Reid, Pelosi & Obama Planning Genocide
aka The New Democratic Job Creation Program
December 21, 2009

Murder is defined as “the premeditated killing of another human being (murder in the first degree), or the killing of another human being by intent but without premeditation (murder in the second degree).” For the purpose of this article, I will exempt war, lawful execution and elective abortion from the definition of murder. We can debate those controversial issues another time.

Self-defense is generally viewed as “the force someone uses to protect themselves because of a reasonable belief that another party intends to inflict great bodily harm or death. The popularized (and legally supported) justification for the use of deadly force in self-defense is a person’s belief or perception he or she is in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death.

In simpler terms, murder is killing someone against their will, and self-defense is killing first to prevent an assailant from murdering you. The use of deadly force in self-defense is an inherent right of Americans ever since the revolutionary war. That right has been sustained in countless court cases for hundreds of years.

Enter the Democrats with a new government health care proposal that poses an imminent threat or danger of great bodily harm or death to millions of Americans. Do the Democrats want you to die? Do the Democrats intend to kill you? Yes they do, provided you are older than 55; afflicted with AIDS; a woman past child-bearing age with breast cancer; or a person suffering from any number of possible medical conditions that necessarily require expensive medical treatments and follow-up over long periods of time. Are the Democrats taking considered and premeditated action to murder people? Yes they are.

The health care bill currently being inserted up our collective evacuation chutes by gloating Democrats lays the foundation for this mass genocide. For the record, genocide is viewed by most rational people as “murder.” How will the Democrats facilitate this mass genocide? Quite simply by establishing federal and state protocols that deny or limit medical treatment for people categorized as “undesirables” in the previous paragraph. The undesirables categories will be subject to modification based on political expediency.

The potential benefit of a campaign of genocide against seniors and sick people by the Democrat-controlled government is obvious. Deaths create job openings and the Democrats have promised more jobs. Better yet, deaths create revenue for the government in the form of death taxes. As you should know, the Democrats have already resurrected the full death tax. Now they merely need people to die. To the Democrats, there appears to be no downside to genocide; unless of course you happen to be one of the potential victims.

For a historical perspective, look at the Nazi campaign of genocide against the Jews. Murdering the Jews eased Nazi debt owed to Jewish-owned banks; freed up estate property to be confiscated for the coffers of the Nazi government and created sorely needed jobs for other Germans at a time when unemployment was a serious problem in the country. True, the Nazis didn’t murder Jews by denying them medical care (arguably). The “denial of service” attack is a new paradigm being tested and refined by England, Canada, Cuba and other countries looking for ways to bump off senior citizens, people with costly illnesses and possibly even other undesirables who don’t fully support their standing government.

As everyone has probably noticed, our “Unholy Trinity” (Obama, Reid & Pelosi), points repeatedly at countries with government-run medical insurance as an example of effective socialism, despite an overwhelming body of evidence that shows how those countries systematically discriminate against various classes of people by denying them life-sustaining medical treatment. You could call it government enforced survival of the fittest, with the government deciding who best meets the description of fittest.

Which brings us back to the concept of self-defense. What follows is a fictional story. Any similarity or resemblance of the characters in this story to real people is coincidental and unintentional. I do not personally recommend or endorse the story’s ending.

Envision if you can, an elderly woman walking from the supermarket to her car in the parking lot. She is accosted by an assailant who demands her purse and her car keys. She panics and repeatedly screams “help,” at which point the assailant pulls out a knife and and threatens to kill her if she doesn’t shut up. Grandma concludes the assailant really does intend to kill her. In an act of desperation, she drops her groceries, pulls a .25 caliber pistol out of her purse and shoots the assailant. The entire incident is recorded on parking lot surveillance cameras.

It isn’t important whether or not the assailant is killed. Grandma acted in self-defense in the purest sense of the concept and a court will acquit Grandma of all wrong-doing (provided she had a license to carry the concealed weapon). In fact, lets ditch the gun. Grandma needs it later. It was raining, Grandma was carrying an umbrella and she stabbed the assailant with it. When this case went to court, Grandma didn't even need a “good” attorney. Her court-appointed defense counsel got her off easily.

