Gene Simmons of KISS says we should End The Fed

If we've won over The God Of Thunder, can the rest of America be far behind?



And just for the heck of it, I think I first saw this on Harper's site.  Here's Gene Simmons doing a military medley for the troops.  It kinda works, doesn't it? 

Ken Mehlman is gay.

Former Republican National Committee chief Ken Mehlman has affirmed that he is gay. 

Ken Mehlman, former chief of the Republican National Committee and President Bush's campaign manager in 2004, has told family and friends that he is gay, The Atlantic reported Wednesday.

In an interview with the magazine, Mehlman said he's going public with his sexual identity now because he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage.

Now he tells us.  After helping the Republicans create an irrelevant Gay Marriage wedge issue, a wedge issue that was big enough to drive many small-government advocates out of the party that claims to favor small government, now that he's no longer running the RNC, he tells us that he's freakin' gay. 
Jesus Christ Almighty.

"It's taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life," Mehlman said.

Did you suddenly realize you were gay when you finally understood that not everyone spends his evenings cruising Bus Stop mens' rooms?  Or was it when you felt a little guilt over remaning silent while Statist power-grabbers were crafting The Defense Of Marriage Act? 

"Everybody has their own path to travel, their own journey, and for me, over the past few months, I've told my family, friends, former colleagues, and current colleagues, and they've been wonderful and supportive. The process has been something that's made me a happier and better person. It's something I wish I had done years ago."

A lot of other people also wish you had done it years ago.  Gays and lesbians couples who can't see each other in the hospital because they aren't "family", for instance.  Or American taxpayers who find themselves deeper and deeper in debt because fake distractions like gay marriage, ground zero mosques and prayer in schools keep us from paying attention to real problems. 
Mehlman said he plans to attend a fundraiser next month for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the group that supported the legal challenge to California's Proposition 8, the ballot initiative against gay marriage.
He told The Atlantic that during his time in the Republican leadership he was often conflicted as Karl Rove and the GOP pushed an anti-gay agenda.

Blah blah blah blah....What would have happened if Oskar Schindler hadn't decided to save Jews until AFTER the Holocaust?  It's a little late to be coming out against Prop 8. 

"I can't change the fact that I wasn't in this place personally when I was in politics, and I genuinely regret that. It was very hard, personally," Mehlman said. "What I do regret, and think a lot about, is that one of the things I talked a lot about in politics was how I tried to expand the party into neighborhoods where the message wasn't always heard. I didn't do this in the gay community at all."

Read The Atlantic's feature on Mehlman here.

Lenox Mayes and the Kalimba

I met this guy at the Bally's on Oakland - Mr. Lenox Mayes.

He is one of the few great Kalimba players in North America.

What, you ask, is a Kalimba?
It's a metal instrument from South Africa. Some people call it a thumb piano.

For those of you playing along at home, this is how they are tuned:

You're kinda locked into the key of G, unles you buy another Kalimba in another key. 

Here's Mr. Mayes performing at a club in Chicago. 

And in case you're wondering, Mr. Mayes still has all the hair.  I see my balding noggin' in the mirrors at Bally's, and then I see Lenox Mayes working out, and I look upon him with envy and covetousness.  Lenox Mayes looks like a retired Lion King.

I've got his 2nd CD, and the music has a dreamlike quality that still demands that you pay attention.  Perhaps you're just wondering how he does all of this with just thumbs. 

If I've done this correctly, you should be able to go here and listen to a sample track from Lenox's latest CD:

BIG NIGHT available on iTunes by LEnoX mayes jr

Here's his MySpace page. 

And here's the Lenox Mayes home page. 

Enjoy ! 

Note to Mike Coyne and Dr. Ralph....Take out your guitars and improv over the iTunes tracks.  It's fun stuff.

If you think we're in trouble now....

For those who haven't been screwed enough....

From The Huffington Post:

The Asia Adult Expo in China is offering anyone who's ever fantasized about making love in the Oval Office the next best thing, having unveiled an inflatable sex doll in Obama's likeness at the event last week.

