight community to be fully accepting of people who are LGBT.  You just cannot.  End of story.

Biggest example: Gay couples suing businesses for refusing to serve them because the owners of said  business object to homosexuality.  Now, don't get me wrong, I think the owners of the business are stupid because their money is just as green as a straight couple's.  They're basically turning away money due to their allegiance to a glorified fairy tale aka religion. 

Now with that out of the way, if a business was to turn a couple away because of who they are clashes with their religion, here is what I and so many other people want to know:

HOW HARD IS IT TO GO TO ANOTHER BUSINESS?!

You know, one that is willing to take their money?  Instead of suing, say, a bakery out of business for not wanting to bake them a cake, why not just go to another bakery that doesn't care if they're gay?

                                                            

Now, the pundits will say that "just going to another business" is just "lying down and accepting discrimination."  If you really want to get technical, it's not, and here is why:

Homosexuality is not a "protected class," not yet anyway (Thanks to all the conservatives in office who still think it's a choice, which it's not - more on that later).  When a person does not fall into a "protected class," that business has a legal right to refuse service to him/her. 

It sucks, but to be honest a gay couple would be better off leaving the establishment a bad Yelp review than suing the place.  If the LGBT community wants to end some of the perception issues that they have with the straight community, that would be a start.

There is another example of this:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/canadian-jeweler-threatened-for-offering-great-service-to-gay-couple-while-supporting-traditional-marriage/

If you want me to save you a click, here's the short synopsis: Jeweler makes a ring for a lesbian couple, as said jeweler has my mentality: Doesn't matter if you agree with who they love, their money is just as green as the next person.  Couple then finds out that the jeweler has a PERSONAL OPINION that they don't believe in same sex marriage.  Couple then demands that they take back the ring and give them a refund because they said that it would be "tainted" by the jeweler's PERSONAL OPINION.  Other people find out about the jeweler's PERSONAL OPINION and harass, bully him, make threats and demand they shut their business down because, again, of their PERSONAL OPINION.

They way I see it, I see no intolerance and good business sense on the part of the jeweler.  I see total INTOLERANCE on the part of the couple in question. 

This is why the LGBT community takes so much flak from the straight community.  Not because of who they love or who they want to be.

While we're on the subject of LGBT....

----

4b. Idiots who think homosexuality is a choice....

Do you want to know why LGBT is not a protected class yet?  Because of all those conservatives that people voted for who think that LGBT is a choice and therefore not eligible to be a protected class.

Homosexuality is not a choice and has been debunked as such by just about every scientific entity out there. 

I have my one opinion on this: If it was a choice, no one would be gay.  If it was, why would those people choose a road so difficult to travel down, one where they face hardships from every corner which include being shunned by their own family and friends?  Think about it.

Of course, you have people that offer their "experience" to try and counter this.  One such example is a guy that was a member of a political debate forum I was on years ago.  He said that his step-daughter was perfectly straight until she befriended a lesbian at college, then a short time later came home from school announcing she was gay and had a girlfriend.  People had to break it to him that his step-daughter was not "perfectly straight," but more than likely "afraid to come out." 

----

5. Section 8 and the problems it causes.

For a perfect example of the problems section 8 causes, I urge you to take a look into the south Florida town of Coral Springs. 

It used to be a very nice area, on par with some of south Florida's best areas.  Then it started changing.  What was once a city you never heard of on the local news now has stories running every week of some sort of crime. 

When did it change?  Owners of rental properties in Coral Springs for years refused to allow section 8, because they know what happens when you do.  Then City Hall told them that if they continue to refuse it the city will sue them for "housing discrimination."

So they started to allow section 8, and shortly after it caused problems.  As in crime problems.  The classy people who lived in the surrounding areas moved to places like Parkland and Weston or totally out of Broward County, and the area started slowly changing.

The reason for this is quite simple: Only 10% of people on section 8 are legitimately good people.  The rest are low-lifes, criminals and drug addled losers who either can't get a job or can't hold down a job, and do nothing but bring riff-raff and cause the surrounding neighbors nothing but trouble.

Recently on TV, I saw a report that said that areas like PARKLAND are going to eventually be pressured to start accepting section 8.  For those that don't know, Parkland is one of the nicest cities in South Florida.  If money was no object and I wanted to stay in broward county, Parkland would be "the" place.  I'm just going to come right out and say it: If I was a Parkland resident, I would not want section 8'ers invading my beautiful city! 

