Saturday, June 28, 2008

"I'm going to vote for..."

And yes, I really am ashamed that it's come to this.

There are some people for whom this presidential election will be a major letdown.  There are others for whom it will be a wonderful event.  For the record, I'm in the first camp.

I can't, in good conscience, vote for either JM or BHO.  When you cast your vote, you should vote based on your candidate's stance on the issues.  Does that particular candidate believe the same way you do on matters of affirmative action, border and national security, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the loss of American jobs overseas, the economy, etcetera?  (Note please that this list is not complete, nor is it in any particular order.)

Granted, finding a candidate that agrees with you 100 per cent of the time would probably be impossible, so you have to go with the best match.  Generally, you'll wind up OK doing this.

But there are some people that will vote for JM simply because BHO defeated HRC in the primary.  That's right.  For some of these voters, the only thing that matters is ...

...gender.  And since BHO beat HRC, they're going to "get back" at him by voting for JM.  This is, in part, what has made me ashamed of American politics.  And the grab-a$$ politicians with one hand in the pork-barrel and the other up each other's rectums hasn't helped. 

I remember when Ms. Pelosi became the Speaker ... she was going to "clean up" the place and seriously reduce pork-barrel spending.

If you've been reading the news, you'll know it increased ... and by a rather healthy margin.  But I digress ... again.

To get back to the point of this entry, there are some people for whom gender is the most important qualification to be the president.  And since HRC got defeated by BHO, some of her supporters are going to "get back" at BHO by voting for JM.  And that's sad.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating ... so I'll say it here again.  I would have no problem whatsoever with a woman being the President.  Unfortunately, Dr. Rice isn't running.

I would have no problem whatsoever with an African-American being the President.  Unfortunately, General Powell isn't running, either.

To be fair, I happen to know of several people who will vote for BHO simply because their choice of a Republican got defeated.  And to "get back" at JM, they're going to vote for BHO.  That too is sad.

Have we truly become that childish? 

Being able to cast a vote is a privilege ... one given us by our Founding Fathers, and those who have fought and died to ensure that we keep this most cherished of freedoms.

Does it really mean that little to us?

Friday, June 27, 2008

The Theory of Abiotic Oil

The Theory of Abiotic Oil.  That says quite a bit, doesn't it?  But what does it mean?  The theory holds that oil is not a fossil fuel, and that it's a substance that is naturally produced by the Earth. 

To completely discuss it would take a great deal of time, patience, and more understanding than I have of the subject matter.  There are a few things that bolster such a theory, the fact of a methane ocean on one of the extra-Earth moons in the solar system (I can't remember which moon nor which planet it orbits) and the fact that quite a bit of oil can be found out in the oceans. 

If oil were derived from decayed dinosaurs, did the dinosaurs all swim out there and die?  As for the methane on that moon, did the dinosaurs ride out there in a rocket ship?

There are problems facing the theory that oil is a fossil fuel, just as there are problems with the theory that oil is abiotic.

A few sites are here:

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment

In a 5-4 vote, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an individual does have a Constitutional right to own a firearm.  They ruled also that the Di$trict of Corruption (District of Columbia) ban on firearms is unconstitutional.  It's about time.

Folks, I'll be the first to admit that many crimes are committed while using a firearm.  A person walks into a store brandishing a firearm and demands money.  Another person brandishes a firearm and robs somebody on the street of his or her money.

These are crimes ... of that there is no doubt.  But who committed the crime?  Did the firearm commit the crime, or did the person who used it?

In other words, if I set my firearm down on the table, what does it do?  Does the firearm get up, dust itself off, and then grow arms and legs and go out and rob somebody?  We live, as most physicists now believe, in a MULTI-verse in which our universe is but one of many.  So there might be a universe out there where the firearm really can grow arms and legs and go out and rob somebody.  But in this universe, it can't happen.

Firearms, in my opinion, don't kill people.  People kill people.  Yes, people do use firearms while committing crimes.  They also use knives.  People have been injured and even killed with sharpened spoons.  People have brandished spoons, forks, sporks, knives, sticks, indeed all manner of objects in the course of committing a crime.  Convicts, as shown on Mythbusters, have used paper to construct a crossbow and shoot corrections officers.

But think of it this way:  Let's say that I have a bullet in my hand.  (I don't, for the record.)  I point this hypothetical bullet at somebody and demand their money.  They'd think I was crazy, right?  Pointing a bullet at somebody without a firearm, after all, is pretty useless.  The bullet isn't going to do anything by itself.  Indeed, if I were to place a bullet on the table next to the firearm, they'd just sit there.  The bullet might roll a bit depending on how and where I set it down, but that's all.

