California's Proposition 8

Now, isn't this surprising--leftists acting like the perpetual children they are when they don't get their way.

Just in case you've not heard, after California decided (for a SECOND time by democratic vote) that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman, there were protests and marches. This of course included the usual arrests and vandalism (the protesters were seen banging on doors, walls and climbing on cars--all of which can be construed as vandalism because they damage property).

Of course what gets me, is that the protesters were carrying signs which read:

We All Deserve the Freedom to Marry

Color me confused, but I could have sworn that every one HAD the freedom to marry. They just couldn't marry someone of the same sex. The same way someone can't just marry a dog or a telephone pole.

Of course you still have Mayor Newsom out there jumping up and down trying to get the definition overturned as lawyers for the city of LA, San Fransisco and the ACLU jumped into action. But I do have the question: When are we going to stop allowing our politicians to actively try and thwart the will of the people?

Let's face it, I don't agree with who was elected President (and for the record, if McCain had gotten it, I'd still not agree with it), but you don't see me out there saying we need to do away with the voting system, and that we need to ignore the will of the populace.

But, I'm not a Liberal, so I can't do that in good conscience.

I can't use the courts to create laws for me, because I believe that the courts shouldn't be doing that. I can't use the courts to create laws for me, because I firmly believe that it is a gross misappropriation of power on the courts part, when they granted themselves that ability. After all, the Constitution I read stated that Congress is the folks who writes the laws.

But again, I'm not a Liberal so there are just things that I can't do in good conscience.

Alas, what's a soul to do?

Newsgroups and N.Y. Attorney General

Before I begin this let me state unequivocally that I have no interest in child pornography, I don't search for it, I don't peruse it and I do not advocate it.

So, with that disclaimer out of the way, I have to say that what New York's Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo , is doing is evil. Fox News has an article on Cuomo and his decision against Comcast news in that:

New York's attorney general notified Comcast Corp. on Monday that the state will take legal action if the company — the nation's second-largest Internet service provider — doesn't agree to eliminate access to child pornography.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo wants major Internet access providers to agree on steps to remove certain newsgroups that contain child pornography and purge their servers of Web sites that contain child porn.

I'm a bit flabbergasted at the sheer idiocy of the New York Attorney General's office. How exactly does he plan on Comcast (or any other ISP) on eliminating access to child pornography.

After all, the only sure-fired way is to eliminate internet access except to very specific websites. Which as we all know, Comcast wants, and encourages, but as a Net Neutrality advocate I can't agree with.

What this does is merely creates a precedent where Comcast and others are able to filter access to the internet based on the possibility that child pornography exists on that particular service.

Don't like BitTorrent? Hey, there's Child Porn, so we've gotta block it.

Don't like AIM? Hey! There's Child Porn, so we've gotta block it.

Don't like GOPHER? Guess what's out there? Child Porn! Gotta block it.

Don't like all those pesky Blogs on LiveJournal or WordPress? Hey look! Child Porn! Time to block it.

Amazon.com is hurting your business? Hey look! It sells Lolita! That's Child Porn masquerading as classic literature! And *gasp* even worse, they sell Pretty Baby! That's a movie! It lacks even that pesky classic literature tag! Ban them from the 'NET!

If this type of activity continues, and the ISPs become controllers of what their end users see or don't see, then the concepts which the internet were built upon are in fundamental danger. The thought that all traffic is the same, that every packet that passes through an ISP's hands should be as anonymous and as important as any other packet is in danger.

The Internet was hailed as a great tool of democracy and free speech.

These types of rules endanger that concept. They in effect struggle to turn this tool of free speech into something twisted and dangerous. These rules try to actively stifle free speech.

These rules try to actively control what you see and do.

Frankly, that's not a power that I want in Comcast's or any other ISPs hands.

And it's definitely not a power that I want in the government's hands.

Eight Reasons...

PC Magazine's website has an article up concerning eight reasons why we should have metered internet.

So, without further ado, here's my personal rebuttal on just why he's wrong on those reasons.

Elimination of bandwidth caps, restrictions, and throttling.
Ultimately, that's what metering is. It's bandwidth caps, restrictions and throttling, except that if you happen to go over, you get slapped with huge fines.

Promotion of higher speeds.
Only if the user is willing to pay for it. A weak argument if you ask me, especially in light of the fact that it fails as a possible model. If a user is being charged for length of time online, then why would the network providers be willing to increase the speed?

Moderate users would pay less than they pay now
And?

Download junkies would pay for their habit
I actually pay for my habit now. I pay more for higher bandwidth speeds than those that don't want that. And the all-you-can-eat buffet fails here as well. The costs associated with a few people who consume extreme amounts, is more than offset by those who consume moderate (or less) amounts.

Spammers pay more for junking up the Web
No. Those people who are not knowledgable enough to not have their machines turned into zombie-bots (or any other type of bot) end up paying more for junking up the web. Additionally, this would curtail such efforts as SETI@Home or the Human Genotype project which used excess bandwidth and CPU cycles for processing large information sets.

Elimination of the net neutrality issues
The author of the article believes that all these issues will go away, and he's right, they will be because all the reasons for having net neutrality will have been implemented. Net Neutrality insists on all network traffic being the same. Once you have metered internet it is a simple jump to having different tiers of which types of bandwidth you can use. You can have 100 Megs of UDP traffic, and 1Gig of HTTP traffic, with it coming from ABC Domain at X speed, and everywhere else and Y speed.

Development of IPTV mechanisms
Yes, I only get 10Megs of Internet a month, so I want to spend it on internet television.

Energy savings (aka "green")
Now, this is just stretching for things. If I don't turn off my PC or Modem now, and I'm considered a moderate user, why would I change that behavior if moderate users would not be affected by going to metered access?

Additionally, one needs to define a moderate user? As an IT professional, my definition of moderate usage may be different than someone who works at a general store, and just uses the Internet to check their email. I need that bandwidth, especially if I work from the house, and have connected to either my office's network, or a client's network via VPN. And would a VPN connection get metered twice? Once on my end, and then again on the other?

No, unlimited connectivity is not an unsustainable concept, nor should it be looked to as an answer to any of the issues raised by the article in question. And in fact makes some of the worse (I'm looking at the SPAM and the Net Neutrality bits right there). Metered Internet is just another effort by the Cable Companies to change what has become the standard way of accessing the internet into something more like their current customer-hostile business model which provides packages of a hundred and fifty channels, of which the customer really only wants a dozen or two of.

