Well...... Duh!

Catching up, going bad, and making it work...

2010-04-25T10:03:00.002-05:00

It has now been far too long since I last visited this blog. I've been very busy with a tremendous number of seachanges in my life.

I have moved from Austin, Texas back to New England. My wife and I have separated (over a year ago now), she has since moved to Santa Fe New Mexico, and I've moved up here. My two sons (Ethan and Spencer) moved with her to Santa Fe, and as we have currently planned, they will join me in New England for the summer, and do the school year with her.

I will edit this blog as I think of things that ought to be said. Right now, I don't have a tremendous amount of things to say.

Emergence, a very cool thing.

2009-01-21T09:08:00.002-06:00

Check thiututs out. Emergence (linked above and here) is the idea that simple systems in great numbers develop organization and become complex systems naturally. The really cool part or this is that it seems to occur in everything, at some level or another.

Simple: Marbles on a table. Simply rolling around. You sweep them into a cup, and through no influence of your own, they organize themselves in the most efficient orientation possible. Space, vibration, heat, everything is automatically transfered through the marbles in the most efficient way possible. Cooler: If you dump those marbles into a bag, they do it again. Automatically.

Complex: Now go way down to smaller things. Atoms. Atoms form structure. They create molecules. Those molecules create substances like water. Water organizes itself into droplets. Droplets form streams, then rivers, then lakes and eventually oceans. It gets more amazing when you consider that the right moleules + water + heat = life. You, me, etc...

All because of emergence.

I've got more thoughts on emergence. I'll share them later.

Emergence: Reinventing myself

2009-01-08T10:36:00.002-06:00

I have decided to reinvent myself. No, I'm not going to turn myself into a toaster or anything, I'm going to stick it out there and see if anything gets damaged.

Okay, how about an update? Last time I got around to posting, I was doing a contract for Dell. That didn't work out well and I politely found a replacement for myself and exited stage left.

Then I went to work of a company here in Austin, doing what I love to do, working with some pretty cool tech. I was employed for 3 mths until they "merged with" (read that as "was bought by") their majority shareholder. So, two days later, I'm unemployed again. That was in June.

Fast forward to today: My wife and I are on the skids. My MS has gotten worse, and I have gone from a cane to a walker, so interviews are not easily handled. Certainly sales is out of nthe picture and typing has becomre more difficult.

SO, I'm reinventing myself. I can do that because I am God. And so are you.

More on my reinvention and emergence later.

Stay tuned.

One legged man in an a55 kicking contest

2007-12-05T16:07:00.002-06:00

Well, things have come and gone and come around again. It's like a subway with nobody at the station...

Well, I was working at Cisco Systems here in Austin as a report writer, then I went to work for a company called Live Oak Interactive, run by my good friend Andy Meadows, as a Project Manager, and now I'm working at Dell as a Program Manager. This feels weird simply because I had a friend laid off from Dell about a month before I started. Not in the same role (God, that would SUCK), but related. It's not perm, but it's good enough right now, and it has the added bonus of being a step up in title.

Have you found LinkedIn yet? You ought to go, it's like Plaxo, only better, IMO.

That's all for now. More later.

2007-12-05T16:07:00.001-06:00

Something that goes "Beep!"

2007-04-26T16:06:00.000-05:00

Hello ladies! (think sleazy lounge lizard voice there)

This time I want to help you. No, not by asking you to do anything you wouldn't normally do but most guys hope you would (Hint: Think VERY tight clothing). No, this time I'm going to bail you out.

Okay, you screwed up. Seriously. You not only screwed the pooch, but you took it out back, beat the snot out of it and took it's lunch money. Fine. You're convinced that the man in your life is going to leave when he finds out, right? Wrong. Here's what you do.

Buy him something that goes "Beep!". Not just anything that goes "Beep!" but something he doesn't already have. There, your problems are all solved. Guys are simple creatures.

If you haven't seen Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, go ahead and rent it. Watch it when you have the time to laugh yourself to tears. Go ahead, I'll wait...

(Sometime later...)

Alright, watched it? Funny wasn't it? Did you like the part about the fish in the fish tank watching the diners in the restaurant? Me too. "Hey look, Howard's getting eaten!" "Is he?"

Anyway, a LONG time before that, in the first scene (The Miracle of Birth), the Hospital Administrator shows off the "Machine that goes 'BING!'". See how happy he was with it? Same deal with your guy.

Not cutting it huh? As long as you didn't sleep with the best man in your wedding, things are still repairable. Seriously. If you slept with your Maid of Honor, your only fault is not tape recording it or inviting him into the fun. You're still cool.

Okay, so it's really, really, really bad. You trashed his computer. You wrecked his Lexus with your $600 shoes from Needless-Markup. Not to worry. Here's what you do.

Still get him something that goes "Beep!", but this time try to make it gas powered.

Until next time...

Managing your guy, the simple recipie

2007-04-23T15:08:00.000-05:00

I have a lot of female friends, and strangely some of them think that they have their "guy" well handled. Odds are, they actually do, but every now and again they come to me and say something like "He just doesn't seem to appreciate me anymore." or maybe "He doesn't listen at all". Then they ramble on about how they'll mention something and yet it goes unheeded. I have a simple solution for these things: Two words. "Thank you." Now understand that I'm not talking about "Thanks." I'm talking about an actual thank you.

The next time your guy does something like change a lightbulb that needed changing, remember it. Yes, you most certainly COULD have changed that lightbulb, and no, it wasn't that big a deal, but take a moment and actually say "Thank You."

Be specific. Don't just say "Oh, thanks." That's not a Thank You, that's the same as a Poker Sorry. You know, "Gee, sorry I cracked your Aces full of Queens with a four of a kind." BS. You don't really mean it. Instead, when your man gets down from his ladder, or goes to throw out the offending bulb, take a moment and say something like "You know, honey, I was going to change that bulb, and I know it wasn't a big deal, but you've done it for me and now I don't have to take the time to do it myself. I really appreciate it. Thank You for changing that bulb out for me." There, that wasn't so bad, was it? No. Guess what? You'll never have another burned out bulb as long as your marriage lasts. It's that simple. Same thing with anything else. Folding clothes, sweeping the floor, cleaning the counter tops, anything.

Let me give you a hint into the mind of the average man. The only reason your guy changed that lightbulb in the first place is that it was bugging him. He needed to see something well, and the bulb outage was making it harder to do. So, he changed the bulb. Same thing with a counter top. If the counter top is dirty (and by dirty, I don't mean "Hasn't been wiped in 12 hours"), he will wipe it down if he needs it to be clean. Caveat: He will only wipe down the area he needed to be clean. He won't wipe to the end of the counter, he's not going to use it. There is not need to wipe down the part he wasn't going to use.

Now here's the cool part: From now on, he's going to wipe down the entire counter. Why? Because it mattered to you. To YOU, it made a difference.

That's all guys really care about. To feel like they make a difference. To YOU. We only exist in a relationship to serve YOU. If we don't feel like we're making the difference, we stop trying. So, a little Thank You goes a REALLY long way. The down side? You need to check in on some of these things on an irregular basis. Call it once every two or three months. Reiterate your thanks for him doing something that means something to you. Again, not the disposable "Thanks." but something more thought out.

Tip #2 coming shortly.

Found this out on the Intarwebs somewhere...

2007-04-13T16:02:00.000-05:00

I can't remember where this way, but I found it through reddit.com...

"Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance -- now Joe gets it, too.

Joe prepares his morning breakfast; bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and the amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC (or the NCUA, if he's part of a credit union) because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." "

Okay, so it's been a LONG while since my last update..

2006-05-26T08:44:00.000-05:00

As many of you know, I have two kids now, and they're taking every single available moment of my time to the point where I can't count on doing anything I don't NEED to do. I know you've all been waiting with baited breath for my latest and greatest update to Well Duh!, but now you can sleep again, because here it is.

Because of the above, I've decided to shaite-can any attempts at putting together a podcast for the time being. I may still do one, but right now, I don't have the time.

The inspiration for today's diatribe is linked above, and I think it should be required reading for everyone.

Today's topic is "The War on Terror." I have a couple of big problems here:

1) The is a war on an ideology. This ideology will never entirely be wiped off the face of this earth. There is ALWAYS be someone, somewhere in this world who intends to get what they want through the use of fear. Merriam-Webster defines Terrorism thusly:

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

By this most basic definition, terrorism is EVERYWHERE. We, the United States of America, are engaged in Terrorism. Anyone remember "Shock and Awe"? My point is, this is a war that will NEVER, EVER, NOT AS LONG AS THE HUMAN RACE EXISTS, end. Might as well make it the WAR ON AIR!

2) What the President and staff keep telling us is that we're exacting this war to protect Freedom, protect our country, save The Constitution. Sounds really noble, but if the way we do this is to kill thousands (some say hundreds of thousands), watch everybody we can strive to see through the use of wire tapping, throw people in jail without charges, without trial, without recourse, censor our press (including the internet), jail reporters for TELLING THE TRUTH, create "Free Speech Zones", can anyone who speaks out against the government and any of several thousand other little bits over the last 5 years, then what the hell are we actually fighting FOR? Honestly, we've sold the grain to keep the horse.

What infuriates me is that the American people are putting up with it. I'm a Dad, I want to protect my children as much as ANYONE, and probably more than most, but there's a limit. I will NOT let my children grow up into a world where the freedoms that The Constitution of the United States unumerates are conditional. They are NOT conditional. Note that I did not say that the Constitiution gurarantees our rights, it merely states what they are and that it is the goverment's responsibility to protect and defend them.

If you haven't seen it, Boston Legal had an episode on March 14th of this year entitled "Stick it" where Alan Shore (James Spader) gives a closing argument which very clearly says all of this things I've been thinking. You can get both the Audio (mp3) and the Video (wmv) from Crooks And Liars. I am only going to link the page that they're available so that you can pick for yourself and read about it as well, but I will quote some of it.

Alan Shore's closing argument

Alan Shore: When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out to be not true, I expected the American people to rise up. Ha! They didn't.

Then, when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we kidnap people and turn them over to regimes who specialize in torture, I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood mute.

Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorists suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that. We did.

And now, it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidentially, we haven't.

In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we're okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial - or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended.

There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there's no clear indication that young people seem to notice.

Well, Melissa Hughes noticed. Now, you might think, instead of withholding her taxes, she could have protested the old fashioned way. Made a placard and demonstrated at a Presidential or Vice-Presidential appearance, but we've lost the right to that as well. The Secret Service can now declare free speech zones to contain, control and, in effect, criminalize protest.

Stop for a second and try to fathom that.

At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a supportive t-shirt, you can be there. If you are wearing or carrying something in protest, you can be removed.

This, in the United States of America. This in the United States of America. Is Melissa Hughes the only one embarrassed?

*Alan sits down abruptly in the witness chair next to the judge*

Judge Robert Sanders: Mr. Shore. That's a chair for witnesses only.

Really long speeches make me so tired sometimes.

Judge Sanders: Please get out of the chair.

Alan: Actually, I'm sick and tired.

Judge Sanders: Get out of the chair!

Alan: And what I'm most sick and tired of is how every time somebody disagrees with how the government is running things, he or she is labeled unAmerican.

U.S. Attorney Jonathan Shapiro: Evidentally, it's speech time.

Alan: And speech in this country is free, you hack! Free for me, free for you. Free for Melissa Hughes to stand up to her government and say "Stick it"!

U.S. Attorney Jonathan Shapiro: Objection!

Alan: I object to government abusing its power to squash the constitutional freedoms of its citizenry. And, God forbid, anybody challenge it. They're smeared as being a heretic. Melissa Hughes is an American. Melissa Hughes is an American. Melissa Hughes is an American!

Judge Sanders: Mr. Shore. Unless you have anything new and fresh to say, please sit down. You've breached the decorum of my courtroom with all this hooting.

Alan: Last night, I went to bed with a book. Not as much fun as a 29 year old, but the book contained a speech by Adlai Stevenson. The year was 1952. He said, "The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live and fear breeds repression. Too often, sinister threats to the Bill of Rights, to freedom of the mind are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-Communism."

Today, it's the cloak of anti-terrorism. Stevenson also remarked, "It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them."

I know we are all afraid, but the Bill of Rights - we have to live up to that. We simply must. That's all Melissa Hughes was trying to say. She was speaking for you. I would ask you now to go back to that room and speak for her.

That is all. More another time.

Podcast? Other Stuff.

2005-10-11T13:42:00.000-05:00

I've been busier than a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest lately, so sorry for the on again, off again updates.

I've thinking of putting together a podcast or two. There is a list of things I'd like to get off my chest, and typing them our seems an awfully weak way of putting it out. With that in mind, I think I'm going to expound a bit on some recent topics. I haven't decided yet what they're all going to be, but I've decided to call my Podcast (iPodcast? Whatever.) "The Left Hook". I'm going to take 5 or 10 items (no more than 10, less if time doesn't allow) and expound at length on them. They'll be paired with a blog entry, so if you'd like, you can come back to a particular podcast you like and read the Cliff's Notes.

Here's my current list:

1) Me: Ernie
2) Harriet Miers
3) DNC failure to capture the White House
4) Plame-gate etc
5) Where the hell is the followup on the Downing Street Memos?
6) Diebold et al. (aka, The Ohio Debacle)
7) Slanted media response to ANYTHING
8) The Terror Alert system
9) Hurricanes (the storm, not the drink)
10) The War on Terror

If you have any suggestions as to what I should talk about instead, drop me a line. I'd love to hear it. Granted, it might get shitcanned but then again it might not. Send it in anyway. If what you send is amusing enough, I might, just might, read it on the 'cast. We'll see.