They become dangerous objects in the hands of people.  If I were to place that bullet into the magazine or the chamber of the firearm and then take said weapon and brandish it at somebody while demanding their money, that is where they become dangerous.

It took, in this hypothetical instance, a person ... me ... to pick up said firearm and use it to commit a crime.  In this case, yes, the firearm is dangerous.

Firearms can be dangerous in the hands of children.  People have been injured and killed while mishandling firearms.  But if you treat a firearm with respect, your chances of being injured or killed drop ... unless somebody were to rob you while using one.

Did you get the point?  "...unless somebody were to rob you while using one."  (emphasis added)  It takes a person to make the firearm commit the crime.  Indeed, the person used the firearm to commit the crime.  The person committed the crime while using a firearm.  But the person committed the crime, not the firearm.

While I was still married, my now ex-wife and I had a discussion about this.  She cited the 2nd amendment to make her case.  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

She made her case on the militia part of the amendment in that the right to own a firearm should be tied to service in a state militia.

I'm glad that the Justices didn't agree with that. 

There is no doubt that firearms, when used by people, have been used to injure and kill people.  But the firearms did not do so by themselves.  People did.

It's easy to blame the object being used, not the person that commits the crime.  Let's take another example:  Jack the Ripper. 

He murdered prostitutes in England in the autumn of 1888. (A well-written article about him can be found here:  But in his horrific crimes, what did he use? 

Well, we do know of one instance in which he used a knife.  Was the knife, then, responsible for those women being murdered?  Or was the person who murdered them?  A knife, after all, would simply lay there on the table next to the firearm and the bullet.  It wouldn't grow arms and legs and go out and slash somebody.  At least, not in this universe.

People commit crimes.  They use a variety of weapons to do so, but people themselves commit the crimes. 

As I said, it's easy to blame the firearm, the knife, the spork, the stick.  Let's not do that anymore.  Let's blame the people who commit the crime, not the tools they use.

'Nuff Said

This, I think, says it all.

Do I agree with it?  Yes, I do. 

"Boy Meets Girl" - The Group

Well, they are an old band, having been around since the mid 80's.  Yes, this particular title is 80's music.  But good music, I've heard it said, is timeless.  Indeed, there is a local (to me) radio station that plays "Timeless Favourites." 

Recently, I purchased "Reel Life" from  The transaction was quick and painless, which is a good thing. :)  I've purchased from before, and have nothing but good things to say about them.  Well ... that's not true.  I do have one complaint, and that is that the cost of the DVD (regular DVD, not hi-def or blue-ray, since I only have a regular DVD player.)  "Carrier: Fortress at Sea" is (in my opinion) a bit high.  (Call me cheap. :) )

But coming back to the group "Boy Meets Girl," I've been listening to their "Reel Life" CD.  Good music, like I said.  I also purchased (many years back) their tape cassette (does anybody use tape cassettes anymore? :).)  The tape looks new, but has been much listened to.  And, you can tell.  There are many drop-outs on the tape, quite a bit of hissing, and some of the music is hard to hear. 

I've enjoyed the group since I first heard "Waiting For A Star to Fall," back in the 80's. 

I'm glad I was able to purchase the digitally remastered CD from, because, frankly, the tape doesn't have much life left in it. :)

The artists, George Merrill and Shannon Rubicam, were married at the time "Reel Life" was produced, and I think (my opinion here) that you can tell it in watching the video.  Although they are divorced, they continue working together. 

Their official site is and a Wikipedia article about them is here:

What can I say? :)  I also like Belinda Carlisle. :)

Monday, June 23, 2008

Diversity on Campus? Where?

As if you needed any proof that the halls of top universities are little better than propaganda halls...

I can't comment on this ... it'll disgust you all by itself.

Diversity on campus?  Just another lie.

You're Not Going to BELIEVE This...

If you remember, I wrote recently that there were some people who wanted to charge people who didn't believe in the man-man global warming hysteria with a "crime."

Enter Dr. James Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who wants to put oil company CEO's on trial for "...high crimes against Humanity and nature..."  A link to the article is here:

But then we come to this little gem:  "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."

Really?  What about your own people, Dr. Hansen, who have told us that poor little Mercury, Venus, Mars, and now Jupiter (at the equator) are warming?  Are they also to be put on this dog-and-pony show trial of yours? 

And this organization of yours has 150 signatures...including yourself.  What about the 31,072 scientists (including 9,021 PhD's!) who reject the Al Gore hysteria?  Dr. Hansen, some of your own people signed that, or aren't you aware of that?