Food Fight!

The simple joys of life are fairly well and truly dead. Especially for children. Our schools have become war-zones, where if a child has the audacity to protect themselves, they are suspended if not outright expelled.

Additionally, such childhood rights of passages as the simple food-fight are now arrest-able offenses. An unattributed story on the WLBT Channel 3 website states:

A food fight leads one Jackson public school to recommend several students be arrested and suspended.

According to JPS, a food fight started around noon Wednesday at Peeples Middle School on Treehaven drive. Eleven students participated and the fight lasted under thirty seconds.

Fourteen students were recommended for arrest and all were recommended for suspension. There are only two full days left of school this year.

Let's put this into perspective here: a bunch of middle school students (as in pre-pubescent to just barely pubescent kids) had a food fight. Eleven participated, while fourteen were suspended and recommended to be put up for arrest.

To start off with, how exactly did more people get punished than participated? That's the first utter and total stupid thing that I'd like to know.

But even going beyond that, since when did childhood pranks warrant an arrest? I can understand the participating students being suspended. They broke the rules, and as such should be punished. Personally, I think a half-dozen or so Saturday detentions would work better, but what can one do about that. At the same time, I have to firmly believe that the officials in this scenario are taking things way too far.

These kids do NOT deserve to be arrested. Who didn't participate in at least one food fight growing up?

What is wrong with my generation, and the generation before me that we feel the need to suck the life and joy, and the sheer utter childhood-ness from our children's childhood?

What is wrong with school officials that zero-tolerance policies are more important than common sense.

Oh, right, busy-body Leftists.

I mean, a set of policies have GOT to be bad when even Lawyers are saying that these things are counter-productive. Consider this quote from this article:

"Schools are confusing equal treatment with equitable treatment. . . . Kids in middle school and high school care most about fairness. When they see two students whose 'offenses' are vastly different being treated exactly the same, that sense of fairness is obliterated and replaced with fear and alienation."

An attorney said that, in an American Bar Association article. The article goes on to state how Zero Tolerance policies even contravene the ABA's non-discrimination rules. So not only are Leftist oppressing our children through these policies, but they're actively fostering an environment of fear and alienation as well as subtly discriminating against minorities, especially those of the African-American persuasion.

How's that for Zero Tolerance. Then of course is the fact that the teachers and administrators are rarely, if ever, subject to the same Zero Tolerance style of punishments.

What is left? How can we fight these zero-tolerance nightmares?

It's simple, we just have to vote in common-sense back to our governments. We can start with Ron Paul

The Air Force wants your machine

In something of a frightening follow up to my last post, I stumbled across a HIGHLY interesting article on WIRED today. One entitled "Air Force Aims for 'Full Control' of 'Any and All Computers.'"

Maybe because I just read Little Brother yesterday, but I'm horrified at the concept of this.

Basically, what they are wanting to do is build a BOTNET, which sits behind the scenes on your PC, until it is called forth to wreck havoc on the online world. For a more detailed description, I direct your attention to the Wikipedia.

While I can see allowing my CPU to be used for distributed processing by such organizations as SETI@Home, I cannot see myself allowing the United States government the same type of access to my machine.

First and foremost, once they do have access, what is to stop them from installing keyloggers, rootkits or other forms of malicious software?

Why do I worry over such things? Am I trying to hide something?

No. But THAT DOES NOT MATTER.

The machine belongs to me. It is mine, to do with as I please. My belongings can be neither searched nor seized without proper authority by a Judge. That's a Constitutional mandate; despite the fact that the so-called Patriot Act allows for sneak-n-peek searches.

The only bright point, if it can be called that, in this whole fiasco is that their goal is unattainable. The Air Force is wanting to spend $11 Million in an two-year study to determine the information necessary to accomplish this. Which is a joke, since within two years of the study being finished, all the findings and information collected will be essentially useless.

Now one can understand why at best, it's a very dim bright point.

I still find it hard to believe that the government of Jefferson, Washington and Franklin has stooped so low.

Wal-Mart Made My Wife Cry

I am irate.

No, scratch that, I'm beyond irate. Irate is what I get whenever Wal-Mart accuses me of stealing when I'm walking out of the store with a large box of diapers that I've paid for--and they insist that I submit myself to their inspection.

This goes beyond that, by an order of magnitude.

Apparently, Wal-Mart has a new policy in effect for the Madison area. Basically, as you come into the store with returns, they force you to submit to an inspection of your property that you're taking back into the store for a refund. What happens is that the door greeter takes a horrendously long time in scanning each and every item to create a number of stickers which they print out and attach to the items.

My wife probably wouldn't have been as distraught over this act if she had not been returning some undergarments.

Basically, this is how the trip went tonight.

We walked in, and waited at the door for one of those stupid pink stickers. The greeter informed us of a new policy, which involved a scanner and a printer and the fact that we had to take every item out of the bag we had it in.

Like I said, this wouldn't have been something that horrid, except my wife was returning undergarments. So this greeter forced my wife to more or less debase herself by having her take out all theses underwear not only in front of the MALE door greeter but also in front of the half-dozen or so male customers and employees who were loitering in the foyer area.

When my beloved made the simple request that he pull the printer and scanner around the corner to hide it from the other men, he refused and said he had to be in front of the camera.

Which confounded me, as I know that there's no camera in the foyer area. So I asked him what camera, and he said the black one on top of the door.

Which looked kind of like this:

Yes, that is a sensor from the automatic doors.

After I questioned him about the utter idiotic statement that there was a camera hidden in said device, we finally received the blessed Wal-Mart approval to head to the "Customer Service" desk.

Now, I was thinking, hey, this junk has already been scanned once, there shouldn't be a need to scan it again.

Boy was I wrong.

We get to the counter, my wife tearing up at this point, and I instantly ask to see an Assistant Manager. So, imagine my surprise (or lack thereof actually) when the Wal-Martian had to scan every item in my stack of stuff (as we no longer had them in nice bags).

So, I'm storming, and my beloved wife is trying to keep me from chewing out the poor CSR. When the assistant manger FINALLY shows up (for the record we stood there maybe 5 minutes, but when you're as beyond-irate as I was that does seem like forever) my wife tells him the story, and one kind of expects apologies from the assistant manager over what is in effect a stupid policy.