Now consider the same scenario, but an alternate ending. Grandma stabs with the umbrella and misses. The assailant runs away and Grandma (in all the excitement) trips and falls down. Grandma is after all, old and fragile. She breaks her hip when she hits the pavement.

Off to the hospital she goes in an ambulance. After a few days of medical evaluation and several X-rays (the insurance company won’t pay for an MRI), Grandma’s doctor recommends a hip replacement if she ever expects to walk again without assistance.

Grandma’s government regulated health insurer disapproves the surgery on the grounds Grandma is too old to justify the expense. What they don’t tell Grandma is that (in their subjective opinion) due to Grandma’s advanced age, her potential for further positive contributions to society doesn’t justify the expense. The only medical procedure the insurance company is willing to reimburse is “supervised pain control,” and a cheap walker.

Grandma ends up drugged into a half-stupor by medical marijuana, the least expensive pain mitigating pseudo drug she can afford. Grandma also has to spend a lot of time on the couch or in bed. Her leg becomes painful and starts to swell. She sees her doctor who confirms the presence of a blood clot in one of the large veins in her leg.

Grandma’s doctor recommends an angioplasty, but the insurance company won’t pay for it. They have exhausted the annual funds allocated to Grandma’s region for her age category. Her doctor’s only option is to place her on a daily dose of Coumadin in hopes of preventing further clotting. The doctor also tells Grandma to be careful because she can bleed to death if she accidentally cuts herself, takes too much Motrin for her pain, or sustains a severe blow to any part of her body from bumping into the corner of a table, falling out of bed, etc. Grandma has to make sure she doesn’t even bite her tongue too hard by accident.

Faced with these circumstances, Grandma suddenly realizes she is in imminent danger of bodily harm or death. If she can’t have the angioplasty, she’s probably a goner. And who is the assailant threatening her life? You guessed it; the insurance company. Just like the assailant with a knife in the parking lot, the insurance company is taking aggressive steps to kill Grandma with a denial of treatment. The insurance company will undoubtedly receive a bonus from the government for the resultant cost savings.

Unfortunately, that won't help Grandma. She doesn't own stock in this particular insurance company. Bottom line, the insurance company knows full well, the same as Grandma, that denial of service can result in her premature death. Is this what you want for your own Grandmother? Don't even think about paying for her to have an angioplasty to resolve the matter. That could result in stiff government fines for you, your grandmother and the doctor who performs the procedure.

Grandma loses all hope. She takes a taxi to the local office of her insurance company; shuffles into the reception area with her walker; pulls out the trusty old .25 caliber she thought she'd never need and shoots the receptionist and two other people who come running out of their offices when they hear the shots. (The other exec in the office suite is cowering under his desk.) The .25 caliber pistol jams (as they are apt to do), a wounded insurance company exec wrestles Grandma to the ground (re-fracturing her hip), the police are summoned and Grandma is taken into police custody to face charges of murder.

Is this the end for Grandma? I somehow doubt it. Grandma’s attorney only needs to introduce the generations-old tried and tested “self-defense” defense and Grandma is very, very likely to go free. If you disagree with me, please explain how this particular scenario does NOT meet the requirements for the use of deadly force in self-defense. After all, Grandma was being threatened with imminent bodily harm or death by her insurance company and she did fear the impending bodily harm or death. The contract Grandma signed with the insurance company that inferred they could deny certain treatments is totally invalid under the law because Grandma was coerced into signing it to begin with.

Could this happen? You answer that. The press would have a field day. The news would circulate quickly. Grandmas everywhere with denied treatments would begin to hunt down, stalk and kill health insurance company executives (in self defense). The Grandmas would be joined quickly by millions of gays and prostitutes with AIDS, adults with autism, women with breast cancer and other citizens and non-citizens with no potential for further positive contributions to society.