....Just whom this doll will appeal to is anyone's guess. Is it for those who want to love Obama, or for those who want to hate him?

Ok, let's see what we can do with this....Gotta be at work in 30 minutes....

TOP 10 REASONS THAT INFLATABLE OBAMA IS BETTER THAN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA !

1) The inflatable version doesn't make a mess of everything it touches
2) The Obama Doll can be discarded BEFORE four years are up
3) Inflatable Barry can be left alone in the house with your money
4) Unlike the real Barack, this one will never give you a Porkulus Package, Cash For Clunkers, Card Check, Cap'n'Tax, or anything else that is too much to...ummm....swallow 
5) No tiresome conversations about who drove the car into the ditch
6) No spills in your gulf - Guaranteed !!! 
7) None of inflatable Barry's pre-recorded phrases begin with "Let me be clear"
8) The Obama Doll produces less hot air and fewer greenhouse gases
9) Inflatable Barack can actually provide a stimulus
10) If something happens to your Obama sex doll, you aren't given the Joe Biden sex doll as a replacement

Why aren't businesses hiring? Why don't more people play Blackjack in Oklahoma?

John Stossel has a piece in Real Clear Politics about why businesses aren't hiring.  Here are the high points:

"Corporate profits are soaring. Companies are sitting on billions of dollars of cash. And still, they've yet to amp up hiring or make major investments."

"....The problem today is that the economy is not being left alone. Instead, it is haunted by uncertainty on a hundred fronts. When rules are unintelligible and unpredictable, when new workers are potential threats because of Labor Department regulations, businesses have little confidence to hire. President Obama's vaunted legislative record not only left entrepreneurs with the burden of bigger government, it also makes it impossible for them to accurately estimate the new burden."

"In at least three big areas -- health insurance, financial regulation and taxes -- no one can know what will happen."

New intrusive rules for health insurance are yet to be written, and those rules will affect hiring, since most health insurance is provided by employers.

Thanks to the new 2,300 page Dodd-Frank finance regulatory act, The Wall Street Journal reports, there will be "no fewer than 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies." These as-yet unknown rules will govern lending to business and other key financial activity.
The George W. Bush tax cuts might be allowed to expire. But maybe not. Social Security and Medicare are dangerously shaky. Will Congress raise the payroll tax? A "distinguished" deficit commission is meeting. What will it do? Recommend a value-added tax?
Who knows? But few employers will commit to a big investment with those clouds hanging over our heads."

Let's look at the tax situation using an analogy that I've used before. 

I love to play Blackjack.   

In Vegas, Shreveport, and on cruise ships, Blackjack odds are roughly 51-52% in favor of the house.  That's good enough for me to put my superstitions to the test.  I'll play under those conditions.  

When I lose a hand at a $5.00 table, I lose 500 cents on every five dollars that I've bet.  
When I win a hand, I win 500 cents on every five dollars that I've bet.  Sometimes more if I can hit 21.  

But if you go to Oklahoma casinos to play, they have a rule where you have to lay out a .50 cent chip as a dealer commission for every five dollar bet.  

When you lose a hand at a $5.00 table in Oklahoma, you lose 550 cents on every five dollars that you've bet. 
When you win a hand in Oklahoma, you win 450 cents on every five dollars that you've bet. 

Notice the generic "you" in those previous sentences.   I've never played in Oklahoma, despite it only being a two hour trip.  The house keeps too much of the money.  I don't like those odds. 

When businesses start a new project, roll out a new product, or even try to stay open for another month, they could lose everything.  The could lose 100 cents on the dollar. 
Under the current regime, which wants to make businesses play doctor, mommy, Labor Union antagonist, and Bureaucrat Pension supporter, business owners could still "win" something.  But no more than, say, 50 cents on the dollar if pending legislation is voted into law. 

Earnings much greater than 65 cents on the dollar, according to our President, would put players in the category of "the most fortunate", and expose the business and its owners to higher and higher levels of confiscation. 

That's bad enough to make Oklahoma casinos to look like a good deal. 
Would you put your money at risk with those odds? 