Let's put YOU on trial, Dr. Hansen, for ignoring what your own people are saying about climate change ... that part of it is due to increased output from the sun.  How else do you explain the fact that poor little Mercury, Venus, Mars, and now Jupiter (at the equator) are also warming?

No cars on those planets, folks.  No coal-fired power plants, either.

Dr. Hansen ... helloooooo??

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Summer Safety Alert

Just got this from a trusted IRL friend:
Summer Safety Alert

Methamphetamine cooks are buying propane tanks from the exchanges at Wal-Mart,
Kroger, and emptying them of the propane gas. (undertermined)
Then they fill the propane tanks with anhydrous ammonia, which they now use in a recipe
to cook Methamphetamine. (true)

After they are finished with the propane tanks, they return them to the
store. The stores refill the tanks with propane gas, unknowing to them
the improper substance that was inserted in the tanks and sell them to
their consumers. undertermined)
Anhydrous ammonia is very corrosive and weakens the
structure of the tank. It can be very dangerous when mixed with propane
gas and hooked up to a grill, recreation vehicle, etc. (true)

You should inspect the propane tank for any blue or greenish residue
around the valve areas. If there are evidences of these substances, do
not purchase the propane tank and advise the vendor of your findings. (true)

Barack Obama

BHO (Barack Obama.  The reason I use the "H" from his middle name is because otherwise it's BO which is also 'body odour') today picked up a key endorsement.

From Kim Jong Il.  I'm not making this up.

That makes Col. Khadaffi (Qaddafi) and Fidel Castro and now Kim Jong Il that have endorsed him.  Three dictators.

Need I say more?

Thursday, June 19, 2008


Last night between the hours of 19:00hrs and 23:15hrs somebody hacked into one of my other screen names.

On that other screen name is where the war of words (for lack of a better term) had been taking place.

I won't mention names and I can't PROVE that this person is involved, but for this particular screen name to suddenly get hacked into (which it never had been before) stretches the bounds of credulity somewhat.  To be fair; it is entirely possible that this event was completely unrelated to everything else that was (and is) going on.

Note that I am NOT saying nor am I insinuating that this person did it.  As I just said, it is entirely possible that this event was and is unrelated to everything else that's happening.  The timing is just too coincidental is all.  I find it really really odd.  And to be honest, I really don't believe in coincidences.  I'm remined of a line from a TV show that I can't remember (perhaps somebody will help me out here?  I THINK it's from B5 and I THINK it's from Londo to Vir, but I honestly don't remember.)  "There are no coincidences.  Only plans that other people make and don't tell you about."

On the phone I went today to an engineer at AOL.  My entire account activity is now monitored, as well as the IP address used to access the account.  We'll have more information if this "coincidence" happens again.  The password has been changed as has the Account Security Question.

But like I said ... I really don't believe in coincidences.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Shrinking Products ... Same Price

(Entry edited at 18:22hrs on 19-JUN-2008 to replace last line.)

Another from AOL News:

Some products have gotten smaller ... and the prices have stayed the same.  The last time the corporations tried this one, they told us that this is what consumers "wanted."

But I'll give them credit for this:  at least their lies make a bit of sense this time.

But they're still lies.

And if they don't like that, they can wash my mouth out with Irish Spring soap which shrank from 5 oz per bar a few years ago, to 4.5 oz a bar, to now 4 oz a bar ... and at the same price.

And tell me ... where did your profits stay?  About the same?

Thought we weren't watching?  Guess again...

More Stupid Politics and the Politicians Who Use Them

I'll skewer the AP later.  But they want to make bloggers pay for quoting (using FAIR USE) of their articles.  Really?  Get ready to shell out the $$$, AP.  You owe quite a few bloggers (ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SPECTRUM) some serious ca$h

Are you $ure you want to play thi$ game?  Helloooo...

But I digress.  Again.  First, a link to the article:,2008-06-18

"We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market." - Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)

This is the United States.  Not Venezuala, nor the former Soviet Union.  I know that you can't get that through your head, but our economy would need to seriously change.  OH, that's right ... you WANT a socialist economy.  Guess what?  A great many Americans DON'T.  I'm one of them.  I've seen you 'manage' Medicare and Medicaid.  Shall we even mention what a debacle those two are?  You can stick this one where the sun don't shine.