The movement would spread to other countries. Insurance company executives worldwide would quit their jobs out of fear of being hunted down and killed in self-defense. Governments would be forced to take direct control over administration of the national health insurance programs. Government insurance industry workers would then become targets for self-defense. Government employees assigned to insurance companies would begin quitting in droves. The health insurance industry would collapse entirely. And we could start all over.

In the meantime, all those sitting in jail awaiting trial for self-defense would finally receive their much-needed medical treatments for free because as everyone knows; prisoners in American jails get better medical treatment than Grandma ever would with her government insurance.

The solution? This is about as easy as Ron White’s Heightened States of Awareness. See a Doctor. Doctor bills the government. Forget the insurance companies. Nobody really needs them or their involvement? No insurance companies, no middlemen, no bureaucracy, no stress. Period. Imagine the potential savings in medical administrative costs.

If the government has a problem with unnecessary procedures or excessive expenses, let them take that up directly with the applicable doctor(s). Isn’t that easy? For all of us there isn't even any paperwork to fill out besides the customary medical history forms. No pre-approvals, no issues with pre-existing conditions, no claims processing. Just health care for everyone. Problem solved. See . . . I always have a recommended solution. Mine is not a vehicle speeding towards genocide.

If insurance companies want to stay in business, they can issue policies to cover mental health problems, chiropractor services and plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons. The government will pay for "legitimate medical treatment" and the insurance companies can handle everything else.

Yes, doctors could still be sued for malpractice, but a settlement ruling against a doctor would have to be paid by the government. That would force the government to monitor and enforce the quality and qualifications of doctors instead of leaving it in the hands of the AMA. Lets face it, there are incompetent doctors in the workplace. Hopefully not too many, but the AMA certainly isn't culling them out. This way, doctors wouldn’t have to carry malpractice insurance and we’d realize another reduction in the overall cost of medical care.

To those who argue this type of an arrangement would be opposed by the doctors themselves, I can only reply, “If the doctors don’t like it, why don’t they go to Cuba, or England, or Canada to practice. Doctors are needed everywhere. They should relocate to a country with a system they prefer. It’s a free country (at least for now despite the best efforts of Democrats); so the doctors can freely go anywhere they believe they'll be happy.”

One last suggestion to resolve the ever-present aggravation of frivolous medical lawsuits. The government must legislate a “three strikes” rule for attorneys. Any and all attorneys who lose a cumulative total of three medical malpractice cases in court are automatically barred from ever again participating in medical malpractice lawsuits. They also forfeit legal fees for every case they lose. If we’re going to clean up health care, there’s no reason we can’t start cleaning up the legal profession as well.

If you've read to this point and believe the warnings don't apply to you, just give it a few years. You'll be over 65 sooner or later, provided the new health care system hasn't already facilitated your early euthanasia. Once you reach 65 (55 if Congress gets its way) you'll be balancing on the edge of the sinkhole just like the rest of us.

TOP

Movies Are Supposed To Be Fun
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Fits the Bill
June 30, 2009

I haven’t gone to a movie theater since . . . I can’t even remember. I think the last movie I watched in a real theater was Revenge of the Sith, in 2005.

I don’t have an issue with the quality of movies today, it’s all about personal budgets. Movies in theaters are expensive. Consider the cost of gas; wear-and-tear on the car; outrageous ticket prices combined with outrageous popcorn and drink prices; medical costs after catching swine flu from someone in the theater; the screaming little shit in row 3; the cell-phone text addict in row 14; and the nose-dead female in row 24 who believes she should introduce the whole world to the odor of cheap perfume.

But there I was anyway, standing in line at the theater waiting to watch Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. What was I doing in a movie theater? Circumstances beyond my control . . . the tickets were a birthday present from Sondra.

Not that I wasn’t looking forward to the second Transformers movie. After all, how many chances does anyone get to watch Megan Fox overflowing her clothes in slow motion on the big screen? Who cares if she can act? Optimus Prime is a better actor than Megan Fox, but let’s avoid the old “apples to oranges” comparison. Oh, sorry. I know the average critic will find my reference to “apples and oranges,” and Megan Fox in the same paragraph as being vulgar - typical for a critic.