Side note: I saw a bumper sticker the other day which cracked me up, and I decided to make it a t-shirt... Here's what it looks like:

Of course, click it, it pops to the site where you can buy one. Because I'm a money-grubbing whore, that's why!

Why, that's a good question: A quick lesson about The Constitution.

2005-10-03T13:47:00.000-05:00

Somebody on Fark.com (actually, TotalFark.com (the best $5/mth I spend)) asked the following question: "So, what WOULD it take to impeach the President?"

Why, that's a darn good question! I wonder: How many people have actually read The Constitution of the United States of America? At all? Okay, now if you're older than 25, other than in High School? That's what I thought. Let's revisit a couple of parts, shall we? Here are the relevant sections:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 reads:
"Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse(sic) their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 reads:
"Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

Clause 7, same Section and Article continues:
"Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Lastly, Article 2, Section 4 states IN IT'S ENTIRETY:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"

This leads us to ask "Okay, what EXACTLY are 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors'?"

According to this writeup (Slate, pops), anything the Congrass says.

This also implies "And nothing else." For the lay person, that means that as long as the Legislative Branch is held by the same party as the Executive branch, nothing will happen.

This is the exact reason why the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches of our government were DESIGNED to be held by different groups.

I bet you're wishing you had bothered to go an vote now, aren't you?

I am urging, nay pleading to you, the reader: The next time you have an Election, be it local, state or Federal, get off your ASS and vote. If you're not registered for vote, do it now. I don't care which way you vote. Just vote. Only 1 out of every 5 registered voters voted in the last election. And only 30% of those who are ELIGIBLE to vote are registered. Note: If you're one of the 3 dozen people who live in New Hampshire, Wyoming or North Dakota, you can't use that website.

"Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance

2005-09-15T08:59:00.000-05:00

Okay, this is long and drawn out, but I think it's worth it to touch on some of the major parts of this whole issue.

During The McCarthy Era (it was an "Era"? Whodathunkit?) the President glomed onto the whole "under God" thing at the same time as McCarthy (mostly coincidental, BTW) in response to a percieved threat from the Russians after WWII that the US was not capable of responding to militarily. Specifically, I'm talking about the beginning of the Cold War. It was a way to differentiate Americans from Communists in the minds of the American public. It was pretty effective, too.

The issue here is, to make someone a "threat" in people's minds, you need to paint them first as "different" before you can make them "Enemy". After all, 99% of Russian Communists were/are caucasian, so there is no obvious difference between Russians and Americans, no easy way to paint a "Us" and "Them" picture, except that they speak a different language, but that doesn't apply because Spain, France and a whole bunch of other of our Friends (caps intentional) don't speak English. Worse, the Russians had been our Allies in WWI (an alliance of convenience, granted, but the average American didn't understand this), and took horrible losses supporting the cause every man, woman and child in America sacrificed so must to achieve, so in the minds of most Americans, they were our friends. Remember, most people at this time were not familiar with the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", they were just friends. Period.

Keep in mind, to most people different=strange=alien and from alien, it's a really small leap to enemy, and "they're godless, we're not" was a very quick, cheap and easy way to make this transition. The fast-food approach, if you will.

At the same time, the Soviets (during The Khrushchev Era) were quickly becoming a threat with the detonation of their first nuclear weapon in 1953. The Knights Of Columbus quickly responded to this new (and real) threat by beginning a campaign to add the words "Under God" to the Pledge. After all, it was illegal under the Communist Regime to practice any faith at all. They were godless. We, on the other hand, could practice any religion we wanted (as long as it recognized "God", in the singular apparently. I guess worshiping Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite and Apollo wouldn't have gone over well.).

So, when did "Under God" finally get added? 1954, one year after the USSR detonated it's first nuclear weapon. Not a coincidence. The USA had a new enemy, and the Cold War had begun.

Adding "Under God" to the Pledge was part of the mechanism which made accepting our former "friends" as "enemies", because "They" were godless, "We" were not, even though a good percentage of the US didn't subscribe to any organized faith. Keep in mind, it wasn't until Kennedy that we had a Catholic President, and we still haven't had a Jewish President. Even then, it was a big deal (no, huge) to have a Catholic as President. Not because Catholicism (per se) was so alien or unacceptable to the average American, but because the Roman Catholic faith was the publicly acknowledged impetus for some of the most horrific events in human history (Think: The Inquisitions, The Crusades, The Holocaust (yes, the Vatican endorsed it), Burning of "witches" and other heretics, do I really need to go on?), and the threat of that kind of thing scared many Americans. This was, after all, one of the major reasons we came over the pond in the first place, right? To get away from non-representative, Church driven government.

Of course, the USSR dissolved in 1991 under Gorbachev and the Cold War ended. With it, Russians were once again allowed to follow their faith, and faith as a whole was no longer verboten. Indeed, most Russians today practice a faith of some kind.

To summarize, we added "under God" to the pledge in order to assist our Government in painting the Russians as our enemy. I think it was a VERY Christian thing to do, personally. Make your own judgement about whether that's a good thing or not.

So, what is my opinion about "under God" in the Pledge? I think it should go. It served it's purpose, and no longer has a function. A select portion of our population will die trying to keep it there, or if it gets dropped, reinstated. The cynical side of me (se previous post) says that this is in essence brainwashing. The organized brainwashing of our children, mandated by the government. It implies that if you don't believe in a God, then you're un-American, when nothing could be farther from the truth. It's exclusionary (see the references to polytheism above), and it is just Anti-American. I'm against it being there officially. If you want to add it on your own, go right ahead. Just like when you take an oath in court, you have the option of NOT swearing on a bible. That option is there because if you swear to God, and you don't believe in God, without an alternative option, you can't be held accountable.

IF you want to read more about this history I've talked about here, and I recommend you do if you're interested, follow the links below:

Short history of the USSR (pops)
History of the Pledge of Allegiance (pops)
Persecution of the Jews, Support of the Holocaust by the Vatican
Burning of witches and heretics
The 4 (yes, FOUR) Inquisitions
The 7 major Crusades

I might just be WAY too cynical, but you decide:

2005-08-08T12:11:00.000-05:00

I was thinking last night about the current state of affairs here in the wonderful United States of America. I was thinking this: "What ever happened to the up-in-arms over the Downing Street Memos?

I mean, the Bush administration never responded to the inquiries in any solid fashion, as best as I can discern. Did everyone just give up? Is everyone just fine with the fact that Bush and Co. (the "Bush Crime Family", as Air America likes to call them) doctored information to justify us going into Iraq on very specious terms? I'm not, and I'm a bit pissed that it has fallen completely off the radar.

So I was trying to figure out what that is. Here's what I came up with; it appears that Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove leaved the identity of a CIA operative in order to get back at a journalist who basically debunked the whole idea of WMD in Iraq. Sure, that's pretty obvious, isn't it? Instant news item. Gets all the attention, right?

So now I ask: "What if the apparent treasonous actions of the President's (much hated) chief politcal advisor is a ruse? What then?" Stay with me here. What if Rove decided to create the illusion that he leaked this information just to drag the media firmly away from the Downing Street Memos? I personally don't put it above Rove to hold onto some specific, undenyable, rock-solid evidence of his innocence long enough for the American public to conveniently forget about the Downing Street memos and everything they imply. In fact, if I were Rove, this is something I might come up with.

"Okay boss, looky here: everyone hates me, we know that. This Downing Street thing is eating our lunch, and the media just won't let go of it. Remember that whole thing a couple of years ago about that CIA operative's identity being leaked to the press? Here's what we do. We make it look like I did it. Just make it look like it. Of course we know that I had nothing to do with it and that someone else in the CIA leaked it, but we'll make it look like I did it. The media will go nuts. They'll smell blood in the water. Air America hosts will do nothing but talk about it from now until I decide to end it. No more Downing Street Memo shite. When Downing Street is good and gone, and a couple of months before the '06 elections, I'll 'leak' my evidence that not only did I not leak the identity, but I was trying my best to contain the damage. The DOJ and their fancy-schmancy special procecutor can find that I had nothing to do with it Instant win for you, for the entire party and me. Whaddayathink?"

More Swag

2005-07-13T10:39:00.000-05:00

Only $19.95! Just click on the T-Shirt to buy one...

Well looky here!

2005-07-11T16:03:00.000-05:00

Scott McClellan got lambasted this morning...

I've got to admit, I love it when this kind of stuff goes on. Here is a long dialogue where Scott McClellan backs off from his previous stance that Karl Rove had nothing to do with the Plame leak. Alright, he didn't "back off", he retreated. Okay, let's be honest, it was more along the lines of "fleeing" than it was retreating.

Okay, so to wrap it up: The White House (all caps, because we're talking about the office) will not make comments while the investigation is ongoing. Actually let's clear it up a little bit more: The White House will not make comments while they're looking bad. To be absolutely clear here: George W. Bush and his lackeys will not acknowlege that things are gong badly.

Of course, we already know this. The Insurgency in Iraq has been in it's "last throes" for well over a year now. The must have a bunch of "last throes". Hundreds, maybe even thousands..

Okay, so Scott, answer this; Just how many "Throes" does the insurgency have? Or will you refuse to comment on that?

I've got $50 right here that says that if Karl Rove is implicated in a criminal act, he have goes up on charges, certainly isn't convicted, and I've got another $100 that says that even if convicted, Martha Stewart's sentence is going to look like hard time at Fort Leavenworth prison compared to what Rove gets.

Just guess.. Mission Accomplished indeed.

The BRAFFY Awards.

2005-07-11T13:10:00.000-05:00

Clicky.

Who is "Ernie"?

2005-07-11T11:18:00.000-05:00

Your Career Type: Enterprising

You are engertic, ambitious, and sociable.
Your talents lie in politics, leading people, and selling things or ideas.

You would make an excellent:

Auctioneer - Bank President - Camp Director
City Manager - Judge - Lawyer
Recreation Leader - Real Estate Agent - Sales Person
School Principal - Travel Agent - TV Newscaster

The worst career options for your are investigative careers, like mathematician or architect.

What's Your Ideal Career?

You Are a Frappacino

At your best, you are: fun loving, sweet, and modern

At your worst, you are: childish and over indulgent

You drink coffee when: you're craving something sweet

Your caffeine addiction level: low

What Kind of Coffee Are You?

You Are 45% American

America: You don't love it or want to leave it.
But you wouldn't mind giving it an extreme make over.
On the 4th of July, you'll fly a freak flag instead...
And give Uncle Sam a sucker punch!

How American Are You?

You Are Chocolate Chip Ice Cream

You are kind, popular, and generous.
You tend to be successful at anything you try.
A social butterfly, you are great at entertaining a crowd.
You are most compatible with strawberry ice cream.

What Flavor Ice Cream Are You?

A quick non-political post. Imagine that!

2005-07-11T09:33:00.000-05:00

Nothing witty to say here, but a shout out to my readers in Florida today. I'm watching the news and seeing the devastation Hurricane Dennis has wrought on Florida during its visit and I just wanted to say that I sincerely, hope everyone in Florida is okay or will be okay in the near future. My thoughts are with you today as you struggle to rebuild your lives.

Recent SCOTUS decisions:

2005-07-01T11:32:00.000-05:00

Recently, the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) make a couple of rulings (in the form of "opinions") that will affect your life.

1) MGM vs. Grokster Inc. (pops) - No real surprise here. They ruled (5-4) that MGM is in the right, and Grokster et al. are in the wrong. Apparently the crux of their opinion is that Grokster or anyone else who writes software that's primary use (legal or not) can be used for nefarious means is wrong. As far as I can tell, that means that if the terrorists who made 9/11 happen used Microsoft Word(tm) to jot down notes for their plan, then Microsoft is liable for what they did with it. That makes Microsoft party (through aiding and abetting) to their crime. Let's sue Microsoft and see what happens..

2) 10 Commandments on Government Property (pops) - This is just weird. In one instance, it's okay, in the other it isn't. I think the driver here is actually the American Public. I think that the SCOTUS wanted to avoid the huge number of protests that would come up when they tried to remove the monument from the TX state capitol grounds. That's all it is. Either way, I don't give a flying flip one way or the other. Neither is really a mandate from the government for any particular religion. It's a matter of opinion, and they liked the way they looked, and they had meaning for them. Still, I'm tempted to start my own religion and make flowers holy. Then I'll petition the government to remove all flowers from all govt property. Certainly, the money used to maintain them could find a better use elsewhere, hmmm?

and lastly:

3) Eminent domain use by local government and it's justification (pops) - All right, this one is truly imporant. It almost made me blog a post titled "Hell has Officially Frozen Over" because of it. The SCOTUS ruled that your city, county or state CAN take your property against your will for the right reasons. The reasons? Yep, you guessed it, Money. Plain and simple. If the new facility/property to replace what is there currently will bring greater tax revenue to the municipality then that's just fine. It's covered as "public good" under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't matter what you've paid, or that you own it full-on, square according to the land commissioner. If they want to build a gas station right on top of your den, have at it. Granted, they have to give you "just compensation" for the property, but "just compensation" is up for debate. For example, in the State of Texas, if the State wants to take your land, just compensation, what they are required to give you, is figured on the average single acre value across the WHOLE FREAKING STATE! How much is that, you ask? Well, in 1998, it was $1.06/acre.