Again, boy was I wrong.

Which is highly odd, because I remember having to jump through hoops--and not always proverbial ones--to appease irate customers when I was a Wal-Martian, but I digress.

So, as you can see, it was a fun evening, and I'm still beyond irate. Not only did this policy make my wife cry, which made me angry beyond belief, but the process doubles the time it takes to make a return, as each item has to be scanned twice.

I can admit, we've cut back on the amount that we've been shopping at Wal-Mart. After all, Kroger is not that much more expensive and it's closer. Yet there were still things we purchased there--including those boxes of diapers that I'm constantly getting searched over.

Well, at this point, that's enough. Not even the joy of making the idiotic door greeters squirm when I tell them that they are in effect accusing me of shoplifting by requesting me to submit to a search can entice me to return to Wal-Mart now.

I'll drive an extra 10 miles down the road to go to Target.

Actually, I won't even need to drive extra, there's one I can stop at on my way home from work.


At this point, the only thing that will get me back into Wal-Mart is if I go there, buy 100 of those dollar hot wheels, and then turn back around and return them.

At least if I did that, then the door greeter would be tied up with scanning that he couldn't accuse folks of shoplifting.

Anyways, for more reading on the joys of being treated piss-poor by Wal-Mart then you can read this:

• Wal-Mart Holds Your Credit Card and ID Hostage When You Complain
• Walmart Calls You An Idiot, Tells You To Shut Up And Never Come Back
• Walmart Saves You $10 By Refusing To Sell You Anything
• Walmart Stops You And The Assistant Manager For Refusing To Show Receipt
• Detained And Harassed At Walmart For Not Showing A Receipt

The Housing Balloon

The Senate OK'd a bill that would 'help' thousands of home-owners who made the brilliant decision to use Adjustable-Rate and other exotic mortgages. Why do they need this so-called help? Because these exotic mortgages have a bomb built into them. They start their life out as low-interest loans, and after a few years of getting payments applied to them, their interest rate explodes, leading to higher payments. Additionally, the House has already passed a version of the bill, which means that now both sides of Congress will need to hash out the differences and re-vote before sending it onto the President.

Let me be up front with everyone: I do not like this bill.

I firmly believe it is both unconstitutional and goes against the fundamental concepts of the free-market upon which our society is built.

How can I say this? Is this some evil grinch in me that wants to see people lose their homes? Of course not. I feel bad for them. A little at least.

Yet, these people willingly chose to enter into those loans. They KNEW that the interest rate was going to blow up on them, yet they went into the loan anyways. On the other side of things, the various financial organizations which made those loans also knew that once those rates increased, then the borrowers would be unable to make the loan payments.

How exactly am I supposed to feel bad about people who make informed decisions, even if those informed decisions are not in their long-term best behavior?

Why exactly should our government be trying to help out either people or business who made decisions on their own, about their own finances, and are now effectively in that proverbial lake?

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer opined this about this particular bill:

be a source of salvation for those families who were tricked into unaffordable loans

Do what? How exactly were these people tricked? I don't know what type of loan they signed, but my mortgage has the interest rate, including the fact that it does not change, clearly written on the contract I signed. There is no way that these families were tricked into purchasing such a loan--to imply that is at best to be trying to hoodwink the public into accepting another government handout to cover people's own stupidity. And if they WERE tricked into an ARM, by the mortgage lender not disclosing the fact that it was an ARM, then there are already statutes on the books to deal with fraudulent lending practices.

No. This is merely a bailout of people too stupid for their own good, companies too greedy for their own good, and the Federal Reserver which is responsible for it all, by forcing us to go to a wishes-backed currency rather than the gold standard.

Timeless Morality

Time magazine has a "Morality Quiz" up on their website at the moment. Oddly, they take their approach to Morality from an odd source. Consider this quote which is at the top of the article:

The deepest foundation on which morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy, the understanding that what hurts me would feel the same way to you. And human ego notwithstanding, it's a quality other species share.

I'm confused. I have NEVER heard of morality having anything at all to do with empathy. The encyclopedia gives three principle meanings to morality

1. morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.
2. an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions.
3. synonymous with ethics, the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.

The dictionary is simpler, it gives these as definitions:

1. concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
   
2. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
3. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
4. Virtuous conduct.
5. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Yeah, where exactly does empathy have anything to do with morality there? And just to be fair, let's look at the definition of empathy:

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another

Let's say this again, empathy has nothing to do with morality. Whether I understand what hurts you would feel the same to me is quite irrelevant to the moral decision to do something. Of course, using the simplified morality quiz provided by Time, one has to wonder if morality is anything above and beyond life or death situations. These are some of the scenarios they provided:

• Could you kill a baby to possibly save the life of a group of adults?
• Could you kill an injured man to possibly save the life of a group of adults?
• Could you save kill a man to definitely save a group of adults?
• Standing close enough to push that man forward, could you kill him to save a group of adults?
  

Then all the possible answers are "Kill them!" or not. There are no options for sacrificing ones self in order to save all the others. Apparently that part of morality just doesn't exist for Time. Understandable, since they are liberals, and sacrifice is an abstract concept to them, which can only be imposed upon others, not something that wells up from within.

Truthfully, I'm uncertain why this quiz annoyed me so much, yet it did. Maybe it's just my ornery nature. Or maybe, I'm just getting older, and less willing to flow with the annoyances of socialistic policies and ideals which try to subvert tried and true methodology and ideology.

So, here's the scenario:

An out of control trolley is heading down a track toward five unsuspecting people and will surely kill them all. You could throw a switch diverting it to a siding, but an equally unsuspecting man is standing with you on a bridge. Could you push him onto the track into the path of the train? Could you do that, killing one to save the other five?

Pick one of these three options:

1. Yes, I could push them onto the tracks (65% on the quiz)
2. No, I could not push them onto the tracks (35% on the quiz)
3. I would jump on the tracks myself (the answer I would have chosen, if it were available)

See? That's how such a question should have been worded. But, maybe that's just me....

Breeding for Stupidity

I'm one of those folks, who firmly believe that if you raise a kid right, he'll go the right way (hey, it's a firm, Biblical principle). Overall, it worked for me. I'm happily capitalistic, pro-privacy, pro-life, a firm believer in small government, and a die-hard Constitutionalist. Additionally, I have a healthy disdain for the government, and anyone who takes the effort to attempt to tell me what the truth is, especially when they do so after repeatedly being caught in partisan lies (i.e. the MSM).