Many nationally known movie critics came out openly against this movie. They said it was too loud, too vulgar, too fast, too long, too suggestive, too socially un-redeeming and basically pointless.

Critics. Do we really need these idiots? Here is a movie that grossed something like 387 million dollars worldwide in 5 days, breaking the all-time record for a movie opening and proving that most critics don’t know their ass from a matrix? We should ignore these self-proclaimed movie critics.

This movie was great. Great on a level that eludes most movie critics who fail to understand the fundamental reason people watch movies in the first place - to have fun. This movie was all about fun. Kids had fun watching the transformers. Military enthusiasts had fun watching the soldiers with advanced weaponry. Male viewers had fun watching Megan Fox oozing what looked like Vaseline from her lips. Nerds had fun watching the special effects including a female robot they’ll all be fantasizing about for the next six months. Female viewers had fun watching Shia LaBeouf. NASCAR enthusiasts had fun watching the transformer cars. I could go on and on.

The only people who didn’t think the movie was fun are the critics and old, right-wing conservative Republicans who believe we should banish Transformers from Earth; Megan Fox should be banned from all public media for being too provocative; mothers shouldn’t talk or behave like the one in the movie; God will defeat the Decepticons without any human help; and our children should be reading bibles, not Transformer comics. I think we need fewer critics, fewer right-wing conservative Republicans, and more movies like this one.

Even though movies-for-two at the theater can easily run $40 for a one-time shot compared to unlimited viewing of a DVD in the comfort of your living room for $16.95, I can’t wait for the third Transformers movie to be released. With any luck I’ll get to see that one in a theater too. Screw the critics. It’s one thing to be nominated for an Academy Award (the critics are really into that); but quite another to garner sincere appreciation from theater-goers. At the end of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, the crowd in the theater erupted with cheers and applause. I haven’t heard applause like that in a movie theater since aliens blew up the White House in Independence Day.

TOP

Michael Jackson Moonwalks Out
June 26, 2009

On June 25, 2009, Michael Jackson took his final roller coaster ride into Neverland. He leaves behind a truly awesome musical legacy and scores of mysteries about his life. Did he or didn’t he? The world seems obsessed with knowing.

Did Michael really pop little boys? Did Michael even pop Lisa Marie? He was after all, the purported King of Pop. Did he suffer from skin ailments and breathing problems, or did he just want to be white? Who or what were “Hee-Hee” and “Who-Who,” and why did he wear the glove? What kind of pain constantly caused him to begin screaming in the middle of a song? Why did he always grab his genitals on stage? Is that where the pain was? Who was the mother of his third child? Did he really convert to Islam?

Questions, questions and more questions. Was Michael that messed up in the head or was it all for publicity? Personally, I don’t care. Let future generations debate whether or not the U.S. postal service should use the “old” or the “young” picture of Michael Jackson on a postage stamp. Here is how I remember Michael.

I remember being pretty full of myself when I learned how to imitate Michael’s moonwalk. I remember incredible music videos like Billie Jean, Beat It, Thriller and Smooth Criminal. Those weren’t the only good ones, just the ones that come to mind first. I remember watching We Are The World over and over just to see the short Michael Jackson segment. I remember The Wiz, and I remember all the times I convinced new friends to watch it. I remember Michael giving me the song You Are Not Alone, to call my all-time favorite.

I remember wishing I could dance like Michael. I remember being near death in a hospital on August 31, 1987, my only thoughts being how much I would miss my wife and children . . . and my disappointment that I might not be around to watch the national television premier of Bad.

I remember Michael proving he was not really Janet in disguise when they both appeared on stage after the rumors circulated. I remember sensing his child-like innocence always there just below the surface, even after he grew up. I remember crazy costumes; controversial family members; and his brilliantly captivating, live on-stage performance at the 25th Motown Anniversary show. Damn, he was good.

I remember being one of the first in line whenever a new Michael Jackson music video came out. Most of all though, I remember how energized I felt every single time I listened to Michael sing or watched him in one of his music videos. Michael could get people pumped up and happy for hours, just from watching him or listening to one of his songs. Michael was naturally and beautifully talented and all controversial circumstances and events aside, Michael really was “The King of Pop” for most of my life.