So, why has "Hell Officially Frozen Over" in my opinion, you ask? Really, it's only for one reason. I actually agreed with the disenting opinion on this. Not unusual, really, except that the disenters were: Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Scalia. I thought for a second that I might have become a hard line Republican, but no. Still, I felt like I needed a shower.

Now, turn about is fair play, I understand. Read about the Lost Liberty Hotel with it's Just Desserts Cafe (you know the drill) that some developer wants to build in Keane, NH. This is just freaking genius. I want to set up a website to start taking reservations here. I know that if I'm back up near my hometown, I will make it a point to stay there if this thing gets built.

Also worth noting: Today, Sandra Day O'Connor tendered her resignation as an Associate Justice of the SCOTUS to the POTUS (Idiot in Chief). According to NBC, CNN and others, the front runners to be nominated are John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales. CNN thinks that if Bush were to nominate Gonzales, is might help the Republicans in the next election. Fat freaking chance. Gonzales. Gonzales is the tie-wearing thug who rubber-stamped the torture methods used in Abu Ghriab and Guantanamo, ferchristsakes! Never mind the fact that he advised the President on how and where to house the "detainees" so that the SCOTUS couldn't touch them, and that it would be irrelevant as to whether or not their "enemy combatant" designation was held up.

Of course, Rehnquist is about to shuffle off this mortal coil any time now, and his replacement will be a doozy.

The only way out of this that I can see is if the Dems stop the nomination of her replacement (a la John Bolton) until the next Senate election, at which point we, (you and I, progressives) ACTUALLY get out and VOTE in the next election and give the Congress back to the intelligent people while taking it away from the monster theocratic idealogues currently running the show over there!

I'm so mad I could just spit. Not that you could tell or anything.

P.S. Oh yeah, new item on GeekWear: Just $17.99!

A note from Scott Ritter, former US weapons inspector in Iraq.

2005-06-22T11:28:00.000-05:00

[Ed. note: This is just sickening to me. The Onion had a satire article titled "Bush lays out exit strategy: 'We're going through Iran!'". Just like the headline after GWB's assention to the throne.. I have made no changes to this article.]

The US war with Iran has already begun

Scott Ritter, Aljazeera.net

Sunday 19 June 2005 - Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.

On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."

We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.

These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance, and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq, prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities.

President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002, if not earlier.

This timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia or political investigation into the events of the past.

It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful" resolution to the Iranian question.

But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran.

As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.

"Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes American foreign policy today for militarism and war.

By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by the Bush administration.

But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.

As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream.

The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.

The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.

But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.

In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.

No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Persian Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.

A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.

US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.

Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.

Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.

America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.

Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.

Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.

We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.

Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.

The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.

:: Article nr. 12776 sent on 20-jun-2005 01:46 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=12776

The Downing Street Memo

2005-06-07T13:35:00.000-05:00

[Editor's note: I have not changed, highlighted, added or deleted anything from this. It should be noted that the British govt did authenticate this memo, and an anonymous source in the U.S. described the contents as "absolutetly accurate".]

Text of the Downing Street Memo - a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002

• As originally reported in the The Times of London, May 1, 2005

(to print in large text reliably, increase the text size view in your browser, the text will then print larger as well)

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

********************************************

Cast of Charaters–who are the people mentioned here?

Below is a breakdown of the various individuals mentioned in the memo - all of whom were present during the meeting with the Prime Minister.

- Foreign Policy Advisor - David Manning
- Matthew Rycroft - aide to Manning, wrote up the minutes of the meeting.
- Defence Secretary - Geoff Hoon
- Foreign Secretary - Jack Straw
- Attorney-General - Lord Goldsmith,
- Cabinet Secretary - Sir Richard Wilson
- Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee - John Scarlett,
- Director of GCHQ - Francis Richards, head of the UK's "signals intelligence establishment", an intelligence agency, which reports to the Foreign Secretary.
- Director of SIS (aka MI6) - Sir Richard Dearlove, identified as 'C' in the meeting minutes, heads the UK's foreign intelligence service
- Chief of the Defence Staff - Admiral Sir Michael Boyce
- Chief of Staff - Jonathan Powell
- Head of Strategy - Alastair Campbell
- Director of Political & Govt Relations - Sally Morgan

We will be posting a revised version of this list with descriptions of the various roles and their US equivalents soon.

Though it is sometimes difficult to equate a given official to his or her US counterpart, it's clear that this was a meeting at the highest level within the UK government.

Attendees included three members of the Cabinet (Prime Minister Blair, the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary), the nation's most senior bureaucrat (the Cabinet Secretary), three out of the four top people from the UK intelligence community (the JIC Chair and the heads of MI6 and GCHQ), the head of the armed forces and four of the innermost circle of the PM's political advisors.

The relatively junior level of the author bears no relevance to the contents, which describe the thinking and opinions of the principals.

Dear Red States:

2005-06-06T13:10:00.000-05:00

Dear Red States,

We're ticked off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast.

We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get
Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to sen d to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal,
all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percen t of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11
and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

Sincerely,

Author Unknown in New California.

_______
Sent via email..

I need to get out more...

2005-06-06T11:53:00.000-05:00

This doesn't include Canada, where I've been to Quebec, Toronto, Montreal, Nova Scotia and a couple of others...

create your own personalized map of the USA
or check out ourCalifornia travel guide

Life: The Zero-Sum Game

2005-05-25T07:26:00.000-05:00

Oh, but what a game it is, eh?

IMO, life must be a zero sum game. You're born at the beginning and dead at the end. As far as I can tell, that makes it a zero-sum game. What is the point of life then? Simple: Make the world a better place when you die than it was when you were born.

For me, that means raising a kid who'll grow up to be a decent human being, and possibly change the world in a positive way. Extending a hand when it's needed to my fellow man. Make a positive mark in the world beyond a headstone.

It would be nice to win the lottery (I think). It would be nice to run a multi-million dollar company (I think). It would be nice to live in a palatial mansion on 70 acres in La Jolla, California (I think). None of it is necessary.

It IS nice to have a loving wife, a brilliant kid, a stable home (rented), food on the table when I need it, a decent job and a positive outlook on life. That is all I really want or need.

Last night, while driving to pick up dinner, I witnessed an accident right in front of me. It was pretty brutal, a Ford Expedition vs. Honda Accord. The Accord was struck just behind the passenger-side door, and spun around a couple of times before coming to rest against a curb. So I stopped to help. I have first-aid gear in my car.

When I approached the Ford (another bystander was attending to the Accord, which was closer to them), it was obvious that the driver (a 30-something woman) was concious, aware and not crtically injured, so I went to the back, where I could see two children. I opened the door and said "Hi! Is everyone okay? My name is Ernie, and I'll help you if I can." The two kids were a 6-yr old boy and a 9-yr old girl. Luckily, nobody was seriously hurt, and everyone was wearing their seatbelts. Police arrived, EMS arrived, statements were taken etc, and I went on my way. Why am I telling you all of this? It's because of what happened in the middle of it all.

The mother of these two children, while I was inspecting them, calming them down and generally making sure of their well-being, stopped and said "Thank you so much for stopping to help." She was under the impression that I might have driven away, not knowing if they were okay, not knowing if I could have helped. That just stopped me dead. I can't imagine living my life that way. Do you?

These are the things that make me happy. I got nothing out of stopping and helping except the feeling that I might have made a difference to this Mom and her two very scared children. I like doing that, and I'll continue to do that because that's what makes life worth living.

But I'll still play the lottery.

27 ways to be a good Republican...

2005-05-04T12:17:00.000-05:00

In response to this (22 ways to be a good Democrat)

You have to be against a woman’s right to choose, but support the murder of thousands by air strike.
You have to believe that a shopping mall is better than a backyard, as long as it’s not YOUR backyard.
You have to believe that guns in the hands of drug dealers and gang-bangers are less of a threat than countries that have never fired a weapon at Americans here in America.
You have to believe that there were no airlines before Federal funding, tax breaks and kickbacks.
You have to believe that global temperatures are more permanently affected by natural changes in the earth's climate than billions of tons of waste gasses pumped into the atmosphere by coal and natural gas power plants.
You have to believe that the sex of someone else’s spouse is actually your business, but your adultery isn’t anyone else’s business.
You have to believe that the AIDS epidemic cannot be slowed with the assistance of the Federal government.
You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is doing a great job.
You have to believe that hunters care about nature because the 10-point rack on the wall shows their commitment to it.
You have to believe that things magically happen even if you have no self-esteem.
You have to believe that Mel Gibson made The Passion Of The Christ because Christ died for our sins and not to gain notoriety.
You have to believe the ACLU is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, but the NRA is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
You have to believe that taxes are too high and the deficit, trade gap and unemployment levels are too low.
You have to believe that Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Edison.
You have to believe that standardized tests are not racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are.
You have to believe that George W. Bush is normal and is a smart, well-spoken person with no hidden agendas.
You have to believe that a representative democratic republic will work for everyone, regardless of belief, history or ideology and that it’s okay to kill a considerable percentage of them to bring it to them.
You have to believe that a President having consensual sex with another adult is far worse than a President who’s eager to send our children off to get killed in a war that isn’t a war to find weapons that didn’t exist.
You have to believe that Christmas and Easter were originally Christian holidays and not co-opted seasonal festivals of Pagans.
You have to believe that changing the rules of the Senate and the Ethics Committee to protect Republican Senators is somehow in the best interest to the United States.
You have to believe that we actually went to war in Iraq to find WMDs because they were a clear and present threat to the United States.
You have to believe that Republican backed special interest groups didn't finance The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they got the idea and money on their own.
You have to believe Bill Clinton getting a blowjob in the Oval Office is appalling, but Newt Gingrich serving his wife with divorce papers on her deathbed is A-OK.
You have to believe in defending the sanctity of marriage except when it’s a husband trying to fulfill his wife’s wish in ending her life.
You have to feel that marriage is sacrosanct and inviolate while ignoring the fact that 61% of Catholics get divorced and another 7% get their marriages annulled.
You have to believe that what John Kerry did 30 years ago is important, but what George W. Bush didn't do 30 years ago isn't.
You have to believe that this message was authored by a left-wing pinko socialist bleeding heart liberal.

I could go on and on and on. That's why I go to a help group: On And On Anon. Funny thing is, I'm not really a Democrat.

President Bush wants exemption from the FOIA

2005-04-18T11:29:00.000-05:00

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20050415/D89FRPQ80.html

From the article: " President Bush said Thursday that the public should know as much as possible about government decision-making, but national security and personal privacy - including his - need to be protected."

Yeah, me too. I'm pretty clear on this. The President is accountable to the American People, Congress, and the Judiciary. When it comes to things that fall within the scope of his duties, it's open book time as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise, we have no business rooting through his things.

For example, last week President Bush's tax returns were published. Why? That's none of our business at all. They're HIS finances, and they have no impact at all on his job performance. I have no desire to see details of interactions between him and his wife. That's his business.

Private meetings about energy policies? Oh yeah, I want to know. I have a right to know. Trouble is, no matter what I find, I need the okay of another 52 million voters to fire him, and I can't do that until 2008.

All I ask is that the same consideration be extended to me.

Oh yeah, I also wanted to add this: If the communication under consideration is of mixed content, then the whole thing must be released. So, if you send an email to someone saying "Let's bomb Oklahoma!" and then end it with "Jenna wants fake boobies.", no dice, it's fair game. The message here is simple: Keep it professional and we'll all get through this just fine.

"Godspeed Terri, and goodbye to the media circus."

2005-03-31T10:29:00.000-06:00

In case you hadn't heard, Terri Schiavo passed away today, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed. This is sad. Not unexpected, but sad none the less. I grieve for her family, including her husband. As someone near me said

Amen.

I believe that her husband was the person in the best position to make this decision. Like it or not, he was privy to her most private thoughts. He was her partner, her friend, her lover and her husband. He stuck to his promise. I salute Michael Schiavo for making the most difficult decision I think any spouse can make, and when faced with opposition, held the line because of what he believed. Principles only matter if you stand on them when it's painful to do. Bravo. We could use more principled people.

Speaking of principles, let's talk principles. Marriage is sacred. It is a sacred institution, and cannot be weakened or polluted. Certainly not by GAY marriage! Heavens no! We can't allow that! What? Oh, this woman's HUSBAND wants to do what he believes is right and let her die? Let's intervene! Huh? Oh, when I was talking about sanctity of marriage, I wasn't talk about this! I was just talking about homos!

Let's not have a double standard, okay? One standard will do just fine.

Okay, now let's talk about the law passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. The 10th Amendment to The Constitution, on a little piece of paper called "The Bill of Rights" says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Hmm. I'm not a lawyer, but the way that reads to me, in modern speak is: "If we didn't mention it here, it's to be decided by the states, or by the people." Okay, so order of operations is: Constitution, States and/or people, Federal Govt.

So what the hell was Congress doing, meddling in this at all anyway? Is the new standard "State's rights are paramount, unless we don't agree, in which case it's Game On!"? Republicans, who are supposedly "State's Rights Advocates" seem to have trampled all over State's Rights, and OUR rights a whole lot lately and it's beginning to piss me off!

Second bit about the aforementioned law: It doesn't lend equal protection under the law. What I mean by this is, if Terri's parents had won in Federal Court, Michael had no recourse. He was NOT entitled to have the case heard at his behest in federal court. The law specifically mention's the Schindlers by name. As I understand it, this law is unconstitutional. And it tramples all over state's rights. And it STAYS. Uncontested. I am now kind of pissed that the Supreme Court didn't agree to hear the case.

