When and why did it become so acceptable for people to dictate to others how to do their jobs?  I don’t mean supervisors or bosses, but the customer.  Suddenly, everyone’s a damn expert.  If you know so damn much, do it your damn self.  Oh wait… That would mean accepting responsibility for failure.  You would have no one else to blame then.

If you don’t have the training, education or courage to do it yourself, shut the fuck up and let me do my job.


Win as a team, lose as a team?

Growing up, I head this a lot playing sports.  I’ve head it a lot as an adult.  I’ve heard it at different jobs, and different sports my kids are involved in.

But I catch myself wondering… is it true?

When you win, is it because of a team effort?  Sure.  You won’t win many games without teamwork.  And if  you do, they weren’t quality wins.

But does it take the whole team to win?  Will you still win if one person refuses to put forth the needed effort?  Sure, it can happen.  But is it still a team win?  If you have a team of 11 players, but only 8 are really trying, is it considered a team win?

What about losses?  Is it really a team loss if you have most of the team doing their absolute best, and a few putting in little to no effort?  Is it fair for those that put forth their best effort?

How much responsibility to we put on a few players?  Is it fair they should have to make up for the lack of effort of the others?  Is it OK to berate those that refuse to try and tell the others it’s OK they can’t do it all?

If the entire team puts forth their best effort, does their absolute best, and leaves it all on the field or court, that’s all we can ask of them.  Sometimes, it’s just not enough.  The other team was just more talented.  In those instances, as long as they all knew they did all they could, they need to know to hold their heads up high.

But when players are holding others back due to the lack of effort, it is indeed an issue.  An issue that needs rectified.  Either the player needs to find their motivation and take initiative, or they need to be cut from the roster.

It bothers me when people think not trying is ok.  That tagging along for the ride and riding the coattails of others’ hard work is acceptable.  It’s not.

And when it’s not, we cannot blame anyone but the player.  It is no one’s job to motivate them but themselves.  A coach can only do so much.  If a player isn’t going to put forth the work, then just as in life, they need to accept the outcome.  And they need to accept it alone, and not subject everyone to share the brunt of that failure.

Indiana Got it Right

(troll shields up)

There’s been a lot of hullabaloo about the new Indiana Religious Freedom law.  Many say it’s a doorway for discrimination against gays.

There’s a problem with that.  It’s not.

Why is it considered discrimination if a business (or Church) were to refuse to participate in something it considers a sin?  To even begin to answer that question, we have to look at why it’s such a big deal.  To Christians (or anyone following a religion), committing a sin is similar to committing a crime.  One is breaking man’s law, the other is breaking God’s law.  Now, when we don’t commit a crime, but take part in it (such as lending a gun to someone you know is going to use it to kill), is considered abetting, the same holds true for sin.  If a religious individual enables someone to partake in sin, they are sinning by proxy.

This is why this matter needs serious consideration.  We consider freedoms things that we are allowed to do, as well as things we aren’t forced to do.  No one should be forced to do anything against their will, provided it doesn’t harm someone else.  If an individual decides not to cater, DJ or photograph a gay wedding, it doesn’t harm the other person.  They can hire someone else.  By forcing them to do those acts, you are indeed removing their freedom of religion, and forcing them to go against their very beliefs, even though allowing them their beliefs would harm no one.

I see this online a lot “People are so concerned about gay relationships.  Relationships that involve no one they love.”  The same holds true for the other side.  “People are so concerned about religion.  Religions that worship Gods they don’t believe exist.”

Basically, we have one side still saying what the other can and cannot do.  What makes it right this time?

Even as politically incorrect as I am, we should still respect others’ sensibilities.  For example, should a butcher association be allowed to force a vegan catering company to cater their event and provide meat?  Because that’s exactly the same thing that is happening here.  (Except religion is protected by the First Amendment.  Until Veganism is recognized as a religion, it is not.)  What if a catering company were asked to cater a swinger’s event?  Should they be forced to do so?  Should photographers be forced by law to photograph autopsies or accident victims against their will?

No one would say any of those are good ideas.  So I ask, why is it a good idea to force someone of a religious persuasion to do something they do not want to do?  Is that not denying them the right to not only believe in their Religion of choice, but to follow it as well?

I find it shocking and sad that there has been so much backlash over this law (even though very few have read it and actually understand it).  I find it shocking that those who claim to be oppressed are so quick to oppress the rights of others.  Are we not speaking of equal rights?  Forcing people, charities, Churches, etc to go against their beliefs and who they are (it’s ironic that everyone argues gays are born gay, that it’s not a choice.  They have discovered a gene that appears to make one predispositioned to believe in a higher being, a “God gene” so to speak, but there has been no discovery of a “gay gene”.) is different than not allowing gays to be who they are how?