So, imagine my surprise, when I discovered an article on the Blogger News Network discussing those environmentalists who believe it's bad environmental policy to have children. The BNN article points on towards an article from the Daily Mail (an UK newspaper) entitled: Meet the Women Who Won't Have Babies... Because they're not eco friendly.

Frankly, I was dumbfounded at first. I have always found it hard to believe that there are folks out there who just don't want to have children. It truly does make my head hurt on occasion, as I ponder such things.

Yet for all the various reasons one could use to justify the decision to not have children, the concept of them being "not eco friendly" is just so off the wall, that in my ruminations I had never considered it.

I was flabbergasted; nigh upon shocked speechless.

And, as my wife would love to point out, it takes a lot to do that to me.

Of course, now that I've had a bit of time to consider things, and after reading the additional lunacy which is evident in the comments to said thread, I have to say that I applaud their decision. How could I not?

Especially, if you consider my view of things related to the rearing of children from the first paragraph.

Consider this, if all the nut job liberals stopped having kids, only the kids of us who believe in small government and the Constitution would be around.

Unfortunately, liberty through natural selection isn't fast enough for my taste, as there are enough socialists/liberals out there to make my life miserable today.

Clinton's Las Vegas Trip

The main-stream media is abuzz. The holy grail has been found! Yes, I'm talking about Mrs. Clinton hiding out there in the dessert. It's almost been obscene, as ever since last Thursday story after story of her supposed triumphant debate has flickered across myRSS Reader.

It would be sickening, if not so scary.

Yet, not even the reports that the MSM planted questions for her at the debate could work me up enough to write a rant. At least until I stumbled across MSNBC's latest rave review of her campaign.

HRC: TCB in Vegas. A Conversion Story

A less than surprising (in light of MSNBC's admitted shift Left) endorsement of the Clinton campaign, which starts off with these sentences:

She came, she saw--and she conquered.

After a year of polls, pundits, fundraising, ads, endorsements and "debates," the 2008 presidential election can start to seem like, well, sound and fury, signifying nothing (to coin a phrase). Which is exactly what I expected to find Saturday morning when Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association (SMWIA) in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Now, this is a MSNBC "blog" so it's perfectly reasonable that its author has a pronounced bias, but since it is on a MSM website, one still expects... well journalistic integrity? That post just reeks of "Hey, look at me! I'm an HRC fanboi!" Now I can admit to be a Ron Paulite, and I know that my Constitionalistic leanings influence my writings, and that I'll have a tendency to support anyone who pushes a platform which I like. But, I never claimed to be a news site. This here is a place for me to rant and rave about things without driving my beloved wife batty.

Slightly different venue.

All that aside, that's not what caused me to frown and think up a rant. Rather it was this quote (as Mrs. Clinton discussed the Thursday night debate):

I loved the debate because we finally got into some real issues. For example, my health care plan covers every American. Sen. Obama's doesn't.

In effect, she's bragging about socialism; big government.

It still boggles the mind that anyone would willingly take a handout from the government through the welfare and other social programs, which FDR (the guy that put the initial systems into place) said would destroy this country if they weren't revoked.

I can admit, I hate social welfare programs. They are evil things, and in effect are enforced charity. It is the government, taking money from me to give to someone it deems worthy by some arcane stricture. A modern-day Robin Hood if you will. While Robin Hood is often classified as a folk hero, let us not forget that he was fighting against the high taxes and social ills which big government impose upon us. If eitherObama or Clinton manage to make it into office, this is the future we have to look forward to. Yet another attack against the capitalistic, small-government dream which our Founding Fathers held dear.

Presidential candidates should not be bragging about expanding the Federal government's powers. Frankly, I'm of the mind that attempts to expand Federal powers beyond that which are specifically enumerated in the Constitution should be considered treason. Especially, if that Presidential candidate was already an office holder in the Federal government which forced them to take an oath of office to protect said Constitution (such as bothObama and Clinton did when they became Senators). Let's look at that shall we?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Makes sense. It means that they promised to SUPPORT and DEFEND the Constitution. So, tell me again, how does a Federal Welfare System (or Education System for that matter) support the Constitution? There is no article, section or clause which grants the Federal government that particular right or ability, and as we all should know by now, any right not specifically given the Federal government is reserved for the States and the citizenry.

Just one of the many, many reasons why I'm voting for Ron Paul.

The joys of Comcast Cable.

I'm moving.

Yup, I've left Pensacola, FL, and have set up house in Madison, MS. Surprising, I now, but it happens. Of course, with the move, means a new cable company has to be utilized for TV and high-speed internet. Much to my unending annoyance, that particular cable company is Comcast.

The first time I stumbled across Comcast was when one of their Santa Rosa county customers managed to transpose a few digits on their bank account when they were paying their bill. It took me a couple of phone calls, the average of which was three hours, plus two visits to their local office (which was about an hour away from Pensacola) before they even seemed to realize that I didn't have an account with them, that I didn't live in their service area, and that they took money from me without proper authorization. At which point, they told me that I had to deal with the bank about it, despite the fact that the bank was pointing me towards Comcast.

So, it was with that bias, and let me tell you, I was quite irate at Comcast for quite a while for that, that I went into setting up cable access with the move.

Well, the first thing I did was I went to their corporate website and ordered digital cable and highspeed internet. I ground my teeth as their website told me that because I was a new customer, I couldn't connect my highspeed internet myself (after all, it's such a confusing process of plugging a cable cord into the cable modem). Yet, I accepted this blatant desire for more of my hard-earned money, and ordered anyways.

At which point, I discovered that they couldn't find the address in their national database of addresses. Apparently, they don't use Google Maps.

Well, after the incredibly unhelpful Customer Service Rep on their little "Online Chat" thing tells me this news, he then proceeds to tell me that I've to either call their local office or go in person to the local office, because they can't look up anything on Google Maps.

So, with my eye twitching, I filled in their survey, restraining myself from telling them exactly what I was feeling at the moment, punctuated as it would be with various and sundry words that I try my best to not say, and would spank my child for saying, and put ordering cable off, because I had to pack.

