Wednesday, April 28, 2010


Do you know how very tired I am of reading and hearing that being said about me? I'm (still) told that the reason I don't like Barack Hussein Obama is because he's black. So ... again ... and (again) for the record:

I would have no problem with an African-American being the President. General Colin Powell didn't run. J.C. Watts did run, but didn't survive the primary. Alan Keyes also ran, but he didn't survive the primary either. All three of these gentlemen are African-American. This has been stated by me numerous times, and is part of the public record. Also, for the record, I would've voted for any of these three men. So, as has been proven, there goes the race card ... again.


I also hear this (still) by people who complain I that I stated, again on and for the record, that I would not support Hillary Rodham Clinton. I'm told I'm sexist because of this. However:

I would have no problem with a woman being the President. I think it would be wonderful. However, Dr. Condolezza Rice wasn't running. Since she's 1) a woman, and 2) an African-American, that takes both of the liberals favourite playing cards off the table.

Time to put those tired old cards away. What I've stated above are the facts ... and have not changed since well before the 2008 election. Now please deal with the facts.

Here are some other facts: The illegal immigration problem that now faces our country is a real problem. Of that, I don't think there's any doubt.

Mr. Obama and his water-carriers want to legalize all those who are here in the US illegally. But how, perchance, does Mexico deal with illegal immigration?

Well, those answers all right here:

That links to a .PDF document. And I'm sorry for the long link, but that's the link to it. But let's examine some of what it says:

* - all foreign visitors and immigrants must be in the country legally and they cannot upset the "equilbrium of the national demographics" (emphasis added) (direct quote) Can you say "Racial profiling?" Suuuure you can!

* - they must have the monetary means to sustain themselves economically (ie: the state won't do it for them)

* - they cannot be destined to be "burdens on society." (direct quote)

* - they must be of economic and social "benefit to society" (another direct quote)

* - of good character and have no criminal record

* - contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

Want to go there? Well then, you must provide the following:

* - a valid birth certificate (how about that, Barack Hussein Osama (er ... O BOW MA ... er ... Obama) where's yours?)

* - prove economic independence (ie: a bank statement)

* - pass an exam on their culture and society

* - provide their own health-care

But Mexico's law goes further. "Police State?" Read on:

* - immigration authorities must have a record of each foreign visitor. Those who do not have such papers are subject to immediate arrest as "illegal aliens." (That actually is their law. Read it.)

* - foreign visitors must not violiate their immigration status. First violation is one year in prison. Second violation is ten years in prison. (Yes, that also is their law.)

* - foreign visitors are forbidden from interferring in the country's internal politics (at the same time, their open-borders activists are waving signs and shouting up here. Gotta ask why if our "new policy" is supposed to be 'fair.')

* - those who aid a person in entering illegally are sent to prison.

Can't do that here, can we? Can't do what the Mexicans are doing because it isn't "fair." Fair to whom is the question we need to be asking.

So what does the Mexican government do with the illegals it catches coming across its southern border?

The title says it all "Mexico accused of abusing its illegals."

NOTE: This posting is a combination of four different sources:



3) Personal email sent to me dated 1-MAY-2006


Wednesday, April 21, 2010

MSNBC dumps Donny Deutsch for critisizing Olbermann

The link:
As the teens would text to each other "OMG!!" (Oh My God!!) This simply can't be!!! MSNBC dumped Mr Deutsch for criticizing Obama water-carrier Keith Olbermann?!?!?!?!?

But this is the same 'unbiased' network that this has been said of: " Some of the people said the decision suggests that criticism of MSNBC is not allowed on MSNBC, potentially a troubling development. Both CNN and the Fox News Channel show media criticism programs each weekend. " (emphasis added.)

Yes, in the "Age of Obama" critisizing anybody who dislikes the regime or their water-carriers is 'in.'

Mr Deutsch's statement is here:

It won't be too long before the FBI is here. Again. I'm in trouble for posting these links, you see. Shame on me. (very heavy sarcasm)

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Have You Seen This Man?

This man, Joe Kennedy, was my supervisor at Cingular Wireless in Wichita Falls, TX. His current whereabouts are unknown. He's not wanted for anything, other than I would like to touch bases with him again. Take a good look. Have you seen him?

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Article: "Global Warming Graph Attacked by Study"

The link:

(NOTE: Yes, the 'graph' they're referring to is the now infamous 'hockey stick graph.')

" A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years. "

"Exaggerated." Hmm...let's try doing that for a college paper for one of our professors. We'd be in seven types of trouble and likely laughed off campus. I remember just such a paper for my Human Sexuality class. The professor there wanted data ... raw data. Hard, raw data that was cross-referenced, and that data needed its own references. But let's review here: The climate change 'raw data' can no longer be found because it was discarded!! " SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

" It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. " (*)

Oops. I'd call that a 'problem.'