While there is certainly a faction (albeit very small) of people that are truly against gays, there is certainly a large faction that seems to be against religion.  Sure, some believe gays shouldn’t be allowed to get married (there is actually an economic argument against this, the very reason government got into the marriage business in the first place).  But that belief violates no Constitutional right.  It doesn’t prevent them from being gay.  But forcing someone partake in a sin, that absolutely violates their religious freedom.  One cannot practice religion when forced into a sin.  A sin that may be legal, and can still take place without the religious person involved.

Yes, there are times when laws are needed to prevent rights of others from being violated by religion.  Think of some religion that may require human sacrifices.  That sacrifice cannot be made without another individual’s right to live being violated.  It’s impossible.  However, a gay wedding can still take place without a religious person’s right to adhere to their faith from being violated.

You may not like it… but it’s just the Grim Truth!

Be Honest

We all know that most politicians are far from truthful.  But some are just so blatant about it, it’s scary.  What’s even scarier is that some people still can’t see it.

It’s no secret the republicans support laws and regulations that keep rich people rich.  They admit it.  They feel that rich people should be able to keep the money they earn.  You can debate the morality of it, but at least they admit it.  The democrats, on the other hand, just don’t seem to want to be honest about how they feel.

The left and the democrats continuously champion themselves as heroes for the poor.  But are they really?  It really seems like a lot of bills they enact not only keep rich people rich, but give them more money and force more money out of the pockets of the middle-class and poor.

I started to question it with Obama’s energy efficiency tax credit.  The one where you could get a tax credit of up to $8,000 for new energy-efficient windows or appliances.  (A credit is basically them giving you the money, but you don’t get it until tax time, meaning you pay out-of-pocket until then)  Who usually has the most inefficient windows and appliances?  The rich or the poor?  How many poor people can afford to pay $5,000 out-of-pocket for new windows for their house, or even up to $10,000 for a new heating/cooling system?  This tax credit helped out those that could already afford it.  With these upgrades, they save even more money in the long run by spending less on heating costs.

The same went with the home buyer tax credit.  You buy a house, you get a credit when you do your taxes.  This was after banks stopped giving out bad loans.  So, did it really help out the poor who couldn’t afford to purchase a home, or did it help out rich folks that decided to upgrade?

Yes, I know there were plenty of middle class folks that were able to benefit from these credits, but did the poor?  No.  The rich benefitted the most.  They had the means to make these purchases.

The same went for the cash for clunkers program.  Of course, the name of this was extremely misleading.  One would think if you had a jalopy that was broken down, you would get something more for it.  But no.  To qualify, your vehicle had to get bad gas mileage.  And no, not bad because it was old and worn out, but bad because it had a giant engine that always sucked down the gas.  Most poor that have cars and middle class have fuel-efficient vehicles.  They can’t afford the gas guzzling sport cars or SUVs.  So again, who did this program help the most?

The financial reform bill punished those that tried to save as well.  The rich have their petty cash accounts.  Accounts they use to buy their novelty items, or frivolous items on a whim.  Everyone has those, actually.  They’re checking accounts.  But let’s face it, the rich have much more in theirs.  The poor and middle class quite often have to wait to purchase items until they have enough money in the account.  If it’s a needed item like groceries or a bill about to go overdue, they may have to tap into their savings.  Guess what?  Do that too many times and it no longer is a savings account by law.  It will automatically become a non-interest bearing checking account.  Now, I understand that savings accounts don’t draw that much interest.  Especially if there’s not much there, but every penny helps, right?  Especially for the poor.

Now, these are the examples of how the democrat policies have helped the rich.  Even though they claim to be champions for the poor.

So, now they have their eyes set on taking money from the poor.

The EPA is now enacting extremely strict regulations on wood burning stoves.  over 12% of the population uses wood as a primary heat source, compared to only 7% that use fuel oil.

To be fair, if you currently own a wood burning stove, you can keep it.  BUT, if you want to install one, or need to replace it, you will be paying a lot more.  See, your old one cannot be sold to someone else.  It must be destroyed, rendered inoperable or recycled.  So basically, if you’re poor and you have to replace your wood burning stove, the leftist EPA will now require you to eat the cost of your old one.

New ones will go up in price as well.  The regulations require that wood burning stoves burn 80% more efficiently.  More efficiently.  That doesn’t mean they have to be 80% efficient.  They have to increase efficiency by that much.