Well, today, we closed on our house, and found ourself with a few hours in which to go about doing those tasks we had to do in person. Since I despise with a passion talking to people on the phone, we chose to actually visit the local Comcast office.

Let me reiterate a point here: I HATE talking on the telephone.

I despise it with nigh upon every fiber of my being.

I would rather watch a Law and Order marathon.

Heck, I'd rather have toothpicks shoved under my fingernails.

So, now that I've made my feelings regarding phone conversations clear, let's tell you what I was expecting to see.

The Cox cable local office in Pensacola has a nice, wide lobby. To one side are the payment windows. To the other side, there are this little cubicles for folks setting up service, who have problems, etc. I was expecting something like that.

After all, I'm trying to give these people $120 a month for various services and rentals, and that's before the taxes and fees that the government adds in, so I would expect to be able to talk to a real, live person, in the flesh. I mean, that's customer service.

So, we walk into the Comcast office and this is the sight I am greeted with.

• Directly ahead, a bank of televisions set into the wall, and a rent-a-cop dozing off on a stool
• On the wall to the right, a door, next to the rent-a-cop, and a phone, and a table with various papers
• Looking left, I find three tellers, and those corral things creating lines for the tellers.

My entire body tensed, but I had faith that this company was created by reasonable people, and they knew that folks liked working in person.

Sometimes, my hope in humanity comes out at the worst possible moments.

I walked up to the teller, and nicely tell her, "Hi, I'd like to set up service."

In what can only be in the most bored, and disdainful way possible, she whispers (because I sure couldn't hear what she was supposed to be saying through the plate glass window she was hiding behind) something about that phone on the far wall.

A phone.

I wanted a person! Is that so hard? I had questions about the hardware I wanted to ask. I wanted to know about just why I had to pay that outrageous fee to have someone come out and connect a cable line to a cable modem. That's all he should be doing, because there's no way that I'm allowing them to install any software on my machine. Cable internet should not need software on my machine. If it does that's a problem on their end.

But, is it so hard to get a real, live person?

Not that evil device.

So, I walked over to the phone, my wife trailing after me. In my most happiest voice, the one I save for just these types of situations, I muttered (and amusingly enough, the place had great acoustics, so my mutter echoed), "Cox lets you talk to a real person."

At which point my wife hushed me and picked up the infernal device and started punching in numbers supposedly in order to talk to someone.

After a bit, a voice comes on the line (I'm still not convinced it was a real person on the other end), and the wifey tells them we want service, and gives them our address.

At which point, we're once more told that our address doesn't exist in the national database.

At which point, I was beginning to wish that me and the wife both didn't despise satellite television.

So, we have that all settled, at which point, the voice on the phone asks us to give them directions to the house.

...

I thought they had the internet. Isn't that what Google Maps is for?

My wife stuttered a few times, and then handed me the phone, explaining tot he voice that I was her husband and could probably give directions.

I so wanted to ask them why they couldn't use Google, but I bit my tongue, and reminded myself that I want to give these voices on the phone $120 a month for various services and proceeded to describe in vague details how to get to our new home.

At which point she asks me what color it is.

Apparently, "Brick" isn't a good enough answer to that question.

And I'm also supposed to have counted the number of houses from the corner it was, even though I've only been to the place a dozen times or so.

So, now that I've drawn blood, and gave these directions (though it would have been a smarter choice for her to look it up on Google, because though I know how to get to the house, I'm still not sure how good my directions were), I find out what I'm giving directions for.

It's an inspection to see if they can even bother to schedule an install.

And how long pray tell will this visual inspection of the house take (and by visual inspection, I mean they come out, and literally look at the house to see if it has a cable connection), well, the voice on the phone is "hopeful" that we should hear something back by Monday or Tuesday, but it could possibly take up to five or six business days.

Five or six days to come out and look at the house, so that we can actually talk about having cable installed.

I could feel my eye beginning to twitch.

Do these people not realize that I want to give them $120 a month for various services and products a month for a number of years? We're talking thousands of dollars for my and my family's mindless entertainment. I want to give them money, and they're talking about inspections and cable drops.

And she never even gave me an estimated time to schedule the installation after the inspection, but I came out of the conversation thinking it'd be another five or six days after the inspection.

Two weeks before I can start giving them $120 a month for services rendered.

Two weeks before I can pay an obscene amount of money for someone to come out and screw a cable line into my cable modem.

And all of that is if I happen to have whatever it is that the cable company is coming to look at my house for.

Who knows how long it will be if for whatever reason my house doesn't.

Did I mention that I actually WANT to pay them money for services?

...

I think hence forth, whenever someone asks me if I have lost my mind (which amusingly enough, happens with startlingly regularity), I'll have to reply, "Well, I'm using Comcast, ain't I?"

We respect what you're saying - so shut up!

I've often mocked the so-called religion of peace in here. Too often, these peaceniks want to kill and maim for the grievous sin of not being just like them.

Case in point, a recent attack against Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen. On August 9, 2007, she was attacked during the launch of her latest book. What it amounted to, was a group of Muslim men got together and decided to pelt her with bouquets, flower pots, shoes, chairs and pretty much anything else that wasn't tied down. Luckily for her, she wasn't family to these men, because then they would be 'honor-bound' to have actually killed her.

Of more interest is that three of her attackers where Members of Legislative Assembly of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, which is a Muslim political party over in India. One of these three is quoted as saying, "We are not bothered about our MLA status. We are Muslims first. And its our responsibility to test those who have said anything against Islam in which ever way possible."

Yeah, that's reasonable behavior for you. We don't like what she says, so forget the fact that we're supposed to be leaders in our country, let's go lynch this girl!

Sadly, that alone wouldn't have gotten me ranting. After all, Muslim treatment of women as chattel is well documented. Muslim violence against non-Muslims is well documented. No, what got me ranting this morning, was this statement by Delhi Minorities Commission chairperson Kamal Farooqui:

The government should immediately cancel her visa and make her go out of the country, she should realise that this is not Bangladesh or Pakistan, but India where the sentiments of all communities are respected.

Does Kamal Farooqui even realize the utter stupidity, and non-logic of that statement? In two sentences, he totally contradicts himself. First he says that she needs to get out of India because of what she writes, and in the very next breath he says that the reason for this is because, hey, this is India, we respect the sentiments of all communities here.

Apparently, all communities doesn't include Taslima Nasreen.

Need Help? Ask Big Brother!