"They (Republicans) have a one-trick pony approach." - Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV)

And so do quite a few Democrats.  Ms. Clinton for one.  Mr. Obama for another.  Oh, let's not forget Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) who, in 'investigating' the Oklahoma City Bombing INSISTED on ignoring evidence of Middle Eastern involvement.  This included 22 SWORN AFFIDAVITS.  Talk about a dog-and-pony show.  Yes, he's a Republican, but he also deserves skewering.  If you can't figure it out by now (and you're a politician so you probably CAN'T), if I believe you deserve a skewering, that's what you're going to get.

"You cannot drill your way out of this." - Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)

He actually has a point.  Drilling in ANWR would only give us another 25 - 30 years of oil and then we'd be right back in the mess we're in now.  We need to get off of oil ... period.  Not because it's "ruining" the environment (The science is nowhere NEAR clear on this) but because we're running out ... and because there are better ways to go.  He's got the right idea, but for all the wrong reasons. 

And for my last quote:

"The White House has become a ventriloquist for the oil and gas energy. The finger should be directed back at them. They had plenty of opportunity to (arrange an energy policy). But they did not put an energy policy in place."

Guess what, Mr. Markey?  Neither did Bill Clinton!  Neither did George Bush Sr.  Neither did Ronald Reagan.  Neither did Gerald Ford.  Neither did Jimmy Carter.  Get the point yet?  If you're going to point the finger of blame at Republicans (which they do deserve on this) then you must also point it at the Democrats who could have done something, but didn't.  Neither political party can claim altruism this time.

You want to blame the Republicans?  Fine.  Then you must also blame Bill Clinton.  Of course, you're not going to mention that ... are you?



Tuesday, June 17, 2008

A VERY Inconvenient Truth

Validated isn't exactly the same as "vindicated" but it will do.

There is a VERY Inconvenient Truth out there.  A truth that the media, the global warming alarmists, and others simply don't want to touch.  Why?  Because it'll burn them.

I've written for quite some time now that we need to get off of foreign oil.  Why?  Because our money goes right into the government coffers of nations that aren't exactly friendly to us.  Yes, they make brave noises about being our "allies" and one of them bought numerous adverts following the 11-SEPT-2001 terrorist attacks.  Yes, I am referring to Saudi Arabia. 

But do a Google search for "Saudi textbook" and the first link is (as of this writing) is this one:  What's the title?  "This is a Saudi textbook.  (After the intolerance was removed.)"  What is IN said textbook?

"A review of a sample of official Saudi textbooks for Islamic studies used during the current academic year reveals that, despite the Saudi government's statements to the contrary, an ideology of hatred toward Christians and Jews and Muslims who do not follow Wahhabi doctrine remains in this area of the public school system. The texts teach a dualistic vision, dividing the world into true believers of Islam (the "monotheists") and unbelievers (the "polytheists" and "infidels"). [Emphasis added]"

Oops.  So there's one reason to get off foreign oil.  The dollars we use to buy their oil are hard at work printing and distributing this filth.  Feel the outrage yet?  To be fair, there have been some "independent" reviews that state that the opposite is true.  Yet in reading this documents, the "independent" and "factual" writer used what Wikipedia refers to as "weasel words."  What are weasel words?

"Weasel words are deliberately misleading or ambiguous elements of language used to avoid making a straightforward statement while simultaneously generating the illusion that a direct, clear form communication is being utilized. This type of language is used to deceive, distract, or manipulate an audience."  A link is HERE:

Also to be fair, there have been claims that some Israeli textbooks have the same problem; ie; they teach intolerance.

Is this a case of "do as I say, not as I do?"  To be frank, I really don't know.  So now we have one conrete example to get off of foreign oil.  But now let's look at the environmental aspect of this article.

The "Inconvenient Truth" aspect of it.  While Juan McAmnesty flip-flops on drilling in ANWR (He was for it before he was against it before he was for it ... again) we actually come to ... AL GORE?!?

Yup.  He's made MILLIONS of dollars since his "Inconvenient Truth" "propaganda film (NOT my words)" was released ... and then he tried to make his house "green," following claims of hypocrisy.  But his home now consumes MORE electricity than it did BEFORE the environmentally "friendly" change.

"“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.” " (LINK: )

That link (above) also contains this:  "Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul. "

Granted, part of that could be due to incompletely or incorrectly installed upgrades.  It could be due to shoddy workmanship in the materials and/or the labour to install them.  It could be a combination of those and other reasons.  But for his home's electricity usage to INCREASE?!?  Frankly, given these reasons, I'd expect a modest decrease, a decrease that could have been greater had these hypothetical reasons not been there.

In plainer words, given the extent of the "green overhaul" of Mr. Gore's home, I would expect around a 20 - 25 per cent decrease in usage. Factor in the reasons cited above, and I'd estimate a decrease of about 5 - 15 per cent.