                       **********************
The picture of Uncertainty came from here.  The picture of the Firelake Indian Casino came from here.  The picture of the taxpayer burdened with bloodsucking leeches came from here. 

Ronald Reagan was a fiscal conservative ????

This post is about the funniest 3 word combination in the English language. 

But first, check out this movie trailer.  I WILL see this if it ever makes it to Texas:



There's only one problem. Why are they featuring Republican politicians?  Especially Ronald Reagan? 

Ronald Reagan was able to increase the amount of money coming into the Treasury by using a simple method.  He lowered taxes.  GDP increased as people hid less of their income and put it to work in sensible ways.  It's better to have 15% of a thousand dollars than 85% of a hundred dollars.
 
But under Reagan, our government spent money like, well, like Republicans. 

Here's a chart showing U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP.  It's from Wikipedia, but it roughly follows the info to be found here:

Look at the pink band running from 1981 to 1993, the Gipper/Poppy Bush era. 
Does that look like they believed "Government Is Not The Solution; Government Is The Problem?"

Here's another look at the same data, formatted for entertainment value....

Enough about Reagan.  Here's the Cato Institute's Veronique De Rugy on George W. Bush's spending habits:

During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.


During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton. Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

One reason offered for these large budget increases is that entitlement programs are growing rapidly. Although Social Security and Medicare spending growth outpaced most other programs in the mid-1990s, spending growth in discretionary programs has accelerated in the last 15 years, especially during Bush’s two terms. Between FY2002 and FY2009, discretionary spending rose 96 percent.

Some argue that federal spending during the Bush years was so high because security needs drove up the budget. It is true that defense spending increased dramatically since the late-1990s, particularly since 9/11 and the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, nondefense spending increased too. Some also argue that much of the increase in nondefense spending stemmed from increases in homeland security spending. Whether this is true, the overall rapid rise of discretionary spending indicates that, here too, the administration and Congress made no trade-offs in the budget. If the administration and Congress wanted more security spending and wanted to be fiscally responsible, they should have found savings elsewhere in the budget.

President Bush added thousands of new federal subsidy programs during his eight years in office. In 2008, there were 1,816 subsidy programs in the federal budget that spread hundreds of billions of dollars annually to special interest groups such as state governments, businesses, nonprofit groups, and individuals. The number of subsidy programs has grown by 30 percent since 2000 and by 54 percent since 1990.

Here's some more research from Ms. De Rugy, from the November 8th, 2008 issue of Reason magazine.  (Remember, this was written before the current Messiah started his spending spree):
 
"When it comes to out-of-control spending, conventional wisdom says the Democrats are most likely to bust open the coffers. That's why many fear an increased Democratic majority in Congress topped by a Democratic president. And we should be afraid. Democrats are indeed big spenders. Second only to Republicans."
 
She goes on to rank the possible combinations of Republican vs. Democrat control of Congress and the Presidency, going from kinda bad to worse:
 
1) Democratic White House, Republican Congress

2) Republican White House, Democratic Congress
3) Unified Republican or Democratic rule.

You cannot, you will not, get spending under control by electing Republicans.  Until recently, Republicans held all the spending records.  Democrat spending might be sillier, and easier to poke fun at, but by every measurement, until recently, the Democrats spend less money.  If you look at the long term, FREAKIN' DEMOCRATS are the fiscal conservatives ! 

We simply have to start electing Libertarians to high office.  There is no other solution. 

Oh, and the funniest 3 words in the English language? 
Small Government Republican

Paul Krugman couldn't find his way out of a sack

It's Fisking time, boys and girls ! 

I'll be needing a few tools....

Scalpel - thanks.
Laptop - got it.
Righteous Indignation - I've got plenty.
Various Free Market, Libertarian and Christian websites - check.
Copy of Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics (3rd edition) - got it.
Chainsaw - yep.
Metzenbaum scissors - check.

Let the Fisking begin ! 

Paul Krugman, the most drop-kickable of all Statist apologists, has typed up this little beauty for The New York Times:

NOW THAT'S RICH
We need to pinch pennies these days. Don’t you know we have a budget deficit? For months that has been the word from Republicans and conservative Democrats, who have rejected every suggestion that we do more to avoid deep cuts in public services and help the ailing economy.