Anyone that has talked to me about government welfare programs know my opinion about them. They're evil, and should be banned. Immediately. They have no place in our society, nor should they be allowed under the Constitution of our increasingly socialist country.

Or to put it into internet lingo: welfare = teh 3vil!!1!

Now, that that's firmly out of the way, imagine my surprise when I was coming back from lunch, and heard an advertisement on the radio. It talked about how when you need money, you know what the sound of help is - followed by the sounds of someone swiping a credit card through one of those scanners. They then go on about how welfare now has these handy-dandy debit-cards as opposed to the old fashioned stamps, and that you should call their 1-800 number because, hey, you to might qualify to live off of my taxes.

So, we have this evilness of welfare, and not only are they stealing my tax dollars to give to other people, but they're also using those tax dollars to advertise the program, so that they can justify giving more money away to people who did not earn it.

When did our government become this huge entity that felt it was okay to play Robin Hood? And then to waste money by advertising the programs?

What's your name? 4Real!

Okay. First off, the article of the day: NZ parents may lose battle to keep baby '4real'

So, the basics are, there's this couple in New Zealand who wants to name their munchkin 4Real when it gets here. Why? Because they had some odd epiphany that they were pregnant, and it was, according to them, some type of "for real" moment.

Stupidity of that statement aside, the problem comes in that the New Zealand has some type of government agency which polices what parents name their children.

Let me start off with saying that I think it's incredibly stupid that someone would want to name their kid 4real. I also wouldn't name my child Apple, Pilot Inspektor or any of the other insane things parents tend to think up these days.

If the kid in question wishes to take an internet handle of 4real when he's older, that's fine. That's the internet. To stick this innocent child with what is effectively an internet handle as his name, for his entire life, well, that's just sick.

Of course, the concept of a government agency telling you what to name your child is even sicker, in my opinion at least.

What right does the government have to tell these parents that they must name their children something specific.

To me, it is just more socialist, big-government evil, which seems to infect the entire world these days. If these parents want to call their children anything, it should be allowed them. They're (supposedly) adults. It's not like they're hurting anyone (future name-calling from the kid's peers aside). Why on earth, would the government have any interest in stepping in and saying something here.

Which is why I love the fact that we have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to protect us here in the States from such abuses of power in the hands of the Federal government.

That said, Federal Judges, don't necessarily see it that way.

John Edwards wants to drive your company out of business...

Sometimes, I have to seriously wonder what on earth liberals are thinking. Why are fundamental concepts such as the fact that governments shouldn't be paying for certain things so hard for them to understand?

The latest lunacy, comes from a Fox News story posted yesterday (July 29, 07):

CANTERBURY, N.H. — Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says negotiating with insurers and pharmaceutical companies is not the best way to overhaul the health care system.

senator said Sunday.Those groups will not give up their power voluntarily, the former North Carolina

"I've been fighting these people my whole life and have beaten them my whole life," said Edwards, a former trial lawyer. "I think the time to talk to them is after you've beaten them."

Edwards has proposed requiring employers to provide insurance or contribute to the coverage of every worker. The government would pay for insurance for lower income people and subsidize what other families pay.

He also would cap the amount insurance companies can charge for profit or overhead at 15 percent and would pay for the $90 to $120 billion a year plan by repealing President Bush's tax cuts for people who make more than $200,000 a year.

"How long are we going to let insurance companies and drug companies run this country?" he said.

So, his idea is to FORCE small businesses to pay for health insurance, and then for government to pick up the slack.

Which translates into: he wants those people who have good jobs that provide insurance and a decent wage, to pay for those folks who for whatever reason don't.

Ah, socialism. How often you're found on the lips of a liberal.

Frankly, I don't want any of my money to HAVE to go to other people, filtered through government coffers or not. If I volunteer my money, and send a check off to whichever charity that's one thing. For the government to take money from my paycheck for the express purpose of giving it to someone else is the height of evil.

It is theft no matter how you look at it. This Robin Hood syndrome which liberals seem to be inflicted with needs to be gone. Leave my money alone.

If I want to help someone, I'll help them. It's not up to John Edwards to decide who gets my charity.

Edwards: Taxing you just because he wants to

Presidential hopeful, John "Little John" Edwards - you know, the joke that was on the other John's ballot a few years back - has stated that he wants to raise the taxes on the wealthy (this is according to an AP story).

Now, I don't consider myself wealthy. I make a decent (okay, I make a great) wage, but that's offset by the outflow of money I have going on. A car note, my own stupidity in regards to credit as a youngster, and that massive blob of student loans I still have hanging over my head. Well, just because I don't consider myself wealthy doesn't mean that I'm not considered that for the purposes of tax hikes.

What these morons who always want to raise taxes never seem to want to tell you is that these tax hikes against the wealthy begin somewhere in the area of $35K per year. Basically, if you're not living off the government coffers, you're considered wealthy.

Which I guess I can see since they've taken such great pains to ensure that people no longer own land and must give the first three or four months worth of their salary to the government.

It's this concept that they need to tax us all into bankruptcy-in order to pay for more entitlement programs (yeah, I want MY money going to the lazy whelp who refuses to get a job and just keeps cranking out more an more kids)-that keeps me from ever voting Democrat. I can honestly admit that a lot of what Mr. Bush is doing/has done in office scares and sickens me. After all, I'm a firm believer in small government.

But back to Little John, let's look at what he has to say in this quote:

"It's just the truth," Edwards said during a news conference following his speech to the California Democratic Party convention. "It's the only way to fund the things that need to be done."

That makes my blood boil.

Rather than raise taxes, let's kill some of the pointless government programs out there. We don't need a Federal level Department of Education. We don't need government grants to those too lazy to work. In my household we have a simple rule, if we can't afford it, we don't need it. For the first few years of my marriage, we were very, very tight on funds. Yes, me and the Mrs. both worked full-time jobs, but we still had a lot of bills (again, that stupidity thing with the credit cards) - and those jobs weren't the best thing in the world.

Now, I would have loved to have been able to eat steak or lobsters every night. Or have gone out to dinner three, four times a week. But we didn't. We couldn't afford such things. So what did we do? We ate a lot of Gwatney brand hot-dogs and macaroni and cheese and Ramen noodles. Then after I got my next raise and the wifey got a better paying job, what did we do? We moved up to Hamburger Helper. Or more accurately, the generic Wal-Mart brand of Hamburger Helper. Even today, I know that we can't afford to have steak every night, so we still cook a lot with ground beef. Yes, the other stuff going into the meat is a lot more and better, but I'm able to feed my family of four for less than $100 a week. Heck, for less than $80 a week.