But again; they have an agenda, so what the hell, right?

The Financial Times article goes on to say " The handful of errors found so far, including the exaggerated hockey stick graph and a mistaken claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, were “isolated incidents”, he said. "

But let's also go here:

where we learn that the 'glacier' claims were based on two sources:

1) Anecdotal reports from mountaineers about the changes they were observing. Two problems with this: These cannot be taken as scientific measurements and therefore are invalid. Each person might see the same event differently and thus use different words to describe it. Again, it is not scientific.

2) The other source was a paper written by a geography student who was studying for the equivalent of a Master's degree.

Neither of these was peer-reviewed. And as already stated, it contained five factual errors in just the first paragraph.

All these problems, including the fact that the bulk of the raw data was thrown away, would lead me to question every single conclusion that has been drawn thus far. Indeed, a great many more scientists are doing just that.

Indeed, the arctic sea ice is due to increase, and hit 'normal' for the first time since 2001. That means it's increasing. (**)

Somebody tell Al Gore. This really is an 'inconvenient truth.'

(*) -
(**) -

Ouch. Responding to "TellerIP"

OK....first, I really wish that "TellerIP" had a profile so that I could contact him/her directly. Or, had this person been a Blogger and/or Google user, I could've just replied on their blog. However, since I can't locate an account for this person, I need to reply here.

I got a comment on my NPR article which said that Obama was "Kenyan-born." And while I don't believe I have the right to quote from the comment (which is still visible) I will paraphrase.
TellerIP stated that Hawaii no longer provides birth certificates and gave a link to a "Star Bulletin" article.

Well, I chose to go to the source ... the state of Hawaii itself. Their website is here: (Please note that if you're going to order anything from them that they will not accept personal cheques. One must use a cashier's cheque or money order.)

You can also go here: which is a LexisNexis company. This site is the only officially authorized remote ordering site for the State of Hawaii. (And while they do take personal cheques, it's recommended you pay with a credit or debit card.)

Next, the poster states that Obama was not born in Kenya. Yet the Kenyans themselves are stating that he was. " " If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. " (emphasis added) For the source on that, see my previous posting.

In conclusion, I really don't know where Barack Hussein Obama was born, and I'm not sure I will any time soon. Remember that to date Mr Obama has spent $1.8m in lawsuits to avoid having to produce one simple peice of paper.

I'll leave it to you to Google that, but it is true, sourced, and verified. Obama has spent $1.8m in lawsuits to avoid showing his birth certificate. I don't agree with Dr. Manning on more than a few things, but I do on this. "Listen, Barack; if your birth certificate is what it is, what's the big deal?"
Indeed? Why the $1.8 million in lawsuits, Barack? Remember, Google is your friend.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

NPR: Obama "Kenyan-born" and "son of Africa"

Time for that full disclosure thing: You'll notice the URL goes to World Net Daily. But you'll notice, I hope, the screenshot for the article in question. The article has since been scrubbed but only after the story appeared on WND. Here it is if you don't want to follow the link above:

In case you can't read the blue part, it says "Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama." And that was from the NPR archives, again, before being scrubbed.
" As some continue to downplay the eligibility issue and affirm, without proof or substance, that Obama meets the requirements to hold the highest office in the U.S., it is interesting to note that minutes from a March 2010 meeting of the National Assembly of Kenya suggest otherwise:
" If America was living in a situation where they feared
ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man
born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of
America? It is because they did away with exclusion. "
That is a direct quote from the March 2010 minutes. " could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?"
Ann, care to comment?

Article: "Army to court martial 'birther' officer"

The link:

Article: "Incentives Not to Work"

The link:

"The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a 'reservation wage'—the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase [the] reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer." (NOTE: This opening statement was italicized in the article, therefore it is also italicized here.)

Any guess who wrote that? Milton Friedman, perhaps. Simon Legree? Sorry.

Full credit goes to Lawrence H. Summers, the current White House economic adviser, who wrote those sensible words in his chapter on "Unemployment" in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, first published in 1999.

Oops. "The one's" economic advisor stated that gov't assistance programs provide an incentive not to work. Granted, that's distilled down, but the full comment is above.

I ran into this once, years ago while I was working at K-Mart. I was talking in the electronics area of the store to another worker and his girlfriend and they were talking about going on welfare because they could make more that way.

Granted, hearing it here, this is third-hand information at best. But it did happen.

Let's jump to the end of the article, shall we?