A new contender will certainly attempt to claim the title of “King” in the music world, but the newcomer will never be the King of “Pop.” That honor is locked up forever by Michael Jackson. He earned it.

We are the world . . . and the world will miss Michael Jackson . . . I know I will.

Thanks Michael, for all the good times (and teaching me how to moonwalk).

TOP

McDonalds Trashes Traditional Motherhood
June 10, 2009

You can’t depend on mommy any more. Don’t panic though; McDonalds is picking up the slack. Just look at their new subliminal advertising campaign. On the front of the McDonalds hot apple pie box it says, “Mom didn’t have time today so we made you this baked apple pie.”

Mom didn’t have time? For her own kids? Is McDonalds outing your mom? This all seems somehow wrong, but I’m impressed nonetheless by the McDonalds approach. McDonalds has decided to stand in for all the mommies who don’t have time for their kids any more. Better yet, McDonalds has decided to expose kids to the realities of life.

This could turn into a refreshing trend. After McDonalds convinces everyone they can’t depend on their mother any more, the next step is to kill the Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy myths. Then McDonalds can continue their lets be honest campaign by killing more nonsensical fantasies like you can accomplish anything if you put your mind to it. From a practical viewpoint, McDonalds can ask kids questions like, “If everyone is equal, why do they all get different grades in school?”

McDonalds should take this reality campaign one step further and turn it into a game. On the back of McDonalds apple pie boxes they should print a list with little check boxes showing the ways mommy prefers to spend her time. Kids could check off the statements that best describe their own moms. There could be 20 different lists. Kids would have to purchase tons of McDonalds apple pies to collect all the different lists. They could take the boxes to school for show-and-tell and compare their own lazy mother to their friends’ lazy mothers.

McDonalds could even publish a special page at their Internet site where kids would suggest new additions to the lists. Weekly winners would be awarded (you guessed it) a coupon good for one free McDonalds hot apple pie if ordered with a happy meal.

Let me be the first to suggest a few entries for the list. Here goes. Mommy doesn’t have time for you because:

• You are not as important as American Idol, Dancing with the Stars or mommy’s favorite soap opera.
• Mommy doesn’t function properly since her cell phone attached itself permanently to her ear.
• Mommy is too busy painting her nails and face so she can go shopping for shoes.
• Mommy never learned how to cook, and never wanted to because she’s lazy.
• Your uncle Bob monopolizes all of mommy’s time (don’t tell your dad).
• Mommy is too busy cruising bars looking for a dad, or at least a free drink.
• Mommy’s microwave oven is broken, so it’s either McDonalds or cold hot dogs.
• Mommy never wanted you in the first place. She just forgot to take her pill.

This is fun. I could go on and on but the kids can take it from here. Once they understand mommy doesn’t have time for them, they will be better prepared to accept the fact that mommy won’t pay their college tuition; they’re out on their ass at age 18; and you can’t depend on a woman. The paradigm shift alone will generate years of debate by psychologists and countless new varieties of therapy.

McDonalds will become known as everyone’s mommy and the world will turn into a happier place (with McDonalds serving up all the happy meals). Lazy mothers everywhere will finally shed the unreasonable responsibility for cooking at home and McDonalds stock holders will smile all the way to the bank. Everyone wins except of course, the kids. But who cares about the kids anyway, besides McDonalds (as long as somebody keeps paying for all those hot baked apple pies)?

There is one potential problem McDonalds overlooked. McDonalds faces a deluge of discrimination lawsuits for picking on mommy, but not daddy. I recommend strongly they print a companion box that suggests daddy doesn’t have time for you. Because in all reality, daddy doesn’t have time for the kids either. Kids should be entitled to a choice. A derogatory mommy apple pie box, or a derogatory daddy apple pie box. In some cases we might even need a derogatory granny apple pie box.