Moving off the the 10th Amendment bit, and the law passed and signed, let's talk about another issue: the way she died.

The reason that Terri Schiavo had to be starved to death is that our FDA won't allow the prescription of narcotics in doses which MIGHT create an addiction to that drug. Not that it matters, if the person is going to die. That's irrelevant. Hint folks: If someone is "terminal", it means that they're not going to recover. Who cares if in the last three weeks of someone's life they're completely hooked on morphine? If I'm going to die painfully, I'm going to spend the last six months of my life completely doped up, legal or not.

Another alternative that's not allowed is assisted suicide, in which case a concoction of drugs are administered to someone who wants to die. (Never mind the fact that's it's perfectly fine to do that to someone who doesn't want to die. i.e. criminals) It's illegal. If it's not the state or federal government doing it, it's called murder. Even if that's what you wanted. If it's the Govt. doing it, it's called "Justice."

If I am ever in a persistent vegetative state, I have asked my wife, and through her my children to make the best judgement they can. Period. I have an Advance Directive, I have a living will, I've given my wife Power of Attorney for medical issues, and I have a VIDEO TAPE of ME expressing MY wishes. Basically, what I'm saying is: If you're not my wife, you have no say. If my wife isn't available, my children have the say. If my children aren't available, I have the last say. Nobody else. Not lawmakers. Not my parents. Not my in-laws. And most of all, not the lawyers, legislature or the court system.

So what have we learned from this? A series of things.

1) Our Republican controled government thinks that YOUR rights are irrelevant if the execution of those rights doesn't agree with what THEY want.
2) The "smaller government" cry of the Republican party is mostly B.S.
3) The "state's rights" cry of the Republican party is mostly B.S.
4) We should be thankful for "activist judges" because they actually look at THE LAW and YOUR RIGHTS as things worth upholding, even if they don't agree.
5) If you don't already have one, you need a will, a living will, an advance directive, medical power of attorney and a video tape of your own mug saying what you want.

Biggest lesson of all? Your "Representative" doesn't represent YOU, s/he represents themselves and nobody else. By and large, they couldn't give a damn about you unless it in some way advances their position. They make me sick.

God, how I wish we were back in the days of the Lewinsky "scandal", where the biggest thing we had to "worry" about was trying to decide if we'd hit it or not.

Asshats.

More later. I'm tired.

Open letter to Dr. Frist

2005-03-29T14:25:00.000-06:00

Okay, I said a while ago that I would write about the Terri Schiavo issue when it's all said and done. It appears that it's done. Now we're on a death watch. A sick, twisted death watch. Only problem is that she died 15 years ago. I'll write quite a bit about it in the future, but I wanted to share this open letter that someone sent me about the case:

From: "M. Aram Azadpour"

To: ;

;

Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 9:49 PM

Subject: Dr., Dr., give me the news; I got a bad case of...

Date: 24MAR05

RE: Dr., Dr., give me the news; I got a bad case of...

Dear Sen. Frist,

With your permission, I would like to send you a picture of my left toe which I had a surgery on and there are couple of titanium screws in place to hold things together. I am having some pain. Would you be kind and to look at those Polaroid pictures and give me your prognosis, or, would you rather to have a video tape (should it be in VHS, Beta-max, or DVD format)? BTW, do you practice in male urinary track fields, too; or just in brain related matters?

Since DriveDemocracy.org was not able to locate your Email, Dr. Frist, they suggested we use other's Email-addresses and ask them to kindly forward the Emails for your attention (hopefully, they will be forwarding all the pictures and videos, too, so you can make an accurate diagnosis). As such, I would like to thank your Health Policy Director, Mr. Dean Rosen , your Legislative Director, Ms. Andrea Becker , your Communications Director, Mr. Nick Smith , your Legislative Counsel, Mr. Jim Hippe , and your other Legislative Counsel Mr. Andy Olson for forwarding Emails to your attention, or, would you rather we mail you those photos/videos to 509 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC, 20510, how about a fax to 202-228-1264? Perhaps I should call your office and ask for some guidance. At any rate, I think these other folks are still part of the government and considered a public servant and their contact information is open for usage by the public, no!

It seems you were able to diagnose the health of this patient, Ms. Terri Schiavo, by looking at TV videos and render your opinion (as you stated it on the floor of the US Senate during an open debate) . No doubt, that must had been influenced by your impeccable medical experience . Does the State of Tennessee have a Medical Ethics Board? Incidentally, were the videos you saw of Ms. Schiavo from Fox (so called) News? I hear they have an ability to bring "news" in ways that no other broadcaster can; so perhaps, their video-cameras show brain waves and MRI views to their viewers, whereas, poor other broadcasters can only show an "undated" video of a dazed female. Is this want they call a high-definition TV? Technology, it is amazing, don't you agree!

OK then, I'll be copying this Email to a few other friends and acquaintances I know who may be suffering from pain and such to have them send you photos or videos of their health matters so that you can diagnose them, too. We-all thank you for taking time off of your busy schedule of your oath to uphold the US Constitution to render medical diagnoses. Incidentally, do you suppose the Iraq war is Constitutional? Did the US Congress ever pass a declaration of war! I must had missed it, or may be it was behind closed doors, at any way, we-all still thank you for upholding the US Constitution.

Oh, one more cordial request. Would you get the US Congress to pass a law to nullify this Texas State law called: "Texas Futile Care Law." Mr. Bush (a.k.a. W) enacted it, as the Governor of Texas, in 1999. Under this law, on March 15th (or may be it was the 16th; can not remember, so much noise in the news now-a-days) a hospital decided that it is OK to pull a 6-month old baby off of the life support system and have him, (humm, what is that word being used in the case of Ms. Schaivo, oh yes: execution), executed even-though his mother was against it. She was in-witness when her 6-month old son was executed and said that the little baby was gasping for air (I assume he was feeling pain, I do not know; perhaps you can watch its video and let us know, Dr. Frist)!

Values, hum, pro-life any body!

Darnet, I keep forgetting, forgive me; might I ask for one more cordial request! You know this tort reform (or is it deform, any how) that Mr. Bush (a.k.a. W) is seeking would set a cap to medical malpractice or such injuries (I think he is proposing a cap of $250,000.00, is that right). Do you suppose Ms. Schiavo would have been able to be kept in a hospital for some 15 years with only that much money? Was she not awarded a malpractice reward that paid her hospitalization for the 1st 7~10 years. I am impressed at Gov. Jeb Bush's ability to keep the hospital costs so low in Florida, such that someone can be cared for some 10 years and only cost $250,000.00, amazing! What was the request I was going to ask, hum, can't remember (memory it is something most Americans have too little of). At any way, I thank you for your time while reviewing this Email and upon further guidance from your office, I will send the photos/videos

for your review.

Regards, M. Aram Azadpour

Grapevine, TX

That is all for today. More another time.

Apple vs. Bloggers: Round 1

2005-03-11T16:28:00.000-06:00

Alright, so the bloggers lost in the first round. They're up on the ropes because they don't have the $$ to continue to fight it.

So Apple wins in the first court go-around, eh? Asinine. Just plain stupid.

Uh, last time I checked, it was the responsibility of a company to protect trade secrets, not the legislature. In my opinion, Apple should not have the right to acquire the BLOGGER'S Trade Secrets (sources) in order to punish someone for their lack of ability to keep THEIR trade secrets.

This would be like saying if someone stole my stereo and you knew who did it (even though YOU'RE not the one who stole it), I can steal your stereo just so I can punish those who stole my stereo.

Trade Secrets are property, the courts have backed that time and time again. By forcing the bloggers to reveal their sources, they're stealing the blogger's property, because they won't be able to use that source again.

And I'm not even getting into the whole 1st Amendment Rights thing yet. In case you're a little fuzzy on this:

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

hmm. As far as I can tell, we take two whacks on the 1st Amendment here. The internet is a medium. A publishing medium. It's intent is to make information available to be read. That sounds like the press to me. Okay, so for the sake of argument, let's just assume that "bloggers" aren't journalists. They're just people like you and me.

So, freedom of speech. Yes, I know. Freedom of speech only applies as long as I am not infringing on the rights of someone else. Inciting a riot is an example. I'm not free to rouse a rabble for the purposes of killing someone. (Dang, no Posse for me!) Other than that, I'm free to say whatever I want, or NOT say whatever I want. It is legal for me to say (by the way, this is not true. Nobody told me this, and I'm making it up to prove a point. She could be, but I have no reason to believe it...) "I don't know if it's true, but someone told me that Susie Rottencrotch down the road is actually a lesbian." It is also legal for me to say "No, I won't tell you who told me that!"

That's legal. In no way am I infringing on anyone's rights. That's been proven. It's not libel. It's not slander. It is reporting of fact. Someone told me. That is the only fact claimed in that statement.

Apparently though, YOUR $$ is more important than my freedom of speech and MY $$, because you have more $$.

Just freaking idiotic. We live in a Democratic Republic. Do you know WHY it's a Democratic Republic and NOT a Democracy? Because Ben Franklin and friends wanted to make sure that nobody can take away your rights. In a Democracy, if 50.00001% of the population decided that you could be put into slavery again, they would win. Mob rules. In a Democratic Republic, you have RIGHTS, which NOBODY can take away. The first one of those rights, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, (cool how that all knits together, isn't it? It's not a coincidence) says that I can speak my mind, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights. And it doesn't matter is 99.999999999999% of the population disagrees with what I have to say. It is my RIGHT to do that.

Just my two cents. What do you think? Write a comment below.

Steak and a BJ day...

2005-03-10T13:24:00.000-06:00

Okay, so V-day has come and gone... Now it's time for payback. March 14th is "Steak and a BJ" day. It's simple. No cards, no gifts. Just a steak, and a little head. That's all it takes, girls, to keep your man happy. Start preparing now.

Oh, and by the way: Leave comments right down at the bottom of my posts.

National Women's Day.

2005-03-08T10:53:00.000-06:00

I guess I'm going to be politically incorrect here and say "Why?" If you're striving for equality, why would you insist upon being treated differently? Does this make any sense to you? If you want to be treated the same, then don't go out of your way to BE different. Otherwise, just shut up and go on with your life. And why would you want to be treated the same anyway?

I'm sorry, but George Carlin said it best: "Is this the best [women] can come up with? Pointless careerism? Putting on a man-tailored suit and imitating all the worst habits of men?"

How about making a mark in the world that doesn't require you to say "Hey! Look at me! Look over HERE!!!" If you DO big things, people recognize them without any fanfare. Marie Curie, who DISCOVERED radiation, and then the X-Ray, didn't get special adulation because she didn't need to. Nobody said "Hey, look what she discovered! And she's even a woman!" Why is this important to mention? Because SHE had equality. She was recognized as THE expert in her field.

Frankly, women have ALWAYS been tougher than men. THEY have the babies. They have ALWAYS been in charge.

Let me ask you: Who's more powerful? George W. Bush, Carl Rove or Laura Bush? If you said GWB, you're an idiot. If you said Carl Rove, there's definately an argument to be made for that, but I stand on my original thought that Laura Bush is the most powerful.

Look at it this way: GWB asks Carl what to do. Carl says "Do A." Laura Bush says "No, do B." Guess what GWB is going to do? My point exactly.

There is no reason why we cannot celebrate the contributions women make in society, and frankly I happen to think that they should be more publicly visible, but please don't tell me that women are the downtrodden. Everything revolves around everything female. Marketing. Sales. Design. Architecture. Music. Art. EVERYTHING.

Who was the woman into space? Who was the first man into space? I bet you had to think harder about the second one than the first one.

When was the last time you saw 10 Native Americans together in the same place? THEY are the downtrodden.

Cool new swag.

2005-02-23T12:22:00.000-06:00

I got some cool new swag from http://www.jinx.net(pops) yesterday. I like it so much that I thought I might join their network of supporters. This is why those of you who come here often (both of us) notice that thatta way (---->) there is an ad, which I added yesterday. I don't get any cash for the ad, but I support those people and companies that I like. So there you go. If you haven't checked them out before, go ahead. It won't hurt, I promise.

So what did I get, I hear you ask? I got some t-shirts, which I need more of, and a bumper sticker, seeing as my political bumper sticker on my car is so last administration. Here is what I got:

1 Black X-Large Human Barcode T-Shirt @ $14.95 each
1 Black X-Large Social Engineering T-Shirt @ $14.95 each
1 Black X-Large MajorGeeks T-Shirt @ $14.95 each
1 Black 8" x 2" Closet Geek Sticker @ $1.99 each

I'm thinking I might get one of the Human Barcode stickers as my "reward" for joining Jinx's network, but frankly I don't think I'll bother to cash in on that one. Like I said, I put it up because I like them, not for $$, although a little $$ never hurts. No, I don't get any commission for you to click on the banner, or buy anything. If you feel you MUST send me money, go and buy something from my store at http://www.cafepress.com/geekwear.

Side note: No, I don't actually NEED XL t-shirts, I just like them baggy.

Bush's flowchart for foriegn policy..

2005-02-14T09:05:00.000-06:00

Found this while looking at another website. I'm not sure I completely agree, but it's funny none the less:

Backpedalling and backfilling

2005-02-04T11:57:00.000-06:00

Officials Back Away from Early Estimates of Iraqi Voter Turnout

Looks like the leader in the Iraqi elections isn't the best possible option for the U.S.

Wow! Okay, Okay. I'll add some chum to the waters.