" In any case, no one should be surprised that when you subsidize people for not working, more people will choose not to work. "

'Nuff said.

O Bow Ma Bows Again!!


Ford's "Fusion"

Before I start, I need to state for the record that there is no relationship between myself and Ford Motor Corporation. I do own and drive a 1998 Ford vehicle, however.

Having said that ...

In their "additional disclaimers" for the Ford Fusion it says twice "Do Not Drive Distracted." Twice. And then they give you a car that allows you to do just that. And in style, too.

To be perfectly honest, one could say the same thing about a CD player built in to a vehicle's factory stereo. "Don't play with the CD while driving!" You could also say that about the vehicle's tape deck (that is, if they still have tape decks,) "Don't play with the tape and try to drive! And then, as Jamie Hyneman (yes, the one from Mythbusters fame) would say "You heard him. Don't do it!"

And then they give you a vehicle that allows you to do just that. Here's one of their commercials from YouTube: (Well, the link to it anyway.)

The advert also says "Don't drive while distracted." But you know somebody's going to be doing just that...trying to drive while revising the playlist on the MP3 player.

Somebody's going to be driving while trying to carry on an argument with somebody. To be fair, they do this already. But they'll figure "Hey, my Fusion's handsfree, so I can cuss and give 'em the bird!" And you know somebody's going to do this ... again, because they do it already.

Personally, I'm waiting for some particular bone-head to be listening to the MP3 player and talking on the hands-free phone ... and moving to the beat of the music and not really caring about driving. Again, people do this already.

I'm probably the lone person on the planet that will be saying this, but this was not a smart move from the safety standpoint. and yes, they've got the "Don't Drive While Distracted," disclaimer ... several times ... but, c'mon. You KNOW that some idiot is going to do this. And I'll bet you their 'defense' will be "Well, if they thought it was that dangerous, they wouldn't have let me do it."

To be fair - it is possible to drive while not distracted. I've stated, several times, that I do have a cell phone. It doesn't have service, however. The only reason I still have it is because by law and agreement you have to be able to reach 911.

Even before I let the service expire I didn't talk on the phone much. That changed to at all after I nearly hit somebody ... and nearly got hit myself. "But what's the point of having the phone if you're not going to be using it?" somebody wrote to me. I wrote that person a book, which I won't rewrite here. Mostly.

When you drive, you should drive. You shouldn't be: (This is in my opinion only)

1) Talking on the cell about where you want to go out next
2) Purchasing tickets to the game using your mobile device
3) Redoing the playlist on your MP3 player
4) Texting
5) Talking on the cell phone
6) Using your cell phone to send/receive emails
7) Taking pictures using your phone or any other type of camera
8) Using any other type of mobile device
9) Doing your hair/nails
10) Reading the paper
11) Eating a bowl of cereal (which when he was done with it, he opened the door and poured out the milk from the bottom of the bowl. (The pouring out happened during a stop in traffic. And yes, I got pissed. But I figured "He probably thinks that he's the most important person on the planet so he figures no worries." ))

That list could be longer, of course. I saw on TV a while back about some "executive" who was talking on the phone and doing paperwork on the way to work. I wanted to reach through the TV and throttle him. Frankly, if he'd hit me I'd have given him a choice. "Are you alright? Good, good. Say, in looking in your vehicle, I see that you've got paperwork scattered on the floor along with your wireless device and your opened briefcase. Where you, perchance, doing paperwork while talking? You were? Fine. You've got a choice then: Which would you like me to shove up your stupid ass first, the phone or the briefcase? Don't worry, as hard as I'll be shoving, I promise they'll fit. Probably with room to spare."

But I think I reached my breaking point this past winter while I was on my way to the optometrist (eye doctor.) This was during one of our blizzards that dumped 14 inches on us. I'm a very safe driver, mainly because I DRIVE and not do something else.

So it was snowing, the wind was blowing, the drifts were forming and it was cold. And more than a few people were talking while trying to drive.

I need to get off my soapbox before I piss everybody off, but I really do think cell phones should be illegal to use in vehicles except in emergency situations. And ordering a pizza is not an emergency. Neither is texting (unless it's to law enforcement about something.) Time for that full disclosure thing: I have used my cell phone to call law enforcement while driving before. Several times, in fact.

But to return to the topic...I love many of the features of the Fusion. At least, those I've seen from the adverts or from the Fusion's webpage. I love the fuel mileage. I love the eco-friendly cloth seats, which are made from 85 per cent post-industrial materials. KUDOS to Ford for this.(*) But you can rip out the SYNC stuff. Frankly, there are too damn many distracted drivers out there already. Shame on you for giving them yet another distraction.