There is no shortage of reasons for the back of the daddy apple pie box either. Daddy doesn’t have time for you because:

• Daddy prefers to spend his spare time looking at pornography on the Internet.
• Daddy doesn’t function properly since his cell phone attached itself permanently to his ear.
• Daddy would rather spend quality time with his adult buddies than with you.
• Daddy never learned how to cook because real men don’t cook.
• Daddy has more fun playing video games by himself than playing anything with you.
• Your uncle Bob monopolizes all of daddy’s time (don’t tell anybody).
• Daddy is too busy cruising bars looking for hot tender chicks (sometimes called chicken tenders).
• Daddy’s microwave oven is broken, so it’s either McDonalds or leftover hot wings from the local bar.
• Daddy never wanted you in the first place. You happened along because mommy forgot to take her pill.

Looking at the current state of affairs in American society and the breakdown of the traditional American family, this whole McDonalds theme gives new depth of meaning to the old phrase, As American as apple pie.

Burger King should pay close attention to the mommy doesn’t love you any more messages from McDonalds. If Burger King management is clever, they will counter this insidious McDonalds attack on American motherhood with a campaign of their own. The Burger King hot apple pie box can say, “Mommy asked us to give you this apple pie because she loves you.” That’s right. Free apple pies to children under 12 who are loved by their mommies. Do you think anyone would show up? I do. And Burger King needs the business. Compared to McDonalds, Burger King hasn’t been doing so good lately.

As a matter of fact, when Burger King starts giving free hot apple pies to children under 12 who are loved by their mommies, I will buy a few shares of Burger King common stock to go with my Mcdonalds common stock. How could I possibly resist stock in a company that gives away free love at the drive-through?

TOP

ATTENTION Walmart Executives
June 7, 2009

For years I wondered why I succumb to impulse buying at Harris Teeter. Even when I go there with a very short shopping list of gourmet items I can’t find anywhere else, I end up coming out with 20 or 30 items that weren’t on my list. I can’t afford to shop at Harris Teeter like that. Their prices are so incredibly high I never understood how they stay in business at all. But they do.

I do my best to stay away from Harris Teeter, knowing in advance what will happen. Where else though, can I possibly find decent rhubarb, fresh-caught Alaska salmon or shallots? Common sense (and my wallet) tells me I should buy most of my groceries at Walmart where they cost a lot less.

Why Walmart? Well, Walmart is (or was) sort of my . . . Mecca. They got it right with the “everything in one place” concept. Why shop at three or four different stores when almost everything I need is at Walmart for less money? Hi. My name is Leon. I am a Walmartaholic. But for the last few years the intoxication has been wearing thin.

Why? Because every time I go into any Walmart, I walk out of the store incredibly agitated. Ten minutes into a Walmart visit I can’t wait to get out of there. It isn’t the long checkout lines because I’m already fuming before I ever reach the checkout counter. It isn’t the bad lighting because lighting is terrible almost everywhere but I’m never cranky anywhere else; just in Walmart.

Imagine becoming intensely angry and not knowing why. It happens to women all the time but I can explain that. When a woman can’t figure out why she’s angry or unhappy it’s either 28 days since the last time that happened; she’s discovered her husband is spending money for pornography on the Internet; or she’s just not getting enough hugs.

It is different for a man. A man gets out of sorts from insufficient sex, high gas prices or a woman who nags him incessantly. But at least a man knows the cause of his agitation. A man who can’t figure out why he’s angry is mired in a dangerous mental predicament. Because a man is supposed to know. A man is supposed to be in control.

Then came the day, about six months ago I stormed out of a Walmart feeling like I should run over somebody in the parking lot; or at least one of their shopping carts. I had abandoned my empty shopping cart in the middle of the produce section. If the old fart at the entrance had said “have a nice day” to me on the way out I would probably have cussed him out. Even then, I couldn’t figure out what set me off.

Driving home from Walmart and thinking, “screw Walmart; I’m going to Harris Teeter,” the lights suddenly and finally came on. The reason someone will sooner or later go postal in a Walmart and take out a number of innocent customers, a checkout clerk, the old fart at the entrance or possibly all of them at once is your god-damned, squeaky; bumpy; drag to the right; drag to the left; rattling and vibrating; lock up and stop dead in the middle of the aisle; hard to push, wobbly, piece of crap shopping carts.