Here's something to think about: If the Iraqi people, of their own volition, elect into office the next Saddam Hussein, or worse, will it (still) have been worth going to war to accomplish?

Let's just for argument's sake say that the next leader of Iraq, after he/she takes office, says "That's it. That's the last vote we'll ever have. The people have spoken and said that they don't want democracy, because they elected me, and I have a MANDATE from the people!" Will the 1500 dead Americans, tens of thousands of injured Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead and injured Iraqis, have been worth it?

If you blindly say "Hell Yeah!" then good for you. Go back to chewing your cud.

This is a possibility that we certainly should have thought about when we began prosecuting this war in Iraq. There is something happening in Iraq that our policy makers here haven't begun to think about. There is a significant percentage of people who actually LIKED Saddam Hussein. There is an even greater percentage of the Iraqi population that are now institutionalized. They have a prisoners mentality. When let free, a certain percentage of paroled prisoners WANT to go back to prison, where 'things make sense'. There is NOTHING that the US can do about them from here. Not with what we have.

Let's face it, we exacted a war in Iraq without the resources necessary to complete the tasks we set out to do. What we have done over there is take a starving dog and give him 1500 lbs of prime rib wrapped in Saran Wrap. He is still hungry because he doesn't know what to do with what has been given to him. He can't unwrap it. He's still starving. The huge thing just scares the hell out of him. Worse, when he gets through the Saran Wrap, he'll eat enough to kill himself.

Okay, so I'm an open-source turncoat.

2005-01-24T15:09:00.000-06:00

I've switched from Opera to FireFox. Sue me. Why would I change browsers now when I've been an Opera user for so long? No real reason except that Opera doesn't seem to be keeping up with the bugs. That and the fact that most of the plug-ins don't recognize Opera as an option. So I've installed FireFox and have been using it for a little while now. The extensions are useful. I have the weather extension, the Gmail extension, the Homeland Security extension (currently on "Scared") and I'm looking for others. That's not enough though. The fact that some plug-ins don't work with Opera is pretty maddening, if you like to build web pages and view pages heavily laden with rich media. Screw Active X! Who needs it?

How about a fountain of smart?

2005-01-22T21:12:00.000-06:00

I saw a bumper sticker the other day which made me laugh and say "Right on!". It said "We have enough youth, how about a fountain of smart?"

There's this guy in Texas who just killed someone while driving drunk. Everyone is asking "What should we do about drunk drivers?" Why all the attention on this one death? The guy was convicted of drunk driving about 20 odd times in his life. I think the solution to this is easy. Make drunk driving a felony, that way if you get convicted, you have a felony on your record, making it harder to get/keep a job, and if you kill someone while driving drunk, it's murder. Simple. Kill someone while driving drunk, go to jail for life, or in Texas, get the needle. Really simple. No problem anymore.

Which brings me to another subject near and dear to my heart. The death penalty. Here is an area where my views are not typical of most Liberals. I'm completely in favor of the death penalty. There are a couple of problems with the system right now which need to be fixed;

Problem 1: The appeals process. The appears process needs to be a lot smoother and quicker. We should enpanel two juries at the same time. One for the first case, the second for the required appeal. When the first trial ends, the second one starts, if convicted. Okay, maybe a week in between. A month TOPS. After the end of the first trail, a judge rules on an appeal within the week. If granted, the trial starts IMMEDIATELY. If denied, the convited gets the needle THAT NIGHT. Better yet, he gets a bullet in the brain right there in the court room.

Problem 2: "Corrections" versus "Penal": The prisons are called a correctional institutions. This implies that someone sentenced to prison is expected to get better sometime in the future. When someone comes up for parole, particularly a murderer or rapist, there's a huge hue and cry about him getting out early. Every time.

Look, if he's not there for correction, then he's there for penalty. If that's the case, then he's in there for the ENTIRE sentence. No parole. No "furlough". Punishment. Period. If there's no expectation that he'll get better, than admit it and put a bullet though his brain. I'm not interested in paying for a serial rapist's Ph.D. I'm not even interested in paying for his MEALS for the next 6 decades. Kill him and roll his corpse into a shallow ditch. Done with it.

Problem 3: It's not used on enough crimes. Here's the list of crimes that I think you should be put to death over:

Murder
Negligent homocide
Rape
Child abuse
Child molestation
Maybe a couple of others, but of course, IANAL.

More later.

Grubbing for money..

2005-01-19T09:57:00.000-06:00

My boyz over at CafePress.com have very neatly allowed me to create some things that I have always wanted to see but can't find at Think Geek. So, with great fanfare, I present Geekwear!. Here are mugs, t-shirts, mousepads etc that you just can't find anywhere else, like this wonderful NSFW T-shirt in lip-smacking Soylent Green:

So help a brotha out! This is your chance to create some real peer pressure for once in your life. Be the first in your cube to own a beer stein with it's own bottle opener! Get yourself (or your RealDoll) some panties to help clarify things (hey, I don't judge, you sicko!). Or if you're a l33t haxor girl, you can pick up my t-shirt that answers the question you most need answered for you.

I'll be putting up more stuff on Geekwear soon, as inspiration strikes me, so check back often, or suggest something you'd like to see in the comments section down below.

l8er

The function of futile actions

2005-01-18T13:41:00.000-06:00

From Winnie-The-Pooh:

"Sometimes, if you stand on the bottom rail of a bridge and lean over to watch the river slipping slowly away beneath you, you suddenly know everything there is to be known."

Truer words have rarely been said, in my opinion. Generally speaking, there is such a thing as too much knowledge. There are things that should never be seen, never be heard, or never be known. Trouble is, you can't un-know something. It never pays to look into dark corners unless you're willing to see what is to be seen there.

Or so the average American would believe. I happen to agree, but I'm ready to see what there is to be seen. I don't mind not being able to un-know something, which is why I question authority. Why I like to be idealistic. I will not throw up my hands and turn my back because it seems useless to try. If you don't try, you don't do, and NOTHING happens.

The opposite of change, contrary to common belief, isn't lack of change, it's change in a different direction. The status-quo is NOTHING. Period. It's a non-entity.

What I'm trying to say is: we (people, Americans, Texans, Men, Women, whatever) need to tilt at windmills, otherwise nothing happens. Don Quixote had it right. Envision the world you want, and then make it that way. Rail against the gods. Tilt at windmills that appear to you as giants. Do NOT listen to those who would tell you you're being foolish, because they know nothing. Worse, they are HAPPY knowing nothing.

It is us, the visionaries, who see how things COULD be, or OUGHT to be, and strive to make it be that make this world a better place today than it was yesterday.

That is all for now. Later, I will rail against the gods of customer no-service a bit. What are they thinking?

Roadblocks and spot checks..

2005-01-11T10:04:00.000-06:00

I think I've mentioned before that I live in Austin, TX. Recently, two cops were killed (no, amend that. Killed themselves) when they decided to get on a motorcycle and drive away from a bar. The problem? The driver had a BAC of 0.27 and his wife has a BAC of 0.33. Stupid. Very stupid. What could be stupider? How about the bar they left had over 60 cops in it. Not one cops apparently stopped them from leaving. Is that stupid enough for you?

The reason that I bring this up is that just yesterday, one of our state representatives introduced a bill into the state congress to allow for routine quasi-random road blocks to check for drunk drivers. I'm more than a little pissed about this, just like I'm pissed about car searches approaching the airport, which they do here too.

Here's why I'm pissed. This is a personal property issue more than anything else. I own my car, I drive my car. As long as I don't infringe on anyone else's rights, I can do whatever I want with my car. This idea is "Guilty until proven Innocent" mentality.

"But" you say, "When you go to the airport, they search all of your belongings, give you a pat down and otherwise invade your space, but you're okay with that?" Yes, I am, and here's why.

When I go to the airport, I get searched because I'm about to get on someone else's plane, with 150 other customers, and fly with them. Yes, I paid for the ticket, but I don't own the plane. They are protecting their property, both capital and intellectual. Their plane, their pilots, their good name. If I blew up their plane, they would lose, so they have the right to make sure I'm not going to do anything with their plane that they didn't agree to. Just like I have the right to search anyone who wants to ride in my car. I can always say "If you don't let me search you, you can't ride in my car." It's my property. I have rights.

"Okay" you agree "but what should we do about drunk drivers, then?" Thanks for asking. This is really simple. We live in a country that doesn't have a justice system, it's a system of jurisprudence. A body of law. Basically, what it means is that we would much rather let somebody who is guilty of a crime go free than lock somebody up who might be innocent. So, that said, here's the only thing we CAN do. Lock them up AFTER they've commited a crime. You drive drunk, the cop sees you driving drunk, he has probable cause, he pulls you over, you blow a solid .5 on the lush-o-meter and you go to jail. That's it. If you cause an accident because you're s-faced, you go to jail. That's it!

The Supreme Court has ruled that a cop cannot detain you or pull you over just because he feels like it. Without probable cause, he has no grounds. So, road blocks are the same way. In your car, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. They can't search you or your car without probable cause or without asking for your permission. Bottom line, this is unconstitutional.

"But, but," you stammer "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide! Why is this such a big deal for you?" Guess what? I am not engaged in any illegal activity at all. I'm not even involved in objectionable behavior (as long as you don't count this blog...). I STILL have EVERYTHING to hide from the Government. Why? Because it's none of their business what I do unless I infringe on the rights of others, or give unusual evidence that I'm likely to. Driving my car is not unusual evidence. This is such a big deal because it is unconstitutional.

If I get caught in one of these roadblocks, it's a lawsuit. When the cop asks for my driver's license and proof of insurance, I'll give it to him. Then I will sue the city for every dime I can get.

All of my "Plan B"'s are moving...

2005-01-10T13:00:00.000-06:00

What is a "Plan B"? Simple. I'm married. When my wife divorces me (which is somewhat likely, in the grand scheme of things), I'll move to one of my "Plan B's". The latest is Heidi Klum. She's going to get married to Seal. Bastard. So, she's off the list.

Who else is on my B list?

Drew Barrymore. Ever since she played "Sugar" in 1995's "Batman Forever", she's been on my list. Even though she took a hit when she married Tom Green, she's just gotten better and better. Ever After. Oh yeah. Charlie's Angels. You betcha! Who WOULDN'T want a chick that'll wear leather and then lick the steering wheel of a Bentley Arnage Convertible? Very hot. Fantasy time.

Sara Rue. For some reason, the character she plays in "Less Than Perfect" is my kind of woman. And check out the funbags on her! Besides, I bet she's a freak in bed.

Renee Russo. I just love her and her characters, never mind that she's just plain smoking hot!

(honorable mention) Jennifer Aniston. Okay, she's kind of hot. She's also suddenly availble. I don't know who dumped who, but you just KNEW this would never last. Unending supply of hot babes, and Brad Pitt is just going to come home for dinner? Every night? That, my friends, is the very definition of Denial.

Of course, given my choice of all of these, I'll take my wife. Any day of the week. Twice on Wednesdays. On the kitchen counter. With a jar of honey. And I say that knowing that my wife doesn't read my blog.

Quick joke for the Techies out there:

Simon Durst is a 60 years old software developer, and he makes a KILLING during the whole Y2K scare. Just bundles of money. As his life comes closer to the end, he decides he's going to put himself in suspended animation and put a little money on the side to live on when he comes back.

When he goes to set up the arrangements, he puts in a directive to be revived in the year 3000 because he wants to see what it's going to be like a thousand years hence. Three years later, he get hits by a bus. They come and take him away, drop him in the deep freeze and wait.

The next thing he knows, he's staring up at a white light, and a guy is standing over him.
"What happened?" he asks
"Well, that's kind of a long story," the man replies "You were struck by a vehicle and placed in suspended animation..."
"So, this is the year 3000?!?!"
"Well, first let me tell you that your investments have done very well while you weren't here, and laws were passed that guarantee your citizenship when you came back, which you've done. So you've got plenty of money and lots of opportunity to spend it. The thing is, someone lost your revival directive and we had no idea when you wanted to be awakened. I mean, sure you didn't want to be awakened before we could FIX the damage, so we didn't, but after that, we didn't know when to wake you up."
"So, this isn't the year 3000?
"I'm afraid not. The year is ninety nine ninety three." the man told him
"So if you didn't know when to wake me up, why did you wake me up now?"
"That's the other thing. We woke you for a specific reason."
"Which is?"
"We understand you know COBOL"

(rimshot)

Until later....

"I have no mouth, and I must scream.."

2005-01-07T16:07:00.000-06:00

We are disgusting people. Humans in general. I was in the Men's room earlier today, and while doing my business, I heard someone enter hurriedly, take a stall, drop his pants and let out the most god awful sound you've ever heard. Did you see Austin Powers, Internation Man of Mystery? Remember the scene in the casino restroom, with Austin Powers saying "Who does Number Two work for?!?!" Thought you might. Well, the noises I endured today from that stall make the noises from that scene sound like a lullaby. Then came the smell. I tell you, this guy had to be eating Toxic Bell burritos with a Fecal Latte. Whatever it was, it was some seriously bad ju-ju. If toilets could speak, this one would have screamed. Ugh.

Later, I visited the same restroom, and this poor guy (I don't know who it was) had apparently not made it. The walls and floor were sprayed with fecal matter, and the smell was just hideous.

Anyway, the reason for this update: Apparently my keywords have worked. Lots more people are finding the site because of the reference to an unclothed tennis player. I'll have to try that more often.