There was no study done to see how it would impact the cost, but the manufacturers are saying that it’s completely impossible to meet the new standards without increasing costs.

Now, do you think the rich heat their homes with wood?  Sure, they may have a fireplace, but it’s for looks, not primary heat.  The poor and middle class are the ones that use wood the most for heating.  But the democrats don’t seem to mind.

Prices of cars continue to climb.  Since 2008, prices have increased 10%, in part due to EPA regulations on efficiency, even though there was a good amount of deflation in 2009.  The EPA has on multiple occasions enacted stricter standards, seemingly on a whim, with zero regard to economy, or feasibility.

These regulations keep coming from the left.  Yet, they do nothing to actually help the poor.  In fact, several of these moves do more to hurt the poor.

How many poor or middle class families lost their homes due to Clinton’s Fair Housing Act?  (Yes, that is the bill that basically forced banks to give bad loans to people who couldn’t afford payments.)

The welfare system seems to reward bad behavior.  If you make too much, you get nothing.  But yet we frequently see folks that qualify end up living a better life than someone who actually earns more than them.  This essentially traps people.  If you start to make more, you get cut off, and your higher earnings don’t even come close to the hand-outs you got.

It seems to be a ploy to trap people in the system.  They hand out checks instead of knowledge.  The welfare system does little to help you figure out how you got there and how to get you out.  Instead, they call you a victim.  Basically, they tell you that you’re too weak and too stupid to do anything about your situation.  How do folks not find this insulting?

I seriously am concerned that the democrats do this on purpose.  They create a cycle of poverty so they can be the “heroes.”

You may not like the republican stance of “let rich people stay rich,” but at least they’re upfront and honest about it.

The democrats, on the other hand, either they’re incredibly blind, or they’re extremely deceitful.

You may not like it… but it’s just the Grim Truth!

One of these days

One of these days I have to get back into writing.  It was always a release.  A way to vent, express myself, unwind, etc.  But as I sit here thinking of what to write about, I find myself getting more wound up.  There’s been so much going on that just really makes me fear for the future of mankind.

It blows my mind how little folks think these days.  We had the whole Ferguson thing.  Looting over an adult (yes, he was legally an adult) that was killed when he attacked a cop.  Even if he wasn’t attacking the officer, what does looting your own neighborhood (or any neighborhood for that matter) accomplish?  We had the anti-cop crowd screaming for justice, but then they fell into silence when not one, not two, but three autopsies revealed that witnesses lied, and the officer acted appropriately.  Everyone screamed for justice, but now this officer’s life is ruined.  Where is his justice?

Then we get Isis beheading people and the majority of the Muslim world was silent.  They did not show outrage until a Jordanian pilot was killed.  I guess life only matters if they belong to your religion?

I’m a libertarian.  I believe you should be able to do what you want as long as it doesn’t affect other people.  Both the democrats and republicans have disappointed me massively in general.  But the left just seems to get loonier and loonier as time goes by.  While I don’t always agree with the GOP, I just don’t see them purposefully twisting the words of the left the way the left does to them.  I’ll see them read more into the words of a democrat, but dems and the left seem to straight up change the words themselves to make it seem like someone said something they never did.  Sorry, but if you have to make up blatant lies or purposefully distort what someone said, then you are proving your argument holds no value at all.  If it did, then those types of actions wouldn’t need to be taken.

I see more and more division every day.  We get black leaders seemingly telling their people to hate whites.  We get feminists still out there pushing a gender war instead of equality.  Us vs them.  Why?  What does any of this actually accomplish?  Nothing.  Nothing at all except perpetuating everything.  Stop lumping everyone together in little groups.  Not all men are rapists.  Not all women are cold-hearted shrews.  Grow the hell up.  Every time someone sits there and makes some hogwash blanket statement like “it’s ok for men to do…” or “women always get away with…” you perpetuate the divisiveness.  Just stop.

It amazes me how selfish the world has become.  We ignore the value of life for the sake of convenience.  We demand more and put in less.  We hate those better off than we are, while ignoring the struggles and efforts that got them there.  Sorry, but if you honestly think a CEO didn’t get there by working 100+ hours a week, you’re a fool.  I would never want their life.  To me, no amount of money is worth the sacrifices they make.  But it’s THEIR choice to do so.  And who am I to hate on them for their success?  The only thing stopping me from achieving that type of success is me and me alone.  But yet, we are told to hate them.