(*) -

Saturday, April 10, 2010

"Everybody Loves ... "

... you probably thought I was going to finish that with "Raymond," didn't you?

But let's examine this and other titles and phrases. "Everybody loves ... (some thing or person.)"

In this case: "Everybody Loves Raymond." I, then, must be a nobody. I saw a total of seven episodes and hated every moment of it. Well, time for that full disclosure thing: I welcomed the commercial interruptions during the show. I wouldn't have been watching at all, except for the person that I was in a relationship with at the time happened to love it. After I told her I really didn't care for it (she knew I was being kind) she told me that I didn't have to watch it. And, I never did again. (Time for that full disclosure thing again: she and I were dating but we were not living together. She would go over to my place or I would go over to hers and then we'd spend time together. During our relationship, we never slept together. (I can hear somebody saying "Gods, this guy's a NUT!" I'm not a nut, I'm different. Deal with it.)

Until two nights ago when I happened to be channel-surfing during commercials (go on, admit it: you probably do this too.) And there it was in reruns.

It nearly let it ruin my night. But I didn't because it was coming time to log into the network and blow stuff up in my favourite game. So a night that had been getting worse got much better.

But I digress. The point is that many people do this for various reasons. "But everybody's buying this!" or "Everybody's listening to (name of radio station here.)" 'Everybody?' Really?

"Don't be the last one to buy (name of thing here.)" They do this for a reason of course. The reason is that many people have fallen for the "Keep Up With the Jones' " syndrome. In other words, all the people that have bought (this) simply can't be wrong. They just can't be. Or, if you don't buy this ... well, there simply must be something wrong with you because 'everybody' else has bought one.

For the record, my not loving "(Nearly) Everybody Loves Raymond" doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make me stupid. It makes me different.

When I logged into the game, my 'partner in crime' knew that something was bothering me, because she sent me a PM (private message) asking why I was being so quiet. Well, I've never met her in real life, I only know her from talking with her in the game (and on voice chat in the game.) I told her.

Therefore, for the remainder of that evening, every kill that the squadron made was named "Raymond." Their ships were "Raymond," or their buildings (if it was a ground mission) were named "Raymond."

Christina (her game name) nearly made me fall out of my chair laughing that night. We'd just gotten our eleventh kill for the evening when she came on group chat and said "Damn. And I thought everybody loved Raymond."

The SL (Squadron Leader) chimed in with "We probably shouldn't have killed him then." To which she keyed up over me and said "If it's red (the colour for the enemy) it's dead."

To be fair, "Raymond" got revenge that night. He and several other "Raymonds" banded together and killed us. But we'd fought them before and knew them well in the game, and a good time was had by most of us. (Except for that dying thing. Not too many people really like that.)

But the point remains that not 'everybody' loves or buys 'everything.' Or Raymond for that matter.

Time for that full disclosure thing again; this time, it's about why this message is being posted. In the game, the writers recently brought back "decay" where if you use an item too much or too long it'll either stop working correctly or stop working altogether. This happens in real life as most of us know: How many of us (myself included) have had to purchase a new cell phone battery because the old one simply won't hold a charge? Or how many of us (myself included) have broken a headset?

Somebody (I won't mention his name) owes me the creds for a new ion converter. And no, not the new experimental model either, even though it does have a faster recharge rate and higher output ratio. I think even you'll agree (you know who you are) that in this particular game 'experimental' means "Well, the designers tell us this'll work, but we need you to test it. If it blows up, we need to know why."

And yes, I know you swear by it. The last 'experimental' model of something I had in the game, I didn't swear by ... I swore at. You can ask our tank. :)

NOTE: In this game, a player with the moniker of 'tank' is a good thing. 'Tank' in this game is not a derogatory term as it was in "Space: Above and Beyond."

In this game, a 'tank' is a player with a ridiculously high defensive ratio. (Time for that full disclosure thing again: There are players out there using exploits. Nobody in our squadron does, although we did once have one player who did. When we found out, she was banned. Not just from our squadron, but the GMs found out and she was banned from the server.) No, I mean a player whose shields or armour (or both) are so strong (WITHOUT USING an exploit) that while you're wasting your time pounding on him or her, you're getting your tail shot off. I should know: before I spent the creds to respec, I was a decent tank myself. (To be fair, according to the squadron I was 'exceptional' but in my book I was decent.) Being a tank isn't for everybody, however. As a tank you can take the damage, but you can't dish it out. As a tank you might possibly get a kill if your opponent's shields or armour (or both) are depleted. Otherwise, you can forget about it. Your opponent will just laugh at you (or swear that he or she can't kill you.)