Rush Limbaugh is pissing me off again. On this morning's Rush Minute, he said basically that liberals were sending a message by grilling nominee Alberto Gonzales. The message, according to Rush Windbag, is "We're in favor of a hispanic Attorney General, as long as he's one of ours." What bullshit. If this doesn't show his racist tendencies, I don't know what will. What theocons (theological conservatives)like Limbaugh can't possibly freaking concieve of is the actual message "Everyone, regardless of color, is going to get evaluated on the issues which concern us." Theocons are a mixed bag. Publicly, they'll say "Look! We can nominate a colored person!" while internally saying "I can't believe the liberal riff-raff are forcing us to allow a wetback into this administration! And worse, we can't eviscerate him because those stinking liberals will cry foul!" Limbaugh seems to think that liberals should be happy just because the nominee is hispanic.

Wrong. We don't care about his skin color. It's completely irrelevant to us. We, unlike half of the theocons I know down here in Texas, can evaluate the man regardless of his ethnic background. Period. Judge him by the quality of the job he does.

Take Dr. Rice. I like her. Sure she's conservative. Sure she's Bush's puppet. I don't care. Why? She does a great job. She's smarter than the President, Vice President and Rush Limbaugh combined. I would actually vote for her as President. Before I would vote for Senator Clinton. And I like Senator Clinton.

Every time I hear Condi Rice mentioned on talk radio, the callers who reference her are so happy that she's black and in the position she's in. I'm happy that she's GOOD AT WHAT SHE DOES. I, unlike most of the Republican Party, don't give a flip that she's black. When it comes to people I look up to, I am color blind. I'm gender blind. You should try it.

Oh yeah: Britney Spears has some great tits but no talent. And Jessica Simpson just needs to shut up and get naked. What else can I put up here to generate traffic? Heidi Klum Sex Tape! - Click HERE!

Business Porn

2005-01-06T14:41:00.000-06:00

Business Porn is the incredible glut of magazines, television programs, newspaper articles and such which expound upon the success of businesses. I refer to it as porn simply because it's very much like conventional porn: Things you'll never see from a first hand perspective in your life.

None of these magazines ever mention how difficult it actually is to start a company and keep it running, never mind make it a true success. Everyone wants to talk about the Ebays, Googles etc of the tech world. They never tell you about the 85% of business which fold in the first two years, breaking their founders totally.

Success in business is largely luck. Sure, your team, your idea, your financial backing, your plan, your market and everything else certainly makes a difference, but it all comes down to luck in the end. They never mention that. Ever.

Let's look at everyone's sweetheart right now, Google(tm). Google isn't any different really except for their ranking method and how many pages they're capable of indexing every day. MetaFilter tried it. Yahoo does it. MSN does it. AltaVista does it. Remember when AltaVista was the big search engine out there? When was the last time you used it now? It returns very similar results to Google. Odds are very high that you'll find what you're looking for at AV as well as Google.

So why is Google trading at $200+/share when AltaVista got spun off by Digital because it wasn't a money maker? Simple. The name. Google. They got lucky. The idea isn't new. The methods aren't really new. The business model isn't new either. They've got a cool name. A name that has become a verb. Try that with "AltaVista." `Yeah, I AltaVista'ed my girlfriend the other day...' or `I MetaFilered this company...' It just doesn't work, does it. They picked a name which everyone knew (google is a number, specifically 1 followed by 100 zeroes. Very big.), was easy to say and tell people about. If Google's name had been "Phlebotomy", it would be the Dr. Koop of 2004. It still might be. Luck.

So save your money and don't buy business porn. What constitutes business porn? Business 2.0, Fast Company, Red Herring and all of the stuff you find right next to it on the Barnes & Noble magazine rack right near it. Save your money and start a new business with it because the end result will be the same: wasted money.

2005-01-05T15:41:00.000-06:00

Just something funny I saw...

Something's going on!

2005-01-05T14:58:00.000-06:00

I come by the site, just to see the new counter, and guess what? I've had a surge of new visitors! Well, if you're new to the site, welcome! Come back often! I might even say something funny.

So here I am, delighted. And somewhat amused because I think that the reason for all of the traffic is from my mention of "Britney's Bush". No. It's not that simple. Someone mentioned my blog on Monster.com's networking site. The link everyone is apparently interested in is here where I rant about being lied to with respect to the "need" for a degree and/or the value of a degree in today's economy. Go read it, if you haven't yet.

The amusing part is that in hindsight, I think I was just a little bitter. I'm saying that basically bachelor's degrees are mostly irrelevant in today's workforce, but it took me almost 4 years to find full time employment. Ironic, or just dumb? You decide. Either way, I still don't have a degree, but I do have a well paying job. Moreover, I got the job because of experience I have from a job I had 10 years ago. I think my first statement stands (if you can jump through all the tenses).

Regardless. I'm going to spend some time changing the look/feel/functionality of this blog. I haven't looked at the blogger templates in a while, and this one is starting to bore me. Besides, I'd like to be able to put pictures up and have people put in comments if they feel like doing that.

More later, I supposed.

So things are happening..

2004-12-22T13:15:00.000-06:00

My wife and I just found out that we're going to have another baby (Version 2.0). I'm actually really excited about this, but my wife is making it hard for me to be enthusiastic. She's having progesterone level problems and she's on progesterone supplements, so she's hormonal as hell with huge mood swings.

Her progesterone levels are low-ish. 14.7 versus 15+ which is the safe zone. Her Dr. just put her on suppositories because they're absorbed better than the pills she's been taking.

Just about 15 minutes ago, she called me and said (and I'm quoting here) "I hate my job! My body can't decide what it wants to do about this baby! I'm not happy about having to get on a plane tomorrow! I'm going to have to deal with your asshole parents! And you haven't told me I can quit my job, so I'm not feeling very secure about your job! And I'm TIRED! I'm JUST PLAIN TIRED! This sucks!"

How do I respond to that? If I say nothing, I'm insensitive. If I say anything that she really wants to hear, I'll get fired (I was at work at the time). If I say what I can safely say at work, it's going to sound hollow and irrelevant. If I say what I feel like saying, I need to call a lawyer. This sucks. In the middle of all this, she apologizes for dumping on me. The phone call ended with her saying "Well, you just go ahead an do whatever the hell you're going to do, which is what you'll do anyway!"

I'm apparently not allowed to have a bad day anymore, either. Last week, I was having the worst day I've had in a while, and she goes off on a rant about how she's having problems and she doesn't think we're going to have the baby after all, etc ad infinitum. I retort (very sarcastically) "That's great. At least something is going right!". Now she thinks I don't want to have another baby! I do, and everything I've said/done up to this point supports that.

I don't know what to do. I go from the stress of being unemployed and broke to the stress of a new job and potentially a new father.

A side note: in order to improve my hits (see last post), I'm going to insert some words here: Anna Kournikova naked! Christmas gifts. Britney and Anna. boobies Iraq Bush, britney's bush

I have a job!

2004-12-15T14:05:00.000-06:00

By job, I mean a full time, permenant placement. Actually, I've had a job for over a month. Yeah, Yeah, I know. Update more often! Shut your pie hole!

Anyway, at this job I'm actually doing work, just very, very slowly. My client is a state agency and as a result even the most basic task is full of red tape, "managerial oversight" and office politics. I'm not ticked, but I am bored.

I'm going to install a site counter, just because I'm interested to see how many people actually read my site. I don't expect it's many, but I'm curious. After a while, I'll intentionally throw in some choice key words and see how it affects my visitation. We'll see. Stay tuned, stand fast and all that other gobbledygook that means "come back soon".

What does it take?

2004-11-03T09:18:00.000-06:00

I'm okay with the results of this election. I'm not happy about it, but compared to 2000's executive, legislative and judicial square dance, I feel good about the election. A couple of comments though:

- Last night while watching the election results over a beer I decided to see how some of the smaller candidates were doing. I was interested, for example, in knowing how the Socialist candidate did in Vermont. I was interested in how the Libertarian candidate did in Oklahoma. I wanted to see popular vote counts. NOWHERE could I find a count of the popular votes for anyone but Bush, Kerry and Nader. One that I finally DID find was here, at News 8 Austin. In case you're too lazy to click a link, here is what it says (in part):

President Popular Vote
George Bush R 58,319,122 51%
John Kerry D 54,796,258 48%
Others 661,087 1%
Ralph Nader I 390,341 0%
506 of 538 precincts reporting (94%)

"OTHERS"? WTF? So Nader, an "Independant" (read, not nominated by anyone but himself) candidate gets 0%, but commands a mention while "Others" gets almost TWICE the popular vote but no mention? Last time I checked, Badnarik was on at least 48 state ballots. Shouldn't HE at least get a mention?

Speaking of "too lazy" to do something, I was just listening to my local talk radio station and the host mentioned an interesting tidbit of information: 4 out of 5 registered voters between the ages of 18 and 24 DID NOT VOTE.

What the hell does it take? What do I have to do to get people to actually vote. Forget about "you didn't vote, so you can't complain" nonsense. When I turned 18, I couldnt' WAIT to vote. I have voted in every election since then, both local and national. Do I have to spend thousands of dollars to take out a full page ad in the sunday paper that says "Hey, stupid! Get off your ass, put down the Gameboy, turn off the fucking TV and go VOTE! I don't care HOW you vote, JUST GO AND DO IT!"

I'm turning into my father.

George Tenet resigns...

2004-06-03T11:03:00.000-05:00

I quote from Fox News (full article Here.)

***
Bush said Tenet has "done a super job" and is the "kind of public servant you like to work with."

Tenet will serve as the CIA director until mid-July, Bush said, then CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin (search) will serve as acting director.

"I send my blessings to George and his family," Bush said from the White House lawn. "I look forward to working with him until the time he leaves the agency, and I wish him all the very best.Bush said Tenet has "done a super job" and is the "kind of public servant you like to work with."
***

Translation:

Bush said Tenet "told me what I wanted to hear, and then quietly rolled over when the shit hit the fan. He took one for the Gipper."

Tenet will serve as the CIA director until mid-July, Bush said, then CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin (search) will be his puppet until November.

"I want to thank George for resigning so I didn't have to fire him," Bush meant to say from the White House lawn. "I can't wait until the time he leaves the agency, and I hope this sweeps the whole WMD thing under the rug in time for the election." Bush also meant to say "Thank God I was able to get this Clinton appointee out before the election. Now I need to presure Rumsfeld to do the same, and get Cheney to stop fucking things up for me."

Pro-choice, the only real choice...

2004-05-05T14:02:00.000-05:00

I made the mistake of pausing on a Christian radio station a while ago. The fact that the radio station was Christian wasn't the mistake. It was a mistake because of what they were broadcasting. The were holding a "National Town Meeting; A Pro-Life Conference". Now I actually happen to be pro-life. I'm still alive, aren't I? Here's the problem;

They had gathered a bunch of well-intentioned civic and religion leaders together to talk about the "abortion problem". It was the 30th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision handed down by the US Supreme Court, and they apparently decided to "do something about it". They held a lively discussion about how abortion is wrong, how it goes against everything Christianity stands for, and I can accept and listen to that discussion, even if I don't personally agree with it. They invited customer comments and questions and provided an 800 number, so I called. They wouldn't field my question They wouldn't even let me on the air! My question wasn't absurd, it wasn't even heretical. My question was this:

"What, if anything, is the Catholic church, which has had a long standing record of stewardship, doing to help the 15 year old pregnant girl, who is going to leave her baby in a dumpster?"

www.abortionfacts.com (no link, type it your own self. If you're pro-choice, you don't need to, if not, I'm not going to help you...) has a lot of information about how many abortions are performed in a year. Answer? Probably about 1,800,000 last year (give or take). What they want to do it force people to go through the full pregnancy and let 1.8 Million babies be born that are not wanted. Either the parents can not or will not take care of the child. Options? Sure, adoption. In the year 2000, there were 130,000 kids in interim foster care waiting for a home, and 53,000 kids had already been placed. That's 180,000 orphans. Sure, jack that up by 10x! What a GREAT idea. Instead of having 130,000 kids waiting for homes, let's have 1.3 million waiting for a home. That's assuming a half a million homes open their doors for children needing homes.

Of course, that's not accurate. There won't be 1.8 million children needing homes. There will be 1.9 Million needing homes. The same 130,000 kids will be born and still need homes, remember? It won't be a problem. There are 105,000,000 homes in the U.S. (2000 Census). And there are 281 Million people in the U.S. That's 2.6 people per house, on average. If only one out of every 50 homes in the U.S. opened it's doors, there'd be no problem at all! Every year.

Of course, that's still no accurate at all, is it? Sure. A good number of those kids are dumpster, reservoir or toilet bound, aren't they? That'll knock off a good 200,000 of them. Then we can forget about the other half million that will die of neglect. Do we really need to create a state that the Human Rights Watch will watch?

I tell you what. I won't protest a law outlawing abortion totally as long as the law states that you must publicly proclaim your vote, and if you vote FOR the law, you must make your home available to an orphan every 5 years. Not as a foster home. Permanent adoption.

Doesn't sound like such a great idea now, does it?

The generation gap gets wierder.....

