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

The link: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=138293

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.

But let's also go here: http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/3696

" 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. "...how 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: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/13/2267021.aspx

Article: "Incentives Not to Work"

The link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303828304575180243952375172.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

"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!!

The link: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//100412/480/urn_publicid_ap_org52d493edeb0243ef84cbfc87f58f4b6a/

Screenshot:

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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmyBp6QccxY (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.

(*) - http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fusion/features/#page=Feature15

"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.)

A letter to my local radio station

Mr. Cates;

Having been a listener to your show for a while now I’ve tried to call in several times, but have been greeted each time by the dreaded “busy signal.”

Having said that, I have something I’d like to say. And while I’d love for you to read this on the air, I realize the odds of that happening are somewhere along the lines of the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) actually producing a black hole. It is possible in theory, but I shouldn’t like to hold my breath waiting for it. Yes, it could happen … in a few hundred trillion years or so. Give or take a ten billion.

The United States is facing a number of crises right now, and one of the most pressing is the crisis of apathy. You’ve met these people as you go through life: they are the people who will tell you that the politicians on both sides of the aisle are out of control … and then promptly do nothing about it.

Mr. Cates; this next is not for effect, I sincerely believe this. If I had a dime for every person who said that this ‘health care reform’ was a bad idea and then did nothing, I’d have several thousand dollars which I could put to good use.

Sure, talking to the radio (or screaming at it) has told your radio how you feel, but what have you actually accomplished? Is your radio going to contact those politicians and tell them how dissatisfied you are?

Not very likely.

The same goes for those people who only shout at the television or only tell their friends how they feel. Again, have you actually accomplished anything?

Mr. Cates, I wonder how many of those people who have called your show have actually called their politician? How many have actually written them? How many have emailed them? How many have written about it on their blogs or on a social networking site?

Not too many.

This, then, is the crisis of apathy. Mr. Cates, I realize that, unless we all live in caves, we’ve all got busy lives that we live. I’m no different in that regard in that I have my own life I need to live. But if somebody’s going to tell me they can’t spend five minutes emailing their representative or calling them or writing them, I’m going to tell them the same thing I told my supervisor at work when she told me she couldn’t cobble together 30 free minutes in a month.

I pulled her into a room, closed the door and told her “You’re a (goshdarn) liar. Now let’s try this again, only this time tell the truth. It’ll go much better that way.” (Only I didn’t say ‘goshdarn.’)

You might’ve noticed Mr. Cates that I’m not afraid to be blunt. Frankly, more people need to be … at least in my opinion.

The Founding Fathers said as much when they wrote this: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (emphasis added) (*1)

What does this mean in ‘modern’ English? Simple: It means that those who have the ability to make a change have the responsibility to do so. Now there’s a Politically Incorrect word: responsibility. Plenty of people these days can tell me (and you as it turns out) about their ‘rights,’ yet mighty few mention their responsibilities. Here’s a news flash: your responsibilities come with your rights. They cannot, they must not be divorced from one another.

Even our elected officials are to blame. How many of them were ready to use the “Slaughter Solution” and to ‘deem’ the health care legislation as passed without having to vote on it? Therein lies another “problem,” the United States Constitution.

Specifically Article I Section VII which reads in part: “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it.” (*2) You’ll notice it didn’t mention that a bill was ‘deemed’ to have passed, yet many politicians were ready to throw away the Constitution until a number of people, myself included, made them aware of Article I Section VII.

What am I leading up to Mr. Cates? This: Those that have the ability to make a change (the People) have the responsibility to do so. If you can make it to a Tea Party protest, you have the responsibility to do so. If you have the ability to write or otherwise inform your representative (or Congressperson) you have the responsibility to do so.

As Martin Luther King once said: “There is a special place in Hell reserved for those who stand by and do nothing.”

And in my book, Mr. Cates, those that have the ability to do something … but through inaction do nothing have abrogated (*4) their right to complain.

People these days are too interested about sports. They’re too interested about who Tiger Woods is sleeping with. They’re too interested in who Jesse James is bedding. These are not the things we need to be worried about, Mr. Cates.

So if you’ve read this on the air, I’d be very interested to hear what your audience thinks.

It’s time to get off the toilet, folks. It’s time to stop complaining to the television.

It’s time to get involved.



Notes:

(#1) - http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/
(#2) - http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section7
(#3) - http://steadfastlutherans.org/?page_id=4315
(#4) - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abrogated

Respectfully;