My time is limited, and I don't have enough time or space to do anything but ask this simple question....  What in the hell does providing "public services" have to do with helping the economy?  Barack Obama has poured more swill and slop into the "public services" trough than any other president who has ever lived.  It has done nothing to help the economy, but it has saved a lot of Obama supporters government jobs.  All of this was done at the expense of the private sector.

But these same politicians are eager to cut checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country.

These politicians don't want to cut checks, Paul.  They want to let people keep the money they earned.  The money doesn't belong to the government until the government decides to graciously give some back.  They money belongs to the people who earned it.

What — you haven’t heard about this proposal? Actually, you have: I’m talking about demands that we make all of the Bush tax cuts, not just those for the middle class, permanent.

That's a nice attempt at class warfare.  But consider this:  47 percent of us pay NO income tax.  If taxes (and spending) are ever going to be cut significantly, the cuts will come from the taxes paid by someone other than the lower classes.  (Subject for further review: how many of our super-rich came from the middle and lower classes.  Another subject for further review:  who woke up one day and decided that America has classes?  One more subject:  Should people try hard to change their economic status?  What would be in it for them?)

Some background: Back in 2001, when the first set of Bush tax cuts was rammed through Congress, the legislation was written with a peculiar provision — namely, that the whole thing would expire, with tax rates reverting to 2000 levels, on the last day of 2010.

Paul says that like it is a bad thing.  Also, note the use of the word "rammed".  In Paul's world, Cash For Clunkers, ObamaCare ® and TARP were "passed".  Tax cuts are "rammed". 

Why the cutoff date? In part, it was used to disguise the fiscal irresponsibility of the tax cuts: lopping off that last year reduced the headline cost of the cuts, because such costs are normally calculated over a 10-year period.

Let's define Fiscal Irresponsibility.....How about "failure to reduce spending to reflect income"? 

It also allowed the Bush administration to pass the tax cuts using reconciliation — yes, the same procedure that Republicans denounced when it was used to enact health reform — while sidestepping rules designed to prevent the use of that procedure to increase long-run budget deficits.

Ditto.  Bush spent money like a recovering alcoholic cowboy.  So did Daddy Bush.  So did Reagan.  But they were mere hints of what was yet to come, a series of John The Baptists preparing the way for The Teleprompter Jesus....

Obviously, the idea was to go back at a later date and make those tax cuts permanent. But things didn’t go according to plan. And now the witching hour is upon us.

That's because The Crips And The Bloods The Republicans and Democrats will never, ever voluntarily cut spending.  That's why we need to elect some Libertarians and get back to a two-party system. 

So what’s the choice now? The Obama administration wants to preserve those parts of the original tax cuts that mainly benefit the middle class — which is an expensive proposition in its own right —

Once again Paul reveals his belief that letting people keep their own money is expensive.  MAKING PEOPLE PAY RIDICULOUSLY HIGH TAXES IS EXPENSIVE ! ! !

....but to let those provisions benefiting only people with very high incomes expire on schedule. Republicans, with support from some conservative Democrats, want to keep the whole thing.

Abso-freakin'-lutely.  Keep the whole thing.  Starve the beast.  Federal employees have compensation and pensions anywhere from 50% to 100% better than those found in the private sector.  And from what I've seen, they have about half as much responsibility.  What is so criminal about not wanting to be robbed to support the Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous?

And there’s a real chance that Republicans will get what they want. That’s a demonstration, if anyone needed one, that our political culture has become not just dysfunctional but deeply corrupt.

The mind recoils.  Paul Krugman won a Nobel in economics.  Next thing you know, they'll be giving Nobels to someone in the last three Democrat administrations, like Obama, Gore, or Carter.  Oh.  Never mind. 

What’s at stake here? According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

That logic assumes that the super-wealthy will continue to produce income if they know that Obama is going to get more of the (potential) profit. 
But $680 billion....That's the amount of the previous stimulus package, right?  Well, if we don't give 'em the money, they can't redistribute it to their friends, right? 