I mean, one week we had five nights where we ate a dish based on ground meat. I spent $8 on those 5 pounds of meat - the minimum that I would have spent on a roast or a cut of steak. And that's the point - rather than whining about how I can't fund things at the amount of money I'm making now, I modify my buying habits so that what I buy matches how much I make. Amazing how that works, eh?

Sure, I guess I could whine and complain to the government about how I'm not able to provide steak to my kids every night, and the Leftists out there would say, "Well you know, the government owes you that. Why don't you sit back and let Uncle Sam take care of you."

But you know what, I don't think I could live with myself if I did that.

I know I couldn't look my son in the eye and tell him that he needs to work hard at everything he does. I know I couldn't look my son in the eye and tell him that he needs to be a man and support himself and his family, that HE is responsible for such things.

No new taxes (or better yet, the dismantling of the Income Tax and replacement of it by a National Sales Tax). Smaller government. These are the things that I want to see happen in the government. Unfortunately, neither of the two "big" parties seem to want either of those things. It makes me very interested in the Constitution Party:

Maximizing the Minimum Wage

Well Congress is at it again. They are once more deciding that Market Forces are not enough to run things in our capitalistic society. Yes, it is yet again time for a discussion on raising the Minimum Wage.

Oh joy.

Of course the Liberal side of the blog-o-sphere is ecstatic over this. Or at least they were until House Republicans attached a few riders to the bill, such as lowering the Estate tax, and a Federal Pension bill. Personally I don’t think that even a reduction of the Estate tax is not worth a hike in minimum wage to me. So while the leftie blogs are happy at the potential for a decrease in the price of skilled labor, they are unhappy that the families of the skilled laborers who have died don’t have to give away a huge portion of their life’s savings to the federal government.

The reasons I despise the minimum wage are quite simple. They drive my own salary down. Capitalistic of me I know, but I am a Capitalist through and through. The only reason I get up and go to work everyday is because of that nice paycheck I get. And I have told my bosses this in no uncertain terms. They know without a doubt that I am there for the money, and that is fine with both them and me.

But when we get these increases, I view it as an attack by the Federal government against my livelihood. Don’t believe me?

Then let’s look at some skilled labor versus a burger flipper at McDonald’s. And we’ll not even use college-educated skilled labor for this. An electrician makes somewhere on the order of twenty dollars an hour (this is an average, some jobs get more, some less), and we compare that to the simplified cost of a burger flipper of six dollars an hour. That is somewhere on the order of 333% more for the skilled labor. And that makes perfect sense to me. After all the electrician has spent years as an apprentice before becoming a full fledged electrician, and it will probably be a few more years before they get the higher paying jobs. Now, if we increase the pay which unskilled labor gets to 8 dollars an hour, that drops the percentage difference between skilled and unskilled to a mere 250% more.

While that does not appear to be an extreme drop, it really marks a huge decrease in the purchasing power, as well as the worth of the skilled laborer. Because there are factors besides just that differential between the skilled and the unskilled which affects the purchasing power of an individual.

Minimum Wage Increases are like Tax Hikes, the only thing they do is decrease the GNP. After all, while a large company might consider hiring two or three people at five dollars an hour, they’d come up with a technological solution, which means the need to only hire one at eight an hour. We saw this in the farming industry, and it’s slowly appearing in the retail industry as well (don't believe me? Go to Wal-Mart or Winn-Dixie and look for the 'self-checkout' lanes).

Of course, this is one of the few Liberal Ideas which I would support if they would do it my way. A minimum wage increase, effective immediately, to raise the minimum wage to five hundred dollars an hour for everyone. Oh okay, waitresses can get a mere two hundred fifty still.

If we’re going to slash the differential between the skilled laborers and the unskilled then let’s really kill that, and make it a true level playing field while we’re at it.

And yes, I think that’s a stupidly silly idea. I realize that it would decimate our economy, drive inflation out of control, and make the dollar worth a little bit less than the peso. But I find the entire concept of minimum wage a stupidly silly idea. We’re a free market society, and as such should allow market forces to guide such things as wages and prices.

The Religion of Peace

You know, one day people are going to wake up and realize that Islam is not a religion of peace. It's adherents are fanatics who willingly and happily call for the blood of the innocent.

Need proof? If you've turned the television on, or opened a newspaper, you've probably heard about the cartoons in a Denmark newspaper depicting Muhammad. Which of course means that the Muslims have announced the cartoons as being evil and blasphemy and have called for the heads of the cartoonist and the newspaper editors. Remember that Denmark is a nation which has a free press. Various Muslim nations have called on Denmark to censor and punish the newspaper. Denmark's response was basically "Can't do it, that's not how it works here."

So, what was the reaction of those who adhere to the Religion of Peace? One Muslim is quoted as saying "Slit their [Danes and Norwegians] throats in the style of (Abu Musab) al-Zarqawi," while another is on record stating 'The infidels must know that the coming days will see a bloody war and a series of blessed conquests."

Yeah that's peace for you.

For many years Christian icons have been used in profane and blasphemous artwork, and of course it has upset Christians. We are not particularly fond when an artist puts a cross in a jar of urine and then calls it art (and not just because of the blasphemous aspects of that). Of course when all of Christendom's ire at such things, Christians do not call for the wholesale slaughter of those artists, plus their families, friends, neighbors, country men, and neighboring countrymen.

Of course you have the lefties out there, supporting their decisions to slaughter Danes. President Clinton is on record as saying that Muslim behavior in this fiasco is justified and that the newspaper should apologize for the cartoons.

One has to wonder if the lefties realize that Muslims would just as happily kill those who support the terrorists as they would someone who does not? It does not matter to them, if we support Palestine or not, all that matters is the fact that we are an infidel and they believe we should die for such a grievous crime.

After all, Islam is the Religion of Peace, on the provision that all the infidels are dead.

The Sexual Revolution: Men-1: Women-0

As a guy, I must say that men have finally won the sexual revolution. This is much to the chagrin of fundamentalists (especially the father of little girls) everywhere.