But his usage went up 10 per cent.

Mr. Gore?  Haven't you some explaining to do?

And while we're at it, what about YOU Mr. Juan McAmnesty?  Care to explain your flip-flop?

Election 2008:  No Matter Who Wins, We Lose.


Friday, June 13, 2008

R.I.P. - Tim Russert

It's been said that no parent should ever have to bury a child.  Yet that is exactly what "Big Russ," Tim Russert's father, will have to do.

Tim Russert died today in his office, hard at work.  He was 58.

I didn't know Mr. Russert, never met him, never spoke with him, knew him only from watching him on TV.  Yet if only half the good things that have been said about him are true, then we are all diminished by his passing.

Jeff Zucker had this to say:

“We are heartbroken at the sudden passing of Tim Russert. We have lost a beloved member of our NBC Universal family and the news world has lost one of its finest. The enormity of this loss cannot be overstated. More than a journalist, Tim was a remarkable family man. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Maureen, their son, Luke, and Tim’s entire extended family.”

Amen.  Rest in peace, Mr. Russert.  God bless.


Some time ago, I moved home to take care of my elderly parents.  My mother has vision troubles (can't see too well) and is on oxygen.

My father has inclusion body myositis and has trouble walking on level surfaces.  Going up the stairs takes several minutes.  He can still do it, however.  It just takes a while.

I do the dishes, I help with laundry, I mow the lawn, and I drive them everywhere.  The reason for this is the last time my father tried to drive, he started the car in the garage (with the door down) then backed up and pinned me against the garage door.  He thought the garage door was up, you see.

Then, he turned down the wrong street, thinking it was where the store was (it wasn't.)  He stopped IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FREEWAY when I told him it was the wrong turn and then getting off the freeway promptly TURNED INTO THE WRONG LANE OF TRAFFIC. 

I'm a safe driver.  My last violation was 31-OCT-1999 when I was caught speeding. 

But according to them, they don't need me.  Today things came to a head.  My father doesn't want to get what mom needs to buy unless he can use a coupon.  Good idea, since it saves money.  The problem is that each time you remind him, the answer is always later.  Later.  Later.  Next time.  Later.  Next time.  Remind me (I do.)  We'll get it later.  Next time.  Later.

So then mom bitches that she doesn't have what she needs.  Fine.  I make a special trip (which I have to tell my father wastes fuel) and THEN, HE bitches at me for making the trip.

I'm 41 years old and I've damn well had enough of their flocking games.  He tells me I can move out because I don't do anything.  He doesn't need me. 

Yeah.  I don't do one damned thing.  I'm completely flocking useless.  To hear them say one thing and do another, you'd think they were politicians.  They're certainly acting like politicians. 

Rep Kanjorski ... LIED?!?

"In the last election, we, meaning the Democrats, pushed it as far as we can to the end of the week. We didn't say it, but we implied it.  If we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war.  Now, anyone who was a good student of government knows that wasn't true.  But the temptation of winning back the Congress, we stretched the facts."

He didn't say that?  Granted, there is part of that where I had to guess.  (the underlined part is the guess.)  AND THEN, they accosted the cameraman!!!

Shame on you Mr. Kanjorski.

Here's the link to the video:

So what is the untrue part, Mr. Kanjorski?  And then one of your people accosted the cameraman. 

Do yourself a favour and leave Congress.  You, Sir, are a disgrace.

And now...let's look (again) at pork-barrel spending.  OH, I'M SORRY ... they're 'earmarks.' 

Remember when the "elected representatives" told us that they'd cut way back on pork-barrel spending?

Guess what ... they ... LIED?!?  Yup.

From the article:  "Earmark spending in the House's defense authorization bill alone soared 29 percent last month, from $7.7 billion last year to $9.9 billion now, according to data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group in the District. "


Politicians ... lie?!?  SAY IT ISN'T SO!!

Oh...since you accosted the cameraman, you must think you're a big guy, right? 



Thursday, June 12, 2008

Change We Don't Need

BHO's campaign is based on 'change.' 

We don't need this kind of change:

I'm going to quote two lines from the article:  "Team Obama's real estate and mortgage transactions are certainly a change from business as usual. They suggest old-fashioned back-scratching below even current Beltway standards."

YIKES.  To his credit, the man did resign from BHO's campaign.

Here's something else that needs to happen ... Juan McAmnesty (John McCain) needs to get rid of La Raza stooge Juan Hernandez.