We have become so selfish, we don’t see the big picture.  “We are the 99%!” Became the rallying cry.  Of course, most of those folks are so wrapped up in their own little world, they didn’t realize they are just as selfish as the 1% they hate.  Because most of them fall into the world’s richest 1%.  But it didn’t matter to them.  They’re special.

So with all of this crap going on, I just really haven’t felt like writing about it.  I’m hoping to again some day.  Maybe when life settles down for me.  Or maybe when the world settles down and stops being so damn selfish.  And yes, it’s the whole world.  From the rich to the poor, the women and men, the left and the right.  No one is immune from selfishness.

Maybe one day it won’t always be about “me” or “us” but everyone.

You may not like it… but it’s just the Grim Truth.

To those that think free birth control is a “right”

This issue isn’t going away.  Eden Foods is now in the battle.  They also wish to not be forced to have to pay for birth control. 

It amazes me how many people are calling for a boycott.


Because they don’t want to be forced to partake in a sin?  Because they don’t feel they should have to give up their religious freedom?

Or because society has become so damn selfish that they are demanding free things for perceived rights?

These people are claiming birth control is a woman’s right.  And they’re correct in that.  No one is out there trying to stop women from having access to it.  They’re only trying to not be forced to pay for it.

Let me put it in perspective:

I have the right to own guns.  So, if you are demanding that Hobby Lobby and Eden Food provide access to free birth control, then you must also agree that I should have access to free guns.

If you believe women should have the right to dictate who pays for their birth control, then you should agree that I should have the right to dictate who pays for my guns.

So, if you don’t want to be a hypocrite, message me and I’ll send you a link to my PayPal account.

You may not like it… but it’s just the Grim Truth!

Why is it OK to hate Christians?

So many groups are protected from hate.  Or at least those full of hate for them are condemned. 

If you attack blacks or show you hate them, you are condemned. 

If you attack gays or show you hate them, you are condemned. 

If you attack women or show you hate them, you are condemned.

All rightfully so.

But if you attack or show you hate Christians, you get applauded.


Sure, some Christians are anything but.  Is that really a reason to hate Christians as a whole?  We cannot hate all blacks because of some gang-bangers.  If you do, you are a hateful person.

Yet, that’s what happens to Christians on a regular basis.

Look at Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson.  All he said was homosexuality was a sin, and everyone was calling for his head on a platter. 

But there’s some really strange stuff behind that, too. 

First, if you are a Christian, you cannot dispute what he said.  It is a sin.  Second, if you are not a Christian or do not believe in God, then you do not believe there is any sin, therefore what he said would have been meaningless.

Also, he didn’t just say it about homosexuality.  He said it about gamblers, adulterers, drunkards, terrorists, etc.  He listed quite a few groups of people.  Why was it, folks only got upset about the gays?  We didn’t hear a peep from the swinger community, even though he named adulterers.  We didn’t hear a word from the folks that frequent Vegas for gambling, even though they were also named.  Why was it just the homosexual comment that got him in trouble?

Was is just an excuse to hate him?

Why was our President allowed to spew hatred towards Christians with his “cling to their guns and bibles” comment?  I mean, these are two Constitutionally guaranteed rights we’re talking about here.  Not only was it accepted, it was applauded! 

Could you imagine the uproar if someone said something similar about another group?

“The gays will cling to their lube and dildos.”


“The blacks will cling to their Colt45 and saggy pants.”

“Women will cling to their make-up and perfumes.”

“Mexicans will cling to their sombreros and donkeys.”

All would have caused an outrage.  But not when our own President says it about Christians.

It’s perfectly acceptable to call Christians ignorant because they believe in a higher being.  Even though it has yet to be disproven that a higher being could exist.  But it’s ok to belive in a big bang that hasn’t been proven, or that life spontaneously occurred, though it has never been proven to be a possibility, let alone even actually happen.

It’s acceptable to claim Christians all hate.  Even though it is clearly not the case.

It’s acceptable to ignore the good Christianity has done.  Children’s hospitals, homeless shelters, food kitchens, women’s shelters.  All things done on a massively successful scale by Christians.

It’s ok to blame wars on Christians even though that’s far from the truth.  Sure, some wars were waged by Christians.  Other wars were waged by atheists.  All were waged by people who perverted the beliefs of their group for personal gain.  That will happen regardless of religion or not. 

Not only has it become acceptable to attack Christianity falsely, it’s almost encouraged.  We see it everywhere.  Go read an article about Duck Dynasty and look at the hatred that spews from those that don’t agree with them. 

All for simply having a different view. 

Why is it acceptable in this instance, but not others?

You may not like it… but it’s just the Grim Truth!