For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments.

Let's not ask why the states needed $26 billion dollars.  We don't want to go there.  Surely California was spending its money responsibly, and isn't on the hook for ridiculous public employee pensions....

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year.

Paul, you ignorant slut.  The money wouldn't GO to the richest 1 percent.  It would STAY with them.  They are the ones who are producing the alleged $680 billion.  They would get to spend it in the way that they think best, instead of forking it over to be spent the way George Bush, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid thinks best. 
Also, Paul, I'm betting that you are well paid.  I'm also betting that you have a tax expert go through your taxes, looking for every possible deduction.  I'm just betting that you talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.  

But that’s the least of it: the policy center’s estimates say that the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. Take a group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick the one with the highest income; he’s going to get the majority of that group’s tax break. And the average tax break for those lucky few — the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year — would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

You can also take the same group of 1,000 randomly selected Americans, and pick out 470 of them.  These 470 are paying no income tax. 
You can probably pick out another 330 of them who are government employees or suppliers, and who live off of taxes paid by the top 100. 
What does all this mean? 
It means we have too many people living off of money taken by force.  If you announce that more money is going to be taken for redistribution to Statists, the infamous top 5% is going to start hiding its money.  Wait and see. 

How can this kind of giveaway be justified at a time when politicians claim to care about budget deficits?

Well, because of Texas A&M University, I'm having a budget deficit.  Therefore, I spend less. 

Well, history is repeating itself. The original campaign for the Bush tax cuts relied on deception and dishonesty. In fact, my first suspicions that we were being misled into invading Iraq were based on the resemblance between the campaign for war and the campaign for tax cuts the previous year. And sure enough, that same trademark deception and dishonesty is being deployed on behalf of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

It is now impossible to cut taxes for anyone except the wealthiest 50% of Americans, dumb ass. 
Speaking of dishonesty, our government is now claiming that we're pulling the combat troops out of Iraq, but we are still going to have 50,000 troops over there, and I think they have guns.  Whassup with that? 

So, for example, we’re told that it’s all about helping small business; but only a tiny fraction of small-business owners would receive any tax break at all. And how many small-business owners do you know making several million a year?

Perhaps it is an aspirational thing.  I don't make several million a year, but I would like to.  I will try harder if I can keep the several million a year, instead of giving more of it to our costly adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and California. 

Or we’re told that it’s about helping the economy recover. But it’s hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren’t likely to spend a windfall.

GIVING THE MONEY?  GIVING THE MONEY?  THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T GOING TO GIVE PEOPLE THAT MONEY ! ! !   THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO TAKE THE MONEY, AND BLOW IT ON STUPID CRAP ! ! ! 
Paul, please go to "Clues 'R' Us", and get one. 

No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Instead, as I said, it’s about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture, in which Congress won’t take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

According to The Washington Post, we're spending $25,000 per kid in many public schools.  How much more do you want to blow per classroom, under the heading of  "saving teaching jobs"?  Is there any amount that would be enough? 
So far, the Obama administration is standing firm against this outrage. Let’s hope that it prevails in its fight. Otherwise, it will be hard not to lose all faith in America’s future.

1)  People spend their own money more wisely than 3rd parties spend it. 
2)  Taxes must be taken by force. 
3)  High taxes act as a disincentive to wealth creation.
4)  Make-work jobs, those created by government, eventually run out of money. 
5)  Paul Krugman couldn't find his way out of a sack.

How manly is your drink???

All I'm going to say in my defense is that Michelob Ultra has only 2.5 carbs per serving, okay? 
Before I switched over to Michelob Ultra, the few things I consumed were clustered around the Keith Richards "Hair On Your Chest" axis. 
I got up to 237 pounds before I switched over to Michelob Ultra.  Now I weigh 185.  So there. 
I've never even been aware of the existence "Sophistication" scale running from left to right. 

I was never a frat boy. 
I used to be a lightweight, then I became a heavyweight, mostly from eating rice stuffed inside baked potatoes, wrapped in Texas Toast, and then deep-fried inside a pizza crust. 
That's the ONLY reason I switched to Michelob Ultra, okay?  To lower the carbs.  But it's actually pretty good stuff. 