Mr. McAmnesty?  Hellooooo...

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

More Action ... Less Politics (and Politicians)

Well.  Crude oil prices certainly have risen, haven't they?  There are a number of factors involved, the speculators, lack of investment, the industrial revolution in China and India.

How many reading this have heard of Hubbert's Peak?  Marion King Hubbert was a geophysicist who worked for Shell Oil Company.  In 1956 he predicted correctly that US production of oil would peak in around 1965-1970.  He also predicted a world wide peak "sometime around 50 years after publication", which would put it around 2006.  Oops.

As I've written before, according to Dr. Michio Kaku, we'd have to discover a new Saudi Arabia every 10 years to keep up with the rising demand for oil.  Even IF we did drill in ANWR, even IF we did drill off the coast of the US (both east and west) even IF we did open up the Gulf of Mexico and drilled right here in the US, that would give us only another 25-30 years of oil...tops.  And then we'd be right back where we are now.

Drilling for oil is just a stop-gap, we have to get off of oil.  It really is that simple. 

The Democrats are also using this problem to their advantage, trying to make us believe that they care, they feel our pain, and they have a plan.  They've got hot air (Sorry, Ms. Malkin) is what they've got.

To understand why their idea of taxing the oil companies won't work, you need to have a basic understanding of economics. 

When businesses (companies) set the price for their product(s) they need to keep several things in mind ... how much the public would be willing to spend, how much they have invested in the product, how much it cost to make the product, the likely tax on the product, and other factors.

Yes, I said tax on the product.  Because we do pay a tax.  So, they set the price.  Now the Democrats are trying to raise taxes on oil and gasoline.  That's NOT a good idea.  Why?  It'll add $1.50 per gallon is why.  Also, as happened in BHO's home state, the oil company simply raised their price to offset the cost of the tax.  YIKES.

I'll post more later, but for now just remember that the politicians couldn't care less about you.  All they care about is themselves.


Friday, June 6, 2008

And then there's this

From AOL news:  Ur tax dolerz at wurk

Diplomas Proof of High School 'Educaiton'
Posted: 2008-06-06 10:47:17
WESTLAKE, Ohio (June 6) - A Cleveland-area principal says he's embarrassed his students got proof of their "educaiton" on their high school diplomas.

Westlake High School officials misspelled "education" on the diplomas distributed last weekend. It's been the subject of mockery on local radio.

Principal Timothy Freeman says he sent back the diplomas once to correct another error. When the diplomas came back, no one bothered to check things they thought were right the first time.

The publisher has reprinted the diplomas a second time and sent them to the 330 graduates.

Plant's Rights

I had intended to write about Al Gore and GIM Corporation and "carbon credits," but instead, I'll write about that later.

Today, just follow this link.  This isn't a joke.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Change We Can ...

Change We Can ...  What, exactly?

BHO's slogan is "Change We Can Believe In."

Ok...that's not a bad slogan.  I think I've said it about ... oh ... a billion times.  Not only on this blog, but to my friends, in conversations, etcetera, that we need change in Wa$hington, the Di$trict of Corruption. 

But HRC, who earlier had hinted at wanting the VP slot on the ticket is about to make a major push for this slot in BHO's team.  The VP slot??  Could be.  Or could it be that she'll be offered a position as his "Health Care Czar."  Either way, it spells trouble.  Here's why:

His slogan is "Change We Can Believe In."  HRC is about as Wa$hingtonized as you can get.  She's been in the Beltway for quite some time.  Let's not forget that her husband was the president for eight years.  Not only did she try her failed (thank God) health care initiative, she was also working behind the scenes on other projects.  Google it, you'll find them.

The point is that she's been there, done that, and has the lobbyists to prove it.  Bringing her back would help being about change ... how?  She's old-$chool Wa$hington politic$.  His bringing her in on the Veep slot would seriously undermine the tone of his message and the tone of his campaign ... change.  "Change" won't happen if he brings her in.  Because if she's Veep, guess who she brings with her?  Her baggage...Bill.  (Note that in several news articles that I've read, that's how he was referred to ... as baggage.)  In this campaign, by all accounts, he's been a real liability for her.  Several times, he's had to apologize for getting snitty (I'm being polite here) with reporters.  That hasn't helped her campaign.  Neither has her lying about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia.  The problem here is that we have the video which showed there was no fire.  She says she "misspoke."  Try she flat out lied.  She already had a credibility gap before that, and that certainly didn't help.

Bringing her in on the ticket would be a major disaster for BHO.  Believe it or not, but there's also been quiet whispering that JM might bring her in on HIS ticket.  I about gagged when I read that.