Now I know some people are going to read this and want to say to me, "Studies have shown that section 8 does not increase crime.... and you're being a little racist."

Bullshit!  I firmly think that those studies were manipulated into saying that to avoid sounding racist.... 

....Which is ridiculous in itself as the majority of people on assistance like section 8 are Caucasian.  So how am I being racist here?

If I was a property owner in Parkland, I would point City Hall and HUD to Coral Springs as to why it is not a good idea to make me start accepting section 8.  To be honest, if I was threatened with a lawsuit, I would say "bring it on.  Sue me." 

I wish that Coral Springs property owners had the guts to tell the City Hall and HUD to go fuck themselves.  If they did that, maybe Coral Springs would still be an A+ place to live!

----

6. The glorification and normalization of obesity.

Remember when that fitness mom Maria Kang took a picture with her three kids that said, "What's your excuse?"

Sensible people recognized what she meant: That just because you have a child doesn't mean you should get lazy and become a fatass.  To the PC-brigade, it was "fat shaming."

Then she ranted on a promo by "curvy girl lingerie" where the company had its customers take selfies wearing their products, calling it "glorifying obesity." 

Well to be honest, Maria Kang was correct.  None of those women were curvy.  Just fat.  These are women that you want to tell them to cover up, not strip down!  There is no easy way to say it.  Like Maria Kang, I will probably be accused of fat shaming!  

By the way, about the word "curvy."  It used to mean something universal by both men and women: A woman who has a nice hourglass figure, that has at least a C-cup bust, a nice butt and in general does not look like she is going to fall over and die any minute due to lack of nourishment.   Somehow, within the last 10-15 years, that universal meaning soon became just the man's definition of "curvy."  When a woman says "curvy," it is a cover up to downplay the fact that she is fat.   That's why when I'm on a dating site and see that a woman has only face pics and calls herself "curvy," I close her profile and move onto the next one. 

But back to this topic: It seems that the PC-brigade has made it nearly impossible to criticize and "call out" the simple fact that an unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle is being promoted as normal and glamorous when it's not.     

The most recent and biggest example (no pun intended) is when a "plus size" model named Tess Holliday became the first such model to be signed to Vogue.  Now, I have seen plenty of gorgeous plus size models that are way more attractive than those skinny wenches that normally walk the runways.   Tess is not one of them.  She's just FAT.  She's one of those people that when you see her trying to prance around in lingerie, you just want to tell her "sheesh put your clothes back on!"  Which means one thing: That thanks to the PC-Brigade, Vogue was probably too scared to say "You don't fit the image our demographic is looking for," which translates to "You're just a bit too big to be a model for our company."  It makes me wonder why Vogue chose to sign her over the many other plus size models out there that are actually nice to look at.

Just to end this: Until the media stops listening to the PC-Brigade that the people calling out an unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle is "fat shaming," then we're going to have this continue.

Oh, and for the people who are thinking that I'm hating on females again, let's face it, you don't see a heavyset dude trying to get a modeling job for Abercrombie & Fitch, and if one did I would have the same response as I did for the curvy girl lingerie selfies: no one wants to see that shit, cover up!

 ----

7. Dress codes in schools for the wrong reason: to shame buys for having naughty thoughts.

Dress codes in schools are nothing new.  They have been in most schools pretty much forever.

Lately though, girls getting punished for "violating" dress codes left and right are constantly making the news.  You may be thinking, "they violated the dress code, why is this news?"

It's because of the reason for the dress codes....

It would be fine if the stated reasons for the dress codes were to prepare them for what they can expect in the real world; after all most workplaces have a dress code. 

Except it's NOT.

The stated reasons most of these schools have is that they don't want to distract their male classmates and give them naughty thoughts.  Oh my god, give a teenage boy naughty thoughts?  The horror!

I was a teenage boy once, so let me tell you this: If I found a girl attractive, she could be wearing a potato sack, and I would still have naughty thoughts.