2004-05-05T13:51:00.000-05:00

I want to talk about my generation. Generation X. I'm 30. I'm part of GenX. I was listening to NPR and they were talking about how the Baby Boomers were going to turn 65, and that would bankrupt Social Security. Generation X is about all of the things that the Baby Boomers are not: GenX is full of guys and gals who know that they don't get everything for free. Baby Boomers have only one motto: "Give me that! It's mine! I want it, so I should have it!". It's basically a philosophy based on a very distorted version of entitlement. Look it up. The Baby Boomers want everything for free. Right now. Don't argue. They grew up between the generation that expected to work 20 years at a company and retire with a gold watch, a thank-you and a pension. The Baby Boomers are NOT our parents. They created an institution of hands-off entitlement. They hired nannies to do their dirty work, while they went to work, driving Bimmers and snorting cocaine. They rode the backs of those that had worked hard before them. They drank from the cup filled by their parent's hard work.

Generation X had, and has, been lied to. GenX has been lied to in many ways, but one more than any other. I, and everyone I went to school with, was told "You need to get a degree, or you will never make any money." Everyone was told this. So, everyone went and got a degree. Now degrees are worthless. Completely worthless. Unless you have 2+ years of experience, don't even consider looking for a job more challenging than a Barista as Starbucks. Meanwhile, those of us who had the clarity of thought to ignore our parents, guidance councelors and such, went on to learn NEW stuff. We wanted to DO NEW THINGS. If you went to college for anything at all, you learned things that you could've read yourself and practiced on the job while everyone else was getting their worthless degrees.

Let's take a look at the career path for each type of degree at UMASS Amherst:

Acronym Key:
WYLFWT? = "Would you like fries with that?"
NPE = "Need professional experience"
NTOPE = "Need tons of professional experience"
NAD = "Need another degree to work in this field")
BAT = "Become a teacher, and teach this useless field to other mindless suckers."

Accounting & Information Systems <= NTOPE/WYLFWT?
Afro-American Studies <= Become a teacher - NAD or Be self imporant (aka, worthless) - WYLFWT?
Animal Science and Pre-Veterinary <= NAD/WYLFWT?
Anthropology <= BAT/NAD/WYLFWT?
Apparel Marketing <= Good luck. No jobs. WYLFWT?
Arboriculture & Park Management <= No jobs. WYLFWT?
Art (design or studio) <= Starving artist - WYLFWT?
Art History <= BAT/NAD/WYLFWT?
Astronomy <= Look at stars. Discover nothing new. Starve. Alone. or NAD or WYLFWT?
Bachelor's Degree with Individual Concentration (BDIC) <= Couldn't make up my mind. Got a degree in "Undeclared" - WYLFWT?
Biochemistry & Molecular Biology <= NAD - Got to be a Ph.D or better here. WYLFWT?
Biology <= NAD - Same as BioChem and MolBio - WYLFWT?
Building Materials & Wood Technology <= "Look Dad, I made you a really nifty cutting board!" - WYLFWT?
Chemical Engineering <= NAD/NTOPE/WYLFWT?
Chemistry <= Build Nitrogen Tri-iodide bomblets. Move to Afghanistan. Convert to a VERY twisted version of Islam. Bomb buildings OR NAD OR WYLFWT?
Chinese Language & Literature <= WYLFWT? (I don't have double byte characters, so Latin characters will have to do).
Civil Engineering <= "I can wield a shovel, and whistle at girls who find me repulsive before I go home and eat my Hungry Man meal. Alone."
Classics <= WYLFWT?
Classics & Philosophy <= WYLFWT? or, more precisely, "Would you consider the implications of wanting fries with that? In Latin?"
Communication <= "I didn't know how to speak before, but now I've been lernt and gradiutated!" - WYLFWT?
Communication Disorders <= "I enjoy listening to people I can't understand, and can't understand me." - WYLFWT?
Comparative Literature <= BAT/NAD/WYLFWT?
Computer Science - "Now I know how to program in Pascal. I rule! What's Java? Oh crap." - NTOPE - WYLFWT?
Computer Systems Engineering - "I know what a PNP junction is! What do you mean you don't care?" - NTOPE - WYLFWT?
Dance <= "Look at me! I'm flying! I said LOOK AT ME! Okay, fine! Can you spare a dime?" - WYLFWT?
Earth Systems <= NAD/"We could harness the energy of the wind to power to world! Hello? HEELLOO???" - WYLFWT?
Economics <= "I'm broke, but I know EXACTLY why. Damn those Democrats!" - NAD or WYLFWT?
Education <= "Okay, I've got the other degree. I've spent $180,000 on getting them both. What do you mean it's going to take me the rest of my life to pay off my student loans? AND WYLFWT?
Electrical Engineering <= NTOPE/NAD/WYLFWT?
English <= BAT/NAD and WYLFWT?
Environmental Design <= NAD or NOTPE - "Okay, I need another degree, fine! I'm broke, fine! But I'm GREEEN! Look! Hemp Shoes!"
Environmental Sciences <= NTOPE and NAD - "Okay, I need another degree, fine! I'm broke, fine! But I'm GREEEN! Look! Hemp Shoes!"
Equine Industries <= NAD or Win the Kentucky Derby. You're folks are loaded, and so are you. But at least Daddy's happy that you got a degree
Exercise Science <= "Take a lap." -
Family & Consumer Sciences <= WYLFWT?
Finance & Operations Management <= NTOPE/NAD/WYLFWT?
Food Science <= WYLFWT? - No other choice.
Forestry <= You get to fight forest fires!
French & Francophone Studies <= You're already French. 'Nuff said.
Geography <= "I know where Tanzania is without looking at a map. What do you mean you don't care? No, I don't have any other skills! I'm a degreed professional!" - WYLFWT?
Geology <= Dig up rocks in some god forsaken part of the world. Be very facinated with what you find. Alone.
German <= "Wurde Sie mögen Fischrogen mit dem? "
History <= NAD/Wurde Sie mögen Fischrogen mit dem?
Hotel, Restaurant & Travel Administration <= "Would you like a smoking or non-smoking room?"
Human Nutrition <= "Would you like fries with that? I thought so! That's why you're fat!"
Industrial Engineering <= NAD/NTOPE
Italian Studies <= "voi gradiscono le fritture con quello?"
Japanese Language & Literature <= "あなた好むそれのfries か." - Again, no double byte characters, but still speaks for itself.
Journalism <= "I'm witty! I can write! Would you care for some of our fabulous fries with that?"
Judaic Studies <= WYLFWT? - On sale!
Landscape Architecture <= Grass here, here, here, here and here. I can't believe I went to school for this.
Landscape Contracting <= Grass here, here, here, here, here, there, over there, more here, some there. No guarantees. Pay me. I can't believe I went to school for this.
Legal Studies <= NAD/NTOPE/Make friends w/Johnny Cochrane.
Linguistics <= WYLFWT?
Linguistics & Anthropology <= WYLFWT?
Linguistics & Chinese <= WYLFWT?
Linguistics & German <= WYLFWT?
Linguistics & Japanese <= WYLFWT?
Linguistics & Philosophy <= WYLFWT?
Linguistics & Psychology <= WYLFWT?
Linguistics & Russian <= WYLFWT?
Management <= NAD/NTOPE/WYLFWT?
Marketing <= WYLFWT? On sale today! Come on down!
Mathematics <= BAT/NAD
Mechanical Engineering <= "Okay, so your pipe goes down, bends and that's where the hair gets stuck. Pay me to pour this Liquid Plumber down the drain, okay?"
Microbiology <= NAD/BAT
Middle Eastern Studies <= WYLFWT?
Music <= WYLFWT?
Natural Resource Studies <= WYLFWT?
Nursing <= !!!! This is the ONE degree that will get you a good paying job right now. Only trouble is, you'll be emptying out bedpans. !!!
Philosophy <= WYLFWT?
Physics <= NAD/NTOPE
Plant & Soil Sciences <= NAD and STILL WYLFWT?
Political Science <= Become a lackey in some govt. office, wiping the "mysterious" stain off of some politico's trousers. Go down in flames with him. Did I mention it's an intern job for no pay?
Portuguese <= WYLFWT?
Pre-Dental Studies <= NAD (Duh!)
Pre-Medical Studies <= NAD (Duh!)
Psychology <= NAD/WYLFWT?
Resource Economics <= WYLFWT?
Russian & East European Studies <= WYLFWT?
Social Thought & Political Economy <= WYLFWT?
Sociology <= WYLFWT?
Spanish <= WYLFWT?
Sport Management <= WYLFWT?
Theater <= WYLFWT?
Turfgrass Management <= WYLFWT?
Wildlife & Fisheries Conservation <= WYLFWT? You would? Wouldn't you prefer a gardenburger? Oh my God! You're wearing LEATHER! COW KILLER! COW KILLER! Wait! Oh, I'm sorry, the fries come WITH the Big Mac.... My bad.
Women's Studies <= WYLFWT? Pig?

Whew! All of that to find out that you had better become a nurse or be independently wealthy. So, back to what I was saying. Right now there are THOUSANDS of folks who have been lied to, hoping to find a job somewhere where they can make their own money, and live their own lives. The Baby Boomers (remember them?) are pissed because their Big Plan backfired on them. Their kids are still living at home. They say things like "Get a job!", only all of the fries are being served. The "Summer Job Market" is the worst it's been in 40 years. There are no jobs unless you've got more than one degree, tons of professional experience or you're a nurse. And even then, experience will substitute for any number of degrees. Unless you're a nurse. Remember the bedpans? Anyway.

The lesson here is: Go out, get a small job (which probably sucks), screw college and spend the rest of your part time hours learning something useful. Then do some of that work for free - get the experience. Then go looking for a job.

Twist: GenY (our children) will NEED degrees, because we won't have them, and when THEY get into the job market, it WILL be the difference. Why? Because you and I will have taught them the useful stuff. And by then, hopefully the college's will be teaching something that you and I don't know.

Another thing about GenX. We all have ADHD. When I was a kid, it was just called "Hyper active". Teachers would say "Your son is hyperactive! He needs counseling. He needs Special Ed". Bullshit! I learned to learn by watching TV, where the longest image I'm likely to see is no longer than 3 seconds long. I'm a computer user. I browse multiple sites AT THE SAME TIME. I filter out what I don't need to know, learn the stuff I DO need to know, and remember where I learned it. That way, I can go BACK to where I saw it when I need it. I'm sorry, but Ms. Whipple is NOT going to get my attention for 40 straight minutes without making it interesting in some fashion. I know where I can find the info if I need it, they made me get one when I started the class. Give me something interesting, and THEN you'll have my attention, but until then, I'm going to continue bettering myself faster than you can, if you don't mind. And: STOP DRUGGING THESE KIDS INTO SUBMISSION!!!! They are not retarded. They're more advanced than you are. Deal with it. Learn something new.

I'm leaving, on a jet plane.... I might even bring some dope with me, but not tweezers!

2004-04-28T16:08:00.000-05:00

But I know I'll be back on the 5th. My wife is terrified of flying, so this should be interesting. My 2 yr old is hyper, so this should be doubly interesting.

I'm going to have anything that could possibly be a weapon taken away from me. Knives, guns, tasers, mace, I can understand. Tweezers, nail clippers? What the hell is up with that? Do they honestly expect to some day find a big pile of bloody 1/2" gibbous moon-shaped flecks of pilot flesh in the cockpit if they let someone on the plane with one?

Am I the only one who thinks if a terrorist ever again tries to take control of a plane, that he's going to be torn limb from limb by 150 passengers? The chances of a terrorist actually taking control of a plane in the U.S. are now effectively zero. It's not going to happen again, they're not even going to try.
The Department of Homeland Security is doing a crappy job. It's a huge waste of money. Immigrants are flooding into the country (both legal and illegal). All of them are carrying something. Underwear? Probably. A little dope? Probably some of that too. Anthrax? Possibly.

I haven't heard ANYONE griping that they can't get crack anymore because everyone coming into the country is being searched. Cocaine is a white powder. So is weaponized Anthrax. Ditto for every other illicit drug. If they DHS was doing their job, the drug trade would grind to a halt as a result. We can get rid of the DEA and the "War on Drugs."

Speaking of the "War on Drugs"....... I'm not going to joing the legions of NORML members and spout the usual statistics about trillions spent, blah blah blah.. I am going to ask a couple of questions.

When was the last time you even HEARD of someone smoking a fattie, going home and beating up their wife and kids? Right, me either.

How many people do you actually know who've been beated by their drunk husband, boyfriend or father? Right. Far too often for me too.

That said, I think the answer is obvious. Outlaw booze and legalize weed. Of course, that will NEVER happen. Making booze at home is difficult, and can lead to blindness or death. Growing weed at home is..... gardening! Booze is legal because it can be reliably taxed. Dope is illegal because it cannot. Simple. End of story.

I've got to go pack.

Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? - develnet.org

2004-04-14T14:46:00.000-05:00

Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq? - develnet.org

A letter to the President....

2004-04-14T14:41:00.000-05:00

I wrote this letter to the President and Vice President today. The President is out searching for "Al Keyda" on his Richardson, TX ranch today, so I included the VP as well.

****** Start of Letter ******

Dear President Bush and Vice President Cheney,

I am concerned about the recent to-do about same sex marriages (gay marriage, or whatever else you want to call it). I can't find any reason why the government as an institution should care one bit about marriage, same-sex or conventional. My understanding of marriage is that it is a union between two people (putting aside gender for this moment), in front of God. A covenant, if you will, declaring your commitment to each other for God (Buddha, Shiva, pick your deity of choice). This has nothing to do with the role of government as best as I can figure out. This is not a relationship between you and the government. It is an Ecclesiastical union, managed by a Church. Otherwise, it is a legal union, plain and simple. It is almost the same as Chase Manhattan buy/merging with Bank One, at least legally. The only difference, legally, is the tremendous structure of laws guaranteeing legal benefits to a "marriage". The way to fix this is simple. One law which states that a legal union between two individuals, regardless of gender or persuasion, carries the same legal definition as a marriage. Period, that's it. Nothing else need change.