I never thought I'd quotefrom Babylon 5 on this blog, but here goes.  First, the quote.  "They are a dying people.  We should let them pass."  Now the paraphrase.  "The Clinton's time is over.  We should let them pass."

For me, it can't come quickly enough. 

To be fair, I will note that she and her husband has done this country some good.  They reduced the trade deficit and helped create new jobs.  They reduced the national debt.  Unfortunately, too many people can't get past Bill's sexual piccadillos while he was in the White House.  I'll be the first to admit that Republicans have done it, too.  Like I wrote before, I'm so jaded that I don't trust any politician ... no matter what they say.  We don't need Hillary or Bill back in the White House ... in any capacity.  Frankly, I just want them gone.

And to stay gone.  But that's not likely to happen.  For there have also been quiet rumblings that they're grooming Chelsea for a political career. 

I've taken HRC to task, BHO to task, and JM to task.  It's not fair to kick a person when they're down, so I'll spare Mr. Kennedy ... while continuing to pray that he gets better.  Frankly, however, I was speaking with Dr. Haas about him today, and the odds aren't too good.  But also, like I wrote earlier ... that has to be hard on him and his family.  I'll continue to pray for him and ask that you send positive energy (and prayer if you believe in its power) their direction.  They'll need it.

But that reminds me.  When we learned that Tony Snow was battling cancer, there were those on the liberal blogs (DailyKOS and Huffington Post) who were openly elated that Mr. Snow was ill.  Some couldn't wait for him to die.  Others joked about it.  Joked about it. 

Now, unfortunately, the nutcases on the other side of the fence are pleased that Mr. Kennedy is ill.  And the folks at the aforementioned sites are rooting for Mr. Kennedy to recover quickly. 

Apparently, you have to agree with their politics before you can show sympathy for the person.  That is sad.

And it's a sad, sad, state of affairs when it comes to that. 

That is why we don't need more politics.

The Morality of Liberals

Ok...a few things before I begin.  I cannot and will not deny that conservatives do this, too.  I cannot deny that.  I will not deny that.

Both sides do it.  Let me say that again; BOTH SIDES DO IT.  And those are the ones that we need to worry about.

Next, the link the full article:

Wow.  I read that and about tossed my cookies.  But it explains a great deal.  "Those with a “liberal outlook” who “reject the idea of absolute truth” were more accepting of cheating at school, according to another study, involving 291 students and published in the Journal of Education for Business."

"...reject the idea of absolute truth..."  You don't say.  Murder is wrong.  That's an absolute truth.  Now before you say that killing in war is murder, the Bible makes a stark distinct difference.  It's been reworded as "Thou shalt not kill," BUT the original Hebrew is different.  God never said "Thou shalt not kill."  What He said was "Thou shalt not murder." (emphasis mine)  This is from Exodus 20:13 ... but in the Hebrew Manuscript the word used was "Ratsach."  "Ratsach" means "to murder, a murderer, to dash to pieces."  So this Commandment (Exodus 20:13) actually reads:  "Thou shalt not murder." (emphasis mine)

That's from an email that I sent to my therapist who also happens to be the Director of Pastoral Studies (and since it's quoted from an email explains why my stupid font changed.)  But I digress.  So....thou shalt not murder.  That's an absolute.

We have rules, as I've already written.  The speed limit is there for a reason.  So are stop signs.  Another rule is stealing.  Again, for good reason.  You wouldn't walk into your local store and steal a jacket, would you?  You wouldn't stick a gun in somebody's face and kill them just because you wanted their 'cool' shoes, would you?  I'd call that an absolute.  So there's an absolute truth. 

"A study in the Journal of Business Ethics involving 392 college students found that stronger beliefs toward “conservatism” translated into “higher levels of ethical values.” And academics concluded in the Journal of Psychology that there was a link between “political liberalism” and “lying in your own self-interest,” based on a study involving 156 adults."  There's another quote from the article.  Wow.  (Another font change, since I quoted from the article again.  I'm tired of changing fonts. :) )

Again, BOTH SIDES DO IT.  And too many people on both sides do.  So do too many people in business (read...executives.)  I'm gonna get in trouble for this, but here goes:  Not all executives are bad.  So, I'm not painting all of them with the same broad brush.  But a number of them are.  Read the executives at Tyco who threw the lavish parties and the guys at Enron. 

After those scandals, business courses in universities made brave noises about "business ethics."  But now we're back to the same 'screw 'em all over and get the money' that we were in before. 