Here are some links:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/04/mom-upset-school-forced-daughter-to-wear-shame-suit/15058923/

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Teen-Girls-Dress-Gets-Her-Kicked-Out-of-Prom-259225501.html

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/05/331187-honor-student-wore-award-speech-got-title-taken-away/

If you do some google-fu, you'll find a lot more links that are of basically identical stories.  But nearly all of them had this commentary:

"Instead of punishing girls for wearing something with, say, spaghetti straps, how about we teach boys at an early enough age to respect women and understand that girls are not objects to leer at and stare at, and also teach them that just because she is wearing something that shows a little skin it should not be an automatic signal to start fantasizing about her!"

The first part of that commentary made sense.  Women should be respected and I totally agree.  The second part is where they lost me.

Trying to teach boys that it's somehow wrong or shameful to fantasize or have naughty thoughts about a girl that they find attractive is more damaging long-term than taking a girl's award away for wearing spaghetti straps, or kicking a girl out of prom for wearing a dress that was deemed "too short," and the reason why is going to be in the form of a question to all parents of a son:

DON'T YOU WANT TO SEE YOUR SON GETTING MARRIED AND HAVING CHILDREN SOMEDAY??

Well that's not going to happen if he is indoctrinated to think that fantasizing or naughty thoughts are bad, or shameful.  In order to get married, he has to get engaged to a girl.  In order to get engaged, he has to be in a relationship.  In order to get into that relationship, he has to date her.  In order to date her, he has to ask her out.  Naughty thoughts are one of the building blocks to actually building up the courage to ask a girl out on a date.  Take it away, and there's a high chance your son is going to be perpetually single.

Now, about the having children part: Let's just say that babies don't come from storks.  They come from having sex.  The largest building block to wanting to have sex are.... naughty thoughts.  Again, if you ever want your son to have sex and get his wife/girlfriend pregnant, then schools indoctrinating him into thinking that naughty thoughts are bad or shameful is, well, a bad idea.  

Let's delve a little into that, shall we?  Boys, from adolescence on, begin to develop "naughty thought triggers," and they don't know what triggers them until they see something that, well, does trigger them. 

One of the complaints about the prudish dress codes is that "they sexualize non-sexual body parts like a girl's shoulders."  I always find it humorous when these news articles mention that.

Allow me to reveal one of my naughty thought triggers....

I didn't know it at the time, but I developed a naughty thought trigger to a woman's bare shoulders.... if she lets her straps to her top/dress/whatever fall off her shoulders or converts it to strapless.

How did I realize it?  I was in high school, and became acquainted with this new girl who was really good looking.  She was wearing a spaghetti-strap tank, and for some reason, I blurted out "If someone like a photographer paid you just to slip your straps off your shoulders, would you do it?"  I don't know why I said it, but I said it.  She looks at me and says, "You mean like this?"  She lets her top and bra strap fall down her shoulder, and that's when it subconsciously "hit" me.  I asked her without hesitation, "Can you do that again?  Because that's pretty hot."  She did, and I knew I was onto something about myself.

Whenever my last girlfriend wore something like a tank top or dress, she knew the one thing that could get me "revved up" so to speak was let her straps fall off her shoulders and teasing with them or maybe even convert the dress or top she was wearing to strapless.  She said I was a "cheap date" so to speak because of this, haha! 

But that's the thing, and that's how I am going to conclude this part with: Having a dress code for prudish reasons is damaging for girls because schools and other institutions are punishing  them for something they have no control over (boy's thoughts) and damaging to boys when the "solution" is to shame boys into thinking that a perfectly natural thing is bad and needs to be repressed.   Long term it's bad overall for everyone involved.

Now for the people that have questions on my naughty thought trigger...

----

7b. People who think it's "weird" and/or ask silly or ask downright stupid questions to someone who has a "niche"/uncommon fetish or naughty thought trigger. 

Now granted, I'm sure many of you have questions on my "naughty thought trigger."  Some might even call it a fetish.  The PC-brigade tend to publicly call anyone that says they have a fetish "perverts," but I am willing to bet my lunch money that they have something that revs their motor just as much so to speak, so they really shouldn't be talking!

Now to the questions that I have been asked, or I know that people are going to be thinking of asking....

 "What do your dates/girlfriends etc think of this 'fetish' you have?"