These unwieldy, crippled carts make shopping at Walmart a wholly frustrating experience. It isn’t just the occasional cart. Every Walmart shopping cart I’ve used for two or three years suffered some type of malady or handicap that made it difficult or in some cases impossible to push around. It had been staring me in the face for years and I hadn’t noticed.

Nobody is taking care of the carts at Walmart. That causes a significant drain on Walmart’s bottom line. Because I don’t go to Walmart to work out. I go to Walmart to shop (and check out the chicks). But the cart that should contribute to a pleasant shopping experience forces me to work out. I refuse to work out in a Walmart. I’ll just buy my roasted chicken for supper and finish my shopping at Harris Teeter. Can you believe it? Forced to go bankrupt at Harris Teeter by a Walmart handicapped shopping cart.

20 minutes later at Harris Teeter I paid special attention to the cart that greeted me at the entrance. I was vindicated. This sleek and sexy, dark-colored shopping cart rolled so smoothly into the store I barely had to push it. I couldn’t believe it. I went back and tested another cart at random. It was just as good as the first cart. Mind you, these are not new shopping carts but somebody is obviously treating them with tender loving care. A shopper doesn’t become exhausted pushing them around or contract carpal-tunnel syndrome from constantly forcing them to roll in a straight line.

Unlike a Walmart cart, you can fill a Harris Teeter cart all the way to the top (or even more) and it just glides along as smoothly as it did when empty. Now I know why I always see so many half-full abandoned shopping carts littering the aisles at Walmart. It's because the weight caused them to lock up in place and the shoppers pushing them just got mad and left. Imagine how someone feels when their car breaks down in the middle of an intersection. No difference.

I was reminded of every single time I’ve tried three or four carts at Walmart only to “settle” on one that at least rolled straight even if it took three or four horsepower to push and sounded like a car with a flat tire driving on a rim. My daughter admits to being embarrassed in Walmart most of the time because our shopping cart makes so much noise.

Walmart; if you don’t think a sleazy, obstinate shopping cart can piss off a customer and curtail his or her impulse buys, you’d better hire a good psychologist to explain it to you. Management is supposed to know that “impulse” buying probably adds more to your bottom line than the shopping list buying. Right now, all my impulse buying is reserved for Harris Teeter and Trader Joe’s where the shopping carts care enough to make me happy while I shop.

I’m not just theorizing here. For the past five months, my daughter and I (avid people watchers) have observed people intently wherever we shop. There is no doubt that the happiest, most impulse-buying customers populate the stores with the best shopping carts. If Harris Teeter had Walmart shopping carts, Harris Teeter would have folded long ago.

Walmart faces any number of potential disasters caused by cart rage. Customers “settle” for things that aren’t as good or as much as they want because in all reality they don’t have much choice. But they don’t like it and eventually one or more of them is bound to go over the edge. That someone might be a person who can’t control his or her temper. Walmart has the highest potential risk because Walmart causes more cart rage than any other store I know of.

So wake up Walmart executives. Spend some money on cart maintenance and quality assurance. The money you invest in your carts will be returned many times over to your bottom line by happy customers who desire to shop instead of working out. If you don’t address this problem soon, the first sign of impending disaster will be the dead carts in your parking lot that were run over by irate customers. When that happens, you had better start stocking up on body armor for your employees.

TOP

6/1/09 – Tammy Bruce – Bitch! Bitch! Bitch!
11/7/08 – The New Republican Game – “Finger The Scapegoat”
10/28/08 – Doctor Leon Endorses John McCain for President
9/12/08 – Democratic Party Prepares for Obama Crucifixion
8/13/08 – Solutions for America’s Challenges
8/11/08 – Owen Frager Takes a Stab at Blackmail
8/10/08 – Barack Hussein Obama vs. John McCain vs. Paris (Hot) Hilton
3/11/08 – Democrat Game Rules May Change
3/9/08 – Off the Record

TOP  |  ARCHIVES