I've worked retail and I'm all too familiar with bad executives.  I'm all too familiar with bad managers, too.  At the store where I worked, one of the managers said that those who dressed up (shirts and ties) were managers and those who wore the company shirts were 'workers.'  Really?  I had thought we were all Associates.  (No, I'm NOT talking about Wal-Mart in this instance.)  Maybe that's why KMart went the way of the dodo.  Again, history has proved me right.  I'm not saying that the fault is entirely on the managers and executives.  Non-caring associates also didn't help.  But part of the blame, a great deal of it, lays at the feet of the corrupt executives.  Not just at KMart, but also at other businesses.

The executives have forgotten what it is to be a "worker."  To get their hands dirty unloading stock ... assuming they ever knew.

But I digress, again.  So yes, there is an absolute truth.  Again from the article:  "In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective." 

Really?  Honesty is subjective.  OK...

I'm gonna take a step back.  I've lied.  I'll admit it.  In fact, I'm lying to you now.  I'm not perfect (remember me saying that?)  But "...honesty is subjective."?  OK...since it's subjective, it must be OK to rob a bank, right?  If it's subjective.  I need the money, so it must be OK to rob a bank.

I want his shoes, so I'm going to get my gun and murder him for his shoes. 

There's your subjective morality.

You can stick that where nobody will ever find it.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

The Politics of ... POLITICS?!?

The poltics of politics.  There's a title for you!  This post is going to cover a few things that have been rolling around in my head, so please bear with me.

If you remember back in January, Michigan and Florida held their primaries too early, at least according to the DNC.  As a result, their delegates wouldn't be seated and wouldn't be counted.  BHO and HRC both agreed to that, at the time.  Those were the DNC rules.  If you break the rules, which those states did by holding their primaries too early, those were the consequences.

I happen to follow the rules, even those I don't agree with.  Why?  Because this is a society of laws and because there have to be laws in order to prevent anarchy.  The RNC and DNC have their respective rules about what the candidates can and cannot do.  Break the rules, and face the consequences.

But HRC is saying that she's entitled to those delegates, and that the voters will be disenfranchised.  That might be true in that BHO would also be entitled to the delegates he might have gotten.  That's not the point, however.  The point is that they broke the rules.  And if you're going to apply rules to me ... those same rules must also apply to you.

I read somewhere that the DNC was having a problem with this, because if they DID seat the delegates, that would send the wrong message.  The message it would send is (to paraphrase) "It doesn't matter what the rules say, because if you break them we're not going to punish you." 

And now, this compromise.  I'm sorry, but while I think they tried to do their best (seat all the delegates but give them each HALF a vote) this is going to cause a bigger problem in the future.  Other states will, I believe, look at this compromise as "They broke the rules and got a slap on the wrist.  I wonder what we can get away with?  Heck with it.  Push the button Frank.  Let's see what happens."

The meeting where they announced the compromise was, according to what I've been reading, little short of a fiasco.  People were shouting back and forth at each other to "shut up," and "count all the votes!"  This is not going to help unite the Democratic party.  And for one of the committee members, Alice Huffman to say "We will leave here more united than we came," is denial of the worst kind. 

Another shout heard was "We justblew the election!"  She might be right.  They might have just fractured their party beyond the ability to heal it before the election. 

Another thing I need to cover is HRC's sense of entitlement.  She does feel she's entitled to those delegates.  As I already wrote, BHO may also feel a sense of entitlement about the delegates he would have gotten.

But something else is that, in my opinion, HRC also feels a sense of entitlement about being the next president.  Bear with me on this one.

We're all aware by now of the racially charged, inflammatory speaches of Reverends Wright and Pfleger.  Dr. Pfleger said "I really believe that she just always thought 'This is mine.  I'm Bill's wife, I'm white, and this is mine.' "  He actually has a partial point.  If you can see past the race-baiting remark, he did address her alleged sense of entitlement.  Yes, she is Bill's "long-suffering" wife.  And yes, the Clintons are heavy-weights (were at least) in the Democratic Party.  And she MIGHT have felt that "I deserve this.  I'm entitled to it.  This is mine."  It certainly seemed that way when the campaign began, right?  It really did seem that at the beginning, all she had to do was step up to the plate and claim it.

I need to point something else out.  I would have no problem with a woman being president.  Unfortunately, Dr. Rice isn't running.  I would have no problem with an African-American male being the next president.  Unfortunately, General Powell isn't running, either. 

But now both candidates have pulled out the race and gender card, and that's sad.  This was supposed to be a campaign about change. 

From where I sit, it's politics as usual. 

So much for change.  So much for hope.