I never had a woman that thought it was weird or anything.  Why would they?  If they did it would be hugely judgmental on their part.  Personally, I think any woman would like it if all they had to do was show some shoulder to push my buttons and start the engine!

"You know what?  I think your 'fetish' is kind of weird."

One should never call something that revs a person's motor "weird."  Some people are into big butts.  I personally never was, but I'm not going to poke fun at someone who does.   Some guys have a foot fetish.  I personally never got that myself, but I am certainly not going to judge anyone who does have it.  Some guys are into bondage.  Again, never thought it was attractive but again, I am not one to judge what gets another person's motor revving.  See a pattern here?  I never called any of those things "weird."  They like what they like, who am I to tell them differently?

"So if you see a hot actress/model on TV wearing a dress/top that's off-the-shoulder or strapless, are you telling me you're pitching tent just by the sight of that?"

No.  An already off-the-shoulder or strapless dress/top takes the fun out of it for me 99% of the time.

"So if you see a cute girl wearing a top or dress with straps, are you tempted to go over to her and pull her straps down her shoulders?"

Yep, someone actually asked me this.  The answer is NO, because it's sexual assault and also creepy!

And one that leads back to the prudish dress code and the reason I brought all these up in the first place:

"You do realize developing a 'fetish' like yours is why many schools banned anything that bares a girl's shoulders, right?"

Some guys develop a naughty thought trigger to a girl's tummy.  Some develop one to a girl's legs.  Some develop one to a girl's hair.  So let's just make girls dress up in burka-like clothing with hijabs to make sure that NONE of them are showing anything for fear that a boy might develop something that is perfectly natural and okay to have!  Holy shit, you're so right!  *Note sarcasm*

Now with that out of the way....

----

8. Child Protective Services.

Over the last few years, you may have seen news reports of CPS trying to take kids away from their parents for completely baffling reasons. 

These parents are not the type that you imagine CPS to be targeting, but here are some things that CPS has tried to take kids away for:

1. The famous case of parents in Maryland letting their kids walk home from school by themselves.  CPS says that the parents put their kids in great danger. 

2. Recently, a couple decided to go camping with their kids on a piece of property that they recently bought.  CPS argued that the parents put the kids in unsafe conditions.

3. A woman's young daughter was acting like a brat in a store, so as soon as they got back to the car she spanked her  - once.  CPS argued that witnesses saw the mom "beating her daughter."  In reality the "witnesses" was one anti-spanking crusader idiot.

4. Years ago, a couple appeared on a talk show to talk how CPS nearly ruined her family's life.  What happened?  The couple's young son was choking on a french fry, so they called 911.  CPS tied to sell a story that the couple shoved the french fry down his throat because they were upset at him for getting a bad report card. 

There are MANY  more instances of stories like these of CPS turning families lives upside down.  But why do this in the first place?  For starters, I see many stories of kids living in deplorable conditions, that are actually abused, or born drug addicted, or so traumatized that they are screwed up for life, that CPS doesn't seem to go near.  You know, ones that actually do deserve to be taken away but seem to be ignored while CPS seems to go after good families for completely bogus reasons.  But why is that?

Well, I did some research.  And as usual, it's money. 

See, when a CPS worker takes a child away from his/her parents and places him/her into foster care, that child becomes eligible for adoption a short time later.

 And if you're a prospective parent looking to adopt a child, what child would be more appealing to you:

A beautiful blue eyed girl who was taken from her mother because an anti-spanking crusader nut job saw her and called the cops on her for spanking her kid once, or a boy who was born to a woman who liked to smoke crack, had a different man in her house every week and treated him like shit?

If you guessed the former, you would be correct.  That's where the money comes into place.  I found out that when a child is finally adopted out of foster care, the CPS worker who put him/her there gets a bonus.  The more "adoptable" the children are, the more money they make when the kids are finally adopted out of foster care.

Here is what I want to know....

WHY THE FUCK IS A BONUS EVEN GIVEN OUT FOR THIS?!

Money should not be a factor in this!  There are many jobs where a bonus is appropriate.  Selling cars.  Selling stocks.  Selling phones.  Definitely not this.  It makes me want to puke!

Once I found out about the bonuses, it all makes sense now.  In my view, CPS is a corrupt alphabet agency that likes to destroy the lives of innocent, loving families to pad their wallets.  That's really all there is to it. 