That said, here is my question: How do you reconcile your position that a marriage is "between a man and a woman" with the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 16, which states in full:

"Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."?

The part I'm concerned about is part one. Specifically "Men and women of full age...". It would seem to me that if the U.N. had intended marriage to be between one man and one woman, Article 16 would read "A man and a woman of full age...", but it does not. This implies that either bigamy is acceptable or same sex marriages are acceptable. Or possibly both. Either way, the United States of America voted FOR this declaration. It was even revision 3, so there was time to fix this.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Most Sincerely,

[name removed to protect the guilty]
Sometimes Republican

Note to staffers:

I'm sure the President and the Vice President are "very concerned" about this issue and will give it "due consideration", so please do not respond with a stock answer unless you have one already prepared which answers this specific question. I have read enough of these types of responses to gag a maggot. If you must respond in this manner, please have the decency to at least tell the truth. Say "This question is WAY beneath the notice of the President or Vice-President. It was handed off to an appropriately conservative 1st year intern who frankly couldn't care less about the nattering of the proletariat and will look for the stock answer to send back."

****** End of Letter ******

If you're interested in reading the UN UDHR, you can see it here -> Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Herald.com - Your Miami Everything Guide

2004-01-13T16:55:00.000-06:00

Secret arrests will stay secret....

Apparently, we don't live in the US anymore, where our Govt. is accountable to the citizens. We, as individuals, have the right to know what our Govt. is doing. The Supreme Court said "When law enforcement uses covert tactics to monitor a citizen, that citizen should be able to become aware of that tactic."

Ironically, that was the decision handed down to justify why radar detectors are illegal. How does Virginia (and D.C. and others) get away with it then? They're illegal there. Simple. On every road that crosses into Virginia, there is a big honkin sign which says "Radar detectors are illegal in Virginia. Speed monitored by radar."

There's your notification.

Piss me off...

boortz.com: The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

2004-01-13T16:23:00.000-06:00

boortz.com: The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

This is one of the radio programs I listen to when I have the time. Unfortunately, there isn't a feed to listen to here, but you can find the text of most of his programs in Nealz Nuze...

Some quotes to think on...

2004-01-07T18:48:00.000-06:00

"A Government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices buy honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." -Albert Einstein

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false fron for the urge to rule." - H. L. Mencken

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edward Burke

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he vilates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine

"An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing." - Anon.

"When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence." - Gary Lloyd

"Programming is like sex. One mistake and you'll have to support it for the rest of your life." - Michael Sinz

"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it." - Henry David Thoreau

"Women and cat will do as they please, and men and dogs should just relax and get used to it." - Robert A. Heinlein

"A man can fall many, many times in life. He is never really a failure until he refuses to get up." - Evel Kneival

"Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick two." - Engineer's Axiom

"He who joyfully marghes in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." - Albert Einstein

"It is not economical to go to be early in order to save candles if the result is twins." - Chinese Proverb

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt

The new American Past-Time..

2004-01-05T00:19:00.000-06:00

Baseball is not the great American Pasttime. It never has been. What is? I'll tell you.

Complaining.

Complaining the the great American Pasttime. If we aren't complaining about the person on top, we're complaing about the people complaing about the person on top. "The Liberal Media". Please. When Clinton was in office, it was the "Conservative Media". And when Bush Sr. was in office, is was the "Liberal Media." Sheesh. Do you honestly think that Sam Donaldson, Ted Koppel, Dan Rather et al. change their views 180 degrees everytime the legislative and executive branches change hands? Give me a break, will ya?

They are reporting about the person on top, and how they're getting into trouble. We love it. They report what we want to see, read or hear about. They report the train wreck not because it affects us, but because we want to see the cars all strewn across the fields and the bodies dangling from the trees. We love to see the carnage. They know it, and so do their advertisers. If the news only reported stuff that actually affected you, how much ad revenue do you think they'd net? Zero, zilch, zip, nada. As in nada damn penny.

When was the last time the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis actually effected your day? What I mean is, have you ever had to skip a day of work because some nutjob strapped a bomb to his body and blew up a pizza shop in Tel Aviv? No. I didn't think so. But you want to know about it, because like the train wreck, you're horrified but you can't look away. That when they take a break to urge you to talk to your doctor about Viagra.

The Clinton-Lewinsky "scandal" was reported because the networks knew we wanted to hear about it. We loved hearing about the infamous cigar. Even the Democrats loved it. It was nobody's business at all, except between Ms. Lewinsky and the Clinton family. It most certainly wasn't Congress' business. But they reported about it.

And we all got to complain. "The Republicans are just trying to make Bill Clinton look bad!" Yes. "The President lied under oath!" Yes. Yes, yes, yes. We were all so happy.

Just a side note here: Democrats, listen to me right now! If you're accused to doing something wrong, corrupt, illegal or immoral, just say "I'm sorry" and be done with it. The Republican's learned this a long time ago... Learn it, live it, love it.

When Newt Gingrich served his wife with divorce papers while she was on her death bed, and then later, used govt. money illegally, the press didn't really glom onto it as much as things the President was doing around the same time. Why? Simple. Newt admitted to it. The news broke, Newt said "you're right, I'm sorry." and the story went away. Just recently, soon-to-be-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was accused of treating some women in an inappropriate manner. What happened? Simple, he said "I'm sorry" and the story went away. Just like that. Again, Rush Limbaugh was accused of being addicted to prescription drug medications after having a VERY hard line on addicts. He said "You're right." and said I'm sorry by going to treatment. End of Story. The only story left for Rush is whether or not he obtained those drugs illegally in any provable fashion. He probably didn't. Rich people get other people to do the illegal stuff, most of the time.

By the way: Rush, if you happen to read this; good luck with your treatment. I mean it. It's some really nasty stuff you got mixed up with, and I wish you the best in kicking the habit.

SO, we all get to complain all of the time. We should be thrilled.

When did thinking for yourself become unamerican?

2004-01-04T23:28:00.000-06:00

The war on terror has created a nation of cattle. Moo.

Suddenly, it is un-American to think for yourself, apparently. People I used to respect have jumped on this particular band wagon, and it sickens me.

Yes, it is in fact possible to support our troops without supporting the "war" on terror. The troops are doing a job that you and I wouldn't do for any amount of money because they promised to. And they are doing it for next to nothing. Less than minimum wage, in most cases, if you include overtime. Because they promised to. They don't care who told them to do what, they go ahead and do it anyway. They may be against the war on terror, but they do the job because they promised to. As an ex-sailor, I can tell you that 100% of the soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else would prefer they not be shot at or killed. But they're out there because they were told to be out there. I will support those men and women. I do NOT have to support the person who put them there.

I'm not being un-American. In fact, I'm being nothing BUT American.

Ben Franklin said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." That is as true today as it was way back then. Over the past 200 years, Americans have been willing to give up their liberties in order to obtain the ILLUSION of security. It happens little by little, item by item. Lately, it's been more overt than usual. The Democrats are trying to court the "Safety Mom" vote for the next election, by promising better safety measures in everyday life. The Republicans (Herr Ashcroft, at the behest of our esteemed President) have started pushing all of the things they've always wanted under the guise of better security.

Examples:

The Department of Homeland Security: This is not a new idea. Hitler had one. North Korea has one today. The only differences between the German/Korean versions and our version are these; 1) We agree in general on the need for this, and 2) We don't have a concentration camp. Wait, on second thought, Guantanamo Bay seems to fit the bill right now.

CAPPS2: Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System - This is the handy-dandy computer system that is supposed to tip off the airlines that you might be a security risk. How? Apparently, aside from seeing if you have an Anglo name that matches a short list used frequently by terrorists, it also checks your credit records. That's right, if you max out your Visa and Discover cards to buy a ticket to your grandfathers funeral, you have an unpaid parking ticket, and your name happens to be David Smith, guess what? You ain't getting on that plane.

The list goes on and on, but frankly, it's late and I'm getting bored. Besides, it sounds like I'm just picking on the Republicans. I'm not. The Democrats are trying as hard as they can to jump on this band wagon.

Let's get something clear here. If someone on an american flight stands up with a box cutter in his hand today, he's going to die at the hands of 200 other passengers. We don't need to screen passengers anymore. NOBODY is going to get away with anything anymore. Bring a gun, bring a Bazooka, bring a Mach 3 razor on board. I don't care. If you brandish any of those things on my flight, I will strangle your sorry ass with my shoe laces if I have to. You will die, even if I die trying.

The elevated levels of security at airports are a joke. They are there to make well-fed white people (voters) feel better. That's it. Nothing more. It is entirely useless anyway. If a guy can MAIL himself from the northeast to the Dallas area in a shipping crate, exactly how hard do you think it would be to mail a bomb? I guarantee you that without buying any special books (which are being monitored, BTW), any combustible materials (which the machines check for) or any equipment on any watch list that I could build a device which would go though screening at the airport without a second look, and surely take a plane down. All it takes is imagination and the desire to do so.

I live in Austin. If you've been to Austin, you've probably been up or down Loop 1, also known a MoPac. MoPac stands for Missouri Pacific, the railroad. The tracks go right through downtown Austin, and continue out to Houston, the Energy Capitol of the world. I haven't seen a single person check the trains that are always stopped on those tracks. How hard would it be to wait for an appropriate payload and attach a bomb to a train? You'd have a choice of targets: Houston or Austin.

Danger is everywhere. If a terrorist wants to do something, he will. Stop worrying about it. The danger is minimal. Almost insignificant.

Now, about the "War on Terror". What war? Is this like the War on Drugs, or the War on Hunger? No thanks. I've had my fill of "War on ...", thankyouverymuch. The War on Drugs has been so incredibly successful. I have to walk all the way downtown to get my drugs now. Before, the dealers used to come door to door, right? These "wars" are economic black holes from which we get no benefit at all. Trillions of dollars spent on the War on Drugs. How, exactly, has it been successful?

And, by the way; if the drugs are still making it into the country, how successful do you think they are at stopping biological weapons from coming into the country? Millions of illegal immigrants coming in every year. And none of them have any luggage at all. SUUUUURRRE...... Whoops, there I go, being un-American again and thinking for myself.

Willie Nelson put out a song just recently criticizing the war on terror. It's all over talk radio. "Is he right to do this?" Blah, Blah, Blah. I say "Bravo, Willie!" I may not agree with everything you say or stand for, but I'll be God-damned if I'm going to let someone call you un-American for voicing your opinion.

More later.

Okay, I am obviously NOT at Texan....

2004-01-04T00:59:00.000-06:00

Here I am, living in Austin, and I am an alien. I'm not from around here.

This is painfully obvious by one simple fact: I own not one single item in "burnt orange". That is to say, I am not a Longhorns fan. I'm not a football fan at all, and if I watch football, it's the NFL, not college football. It most certainly is NOT high school football.

People in this state go nuts over football. Even high school football. They build multi million dollar stadiums for high school football here. One town in the eastern part of the state annexed 31 square miles of unincorporated land just to get one kid to have to go to school at their high school. The parents didn't ask for this. The town did it while they were on summer vacation. Why? Because they needed this kid to be a running back for thier football team. Madness.

UT changes head coaches more often than they change students. They get somebody to sign a contract for a gazillion bucks over a decade, and then can him two years later. Why? Because he didn't make it to the Rose Bowl, or the Nacho Bowl, or the Chicken Fiesta Bowl, or some such meaningless game.

Don't get me wrong - I can appreciate a good game just as much as the next guy. For example, I root for the New England Patriots every chance I get, but I do NOT bitch, whine and generally complain when they don't win. It's expected. My life does not revolve around a bunch of overpaid jackasses shuffling down a field, trying to move a brown ovoid and hurt each other. Or any other type of ball, for that matter.

When the Patriots won the Super Bowl (for the first time ever) on February 3rd, 2002, I didn't see a single throw, punt, grunt, hit or drop of the entire game. First time they've ever won the Super Bowl, and I didn't bother to watch it. Why? Simple. My son was born that morning. That is the ONLY reason I know what date that game was. It just doesn't matter.

Okay, so you've hung with me this far, and you're saying "what's his point?"

This past week, the Longhorns went to the Holiday Bowl. I understand they lost. From 6:00pm to 7:00pm every Monday through Friday, Jeff Ward and Ed Clemmens on KLBJ 590 talk about sports. Well, Ed was out and so another guy sat in. All Jeff and this guy talked about was whether or not Mack Brown (the Longhorns' head coach) should be fired or not.

Can someone tell me why it matters one lick what the performance of the Longhorn's football team is?
How does this affect the performance of the school overall?
How does having a winning football team improve the quality of education for it's students?
What, exactly, is it about the football team that makes it worth paying a coach $1.45 MILLION dollars over 10 years?
How has Mack Brown added $14.5 Million Dollars to the University's coffers?

Never mind the salaries of the other coaches, aids, team doctors etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum....

The University is still paying for John Mackovic's contract, and now people want to pay for Mack Brown's contract as well as a new head coach? Are they soft?

Somebody, please, explain it to me in terms I can understand......

2003-12-10T09:42:00.000-06:00

Welcome to Wellduh! Here I will talk about some of the things going on in our world and provide an OPINION on why it's stupid, will be stupid, or the solution is other wise obvious. I may from time to time also put in little bits that amuse me or are otherwise interesting to me.