I drive a Ford F-150 pickup.  I've stared down employees who are rapists, thieves, and convicted felons. 
Michelob Ultra is good stuff.  Especially the Pomegranate Raspberry flavor one.  I've always wondered why bartenders kinda giggle to themselves when I order that. 

I shot a 6-point buck the very first time I went deer hunting.  Top that, Justin Bieber. 

The defective, faulty, erroneous chart came from here.
I also kinda like the Barry Manilow CD where he covers Broadway show tunes, but that doesn't mean anything. 

Let's have more holidays, sick days, vacation days, personal days, and longer lunches for government regulators !

From the always quotable P.J. O'Rourke, on the free market:

"The free market is not an ideology or a creed or something we're supposed to take on faith, it's a measurement. It's a bathroom scale. I may hate what I see when I step on the bathroom scale, but I can't pass a law saying I weigh 160 pounds. Authoritarian governments think they can pass that law—a law to change the measurement of things."

Can't quite wrap your head around that?  Here's some more explanation from Mark Perry's Carpe Diem blog:

Exhibit A: The minimum wage law. A teenager with no work experience steps on a "bathroom scale" that accurately and truthfully measures the market value of (his or her) unskilled labor, and the scale says "$5.00 per hour." Politicians pass minimum wage legislation to rig the "bathroom scale" of labor value to instead produce an inaccurate, false inflated reading of "$7.25 per hour." And they then seem puzzled that more than one out of every four teenagers who is looking for a job is unable to find one, but that's what happens when you "rig" the "bathroom scale."

The picture is also from the Carpe Diem Blog.  Here's Perfesser Perry:

The empty shelves above in Zimbabwe are the result of gov't. imposed price controls, forcing shopkeepers to lower prices by 50% in response to suring inflation that is estimated to be 4,500%.


If the government arbitrarily prices something too high, no one will purchase it  (as in expensive teenage labor).  If the government arbitrarily prices something too low, the shelves will be empty (as in Zimbabwe, where producers and retailers didn't bringing goods to the market when they couldn't make a profit). 
 
The solution?  More holidays, sick days, vacations, personal days, and longer lunches for government regulators.  When they aren't working, they can't hurt anybody. 

Mama Tried

From Reason magazine's "Daily Brickbats" feature.  I don't recommend going there very often, because you'll spend the rest of your day praying for the damnation of the human race. 

In Canada, Shirley Anderson abandoned her son Ken when he was just 15. Over the next 31 years, he says the only times he spoke to her was when she called asking for money. Now, Shirley, 71 is suing Ken and four of his siblings under British Columbia law that requires children to support dependent parents. A court has already awarded her a payment of $10 a month from each child, but she is now seeking $300 to $350 a month from each of them.

Here's The Calgary Herald:

When Ken Anderson was just 15, his mother, Shirley, made it clear: She didn't want him anymore.
Ken's father, a long-haul trucker, had been transferred from Osoyoos, B.C., to the province's Kootenay region. Although their marriage was rocky, Shirley followed, taking second-youngest son Darryl with her.

Ken was left behind. He had plenty of time to think about it as he wiped bug splatter off car windshields and pumped gas at the local station to make a buck. He says he can't even remember how many couches he slept on, or how he kept himself going. He just knows he never got to go to a prom, finish high school or even think about college.

The way he sees it, he never really had a mother.

On Aug. 3 and 4, Ken, now 46, will face off in B.C. Supreme Court against the woman who gave birth to him.

Now there's a family that puts the funk back in dysfunctional. 
The Whited Mama has made it very clear to her children that they will inherit little or nothing.  Whenever she reads of someone "dying penniless", she sees it as a case of perfect timing. 
We've made it clear to The Whited Mama that if she gets to feeble to take care of herself, she can stay in an extra bedroom with 5 dachshunds, a yellow lab, and whatever reptiles The Aggie has brought in. 
So far, she claims to be healthy. 


Here's Mighty Merle Haggard doing "Mama Tried":