----

9. Pro-lifers who complain about aborting a fetus with down syndrome.

On the wikipedia page for down syndrome, it says that over 70% of fetuses that test positive for down syndrome are aborted. 

Pro-lifers, obviously, frown on this.  Their favorite saying is, "So if the child isn't your definition of perfect, you're going to kill it?"

Nobody is perfect, so that is just a generally stupid question.  But there is a reason the majority of fetuses with down syndrome are aborted.

One look at the aforementioned wikipedia page (And other medical journals) shows the litany of health problems people born with down syndrome face.  Not only that, but people with down syndrome have shortened lifespans and thanks to the low IQ levels, with very few exceptions the biggest career ambition they have.... is supermarket bagger.  They never get a chance to fall in love, be the cool person, and are constantly made fun of.  Not to mention hearing the constant reminder that their parents get of "you should have aborted when you had the chance."

In short, a fucked up shitty life.  Why should any human being have to go through that?

Children don't ask to be born into this world.  When a fetus tests positive for down syndrome and you decide to carry the pregnancy to term, you are intentionally and knowingly inflicting said fucked up shitty life on that person before it even gets a chance to come into this world.  You're being more cruel than the abortion itself! 

Pro-lifers don't like hearing that. 

To try and prove their point, they will resort to insults, as in the case of a political discussion forum I used to lurk on.  There was a guy who had the same viewpoint as me on this, and one pro-lifer had this to say:

"You had drug problems and run-ins with the law when you were younger.  During that period you couldn't hold down a job, couldn't make any relationship last to save your life, and thanks to your parents kicking you out your residences consisted of crashing at friends' couches.  By all accounts your life was fucked up and shitty, should your mom have aborted you?"

See.... they cannot come up with a point without insulting people.  That's because they have no point.  The man she insulted was able to bounce back and is living a great, quality life now with a wife and kids.  People with down syndrome are not able to bounce back, and that's why most fetuses with the condition are aborted.

----

10. You can be anything you want to be.... not exactly.

When I was criticizing that fat model that Vogue signed when her TV segment aired on "The Insider," my father told me that I shouldn't make fun of her, that "people can be anything they want to be."

I had to tell him very nicely, "sorry but that's a line of PC junk that is not true."

Sorry, but in the real world, you cannot be anything you want to be.  This phrase has been around way longer than there ever was a PC-brigade.  It is just one of a long line of bullshit sayings that people will tell others where the only thing it accomplishes is falsely raising their self esteem and causes people to misread their skill set. 

If it was, I would be in the Computer Aided Design field by day and playing guitar tribute to Stevie Ray Vaughan by night.  But alas, I was simply not cut out to do CAD or play guitar. 

That's the thing: some people are not designed or simply cut out to do what they want to do.  Even if they excel at a similar field, they may simply not be cut out to do what they have their eye on doing. 

Now, no one knows if they are going to suck at something until they actually try it.  No one says, "Don't bother doing that, you may suck at it."  But when you do fail at something, you quickly realize that statement of "you can be anything you want to be" was only good for one thing - making you feel good in the short term.  It does not mean shit when it comes to your actual skills or abilities.

I could list mine, or people I know, but the biggest name I can think of that illustrates why this statement is bullshit is....

Michael Jordan.

Yep, that Michael Jordan.  One of the best basketball players to ever set foot on the court, if not the best ever had an ambition to play baseball to fulfill his late father's wishes to see his son play in the major leagues.  So how did he do?  Well, not that great.  If not for the baseball strike he probably would have either got cut or been a bench warmer, so he returned to basketball a year later.  Where he resumed his stellar career.  Nowadays, only Jordan die-hards mention anything about his baseball "career."

I bring this up because the phrase "you can be anything you want to be" is what causes people to pull a Michael Jordan: just because you may excel in one field does not mean you'll be good in another.  It causes people to have false ambitions with in turn causes wasted time and maybe even wasted money. 

Here is what I say: Find your "niche," something that fits within your skill set and possibly financial/travel limits, and excel at it.  Just don't listen to phrases like the one above, otherwise it'll lead you to disappointment.   Remember, if this statement was true, there would be a lot more astronauts and a lot less janitors. 

----

Well that ends this very non-PC blog.  Over and out!