How exactly did men win the sexual revolution? It's quite simple actually. You see, there's a concept out there among the youth of America called "hooking up." A Georgetown University student described hooking up as anything from kissing to sex, while another called it a shallow thing without strings attached. This shift from traditional dating means that women are now actively looking for one-night stands. What is better is that organizations such as NOW and the left-ran schools push this as "progressive" and "liberating." While I was growing up, girls like this were called "easy" or more often "sluts." Men won the sexual revolution because they no longer have to make an attempt to get shallow meaningless sex. Of course NOW doesn't see this because the behavior is labeled "Liberated" rather than "Slutty." Which, of course makes them happy, after all, it's all about the labels.

This is the situation that the feminist movement and sexual revolution has brought to fruition. This is the fruits of their labors. Grand isn't it?

How exactly can we fight this? While I do not have a little girl of my own (which I hope one day to have), I do not want my son growing up in this type of environment, mostly because it is a harmful environment. To truly believe that there are no physical, mental or emotional repercussions to hooking up is irresponsible on the part of everyone.

Of course, harming our children's emotionally is never really at issue with liberals, especially feminists, as all their choices are aimed more at making adults feel better about themselves, than for the psychological welfare of children.

Dating takes a lot of effort. Hooking up, that's easy. It's just one night. No strings. Except that is not how it works. There are emotional and physical bonds formed with whomever you sleep with, especially for women. That's just how God made us. The entire concept of hooking up just screams disrespect for women and for the body. It screams, all I'm after is getting my kicks, you can go….well you get the idea.

Hopefully, my son will never "hook up" with a girl. If he does, I may have to give him some nice old-fashioned corporal punishment, just to remind him that he should be upholding those old-fashioned values of mine.

Anger Doesn't Solve Anything, Violence Does

A judge in Vermont, Edward Cashman, wins my personal enmity. As judges go, he's probably the lowest of the low. As people go, he is basically scum of the earth. It takes a lot to make me truly hate someone, especially public servants. While I believe they are fools and misguided, I don't hate liberals, homosexuals or drunkards.

But Eddie takes the cake.

Why? What has this judge, who lives hundreds of miles from me, done that irks me so?

To know what this judge has done to earn my ire, you must know the story of Mark Hulett. Mark confessed to the repeated rape of a young girl. Mark started this when the girl was 7. Mark continued his abuse and destruction of this poor child for four years. Remember that number. Mark raped a girl, from the time she was 7 until she was 11. Also, remember that I am a firm believer that rape should be a capital crime.

So, we have Mark, after his four years of torturing the innocent, finally arrested, and in front of a judge. He admits his guilt. There was nothing stopping this guy from going away for a long, long time, where he can get rapped for the next 20 years or so. That is there was nothing stopping Mark from a lengthy jail term until Judge Cashman stepped in. The sentence Cashman handed down was 60 days. That's what, 15 days per year of rape.

Yes, that is justice for that poor child.

Of course, when queried, what did the judge say about himself? That he didn't believe in punishment and this quote "We feed on anger, that's not my job. I've got to do something that solves problems. The one message I want to get through is, anger doesn't solve anything."

Sadly, Judge Cashman is not the only stupidity in regards to this case. The Vermont Department of Corrections gave Mark a low risk of repeat offense classification, which among other things means that if he did serve a prison sentence, he would not get sex offender counseling. Which I guess it's valid, for I doubt Mark will go out of his way to rape another little girl repeatedly over a four year period. He'll just rape them for a single year, and then move on to someone new. I mean, this classification from the DoC is just as stupid and inane as the sentence handed down by Cashman. After all, Mark admitted that he rapped this girl multiple times over multiple years. He is already a repeat offender. Just because he was caught only once, does not negate the number of times he violated and tortured this poor girl.

Anger doesn't solve anything. Of course it doesn't, but what I want to know is what does anger have to do with just punishment? There should be no anger in punishments. Consider this, when I give my son a spanking, quite often I'm trying to not break out laughing. I have found whatever misbehavior that my son has performed quite funny. Of course, since he is misbehaving, he still gets a scolding and a spanking. There is no anger on my part during his punishment.

The point is that this judge has failed in his duty. As a criminal trail judge, he should, without anger, apply the punishments which fit the crime an individual is convicted of. Failure to do this is a failure to do his purpose. What is worse is that it sets a legal precedent where individuals who repeatedly rape a young girl over multiple years, can get off with barely a slap on the wrist. One has to wonder why Cashman would want this as a legal precedent, it makes me wonder what type of materials would be found on his PC.

This animal that hurt this little girl needs punishment. If the punishment was up to me, we would, in a fit of happiness, beat Mark to death over a four year period, and force Cashman to be raped repeatedly over those same four years. Mark is a rabid animal, and needs to be put down as such. Cashman, well Cashman is worse.

For The Children

In all the hype and hoopla concerning Mrs. Schiavo there is an issue that is even bigger and direr than that one. We know Congress loves making laws and what not, but I have to say this one does not fall under Congress' purview (though I doubt that will bother them, they love passing laws that according to the Constitution, Congress is not allowed to pass). This is something for each and every state of the union.

Our states need to start imposing death sentences on Child Rapists and Murderers.

How many of our children must we sacrifice in the blind rush to attempt to rehabilitate these monsters? I realize that to the Loony Left (who support pedophiliac organizations such as NAMBLA) that it is just a child, something they believe should have been aborted a while back. Of course to me, I think we need to have these monsters drawn, quartered, shot, hanged, stabbed, poisoned, and castrated. Not necessarily in that order either.

Of course maybe I am biased. After all, I am a father, and would have no compunctions doing such to anyone who harmed my son. Yet I fail to see exactly what's so bad about being biased.

Regardless, we all need to write our state legislatures and demand they instill mandatory death sentences for those who destroy the lives of the most precious, and innocent, among us. We must remember that our children are our future, and they must be nurtured and protected. Letting the monsters that have destroyed a child in the past, free so they are able to do so again is the height of irresponsibility and needs to be put to a stop.

As well, until we get these laws passed, then we need to be vigilant in identifying the sexual predators among us. State Laws require that they register with the police, and that information is public record. Go to the court house, some website, whatever, get that information for your neighborhood and ensure that it is released for all to see. Do not allow these very real boogeymen to thrive in your neighborhood because none knows they are there.

Remember Jessica Lunsford, Samantha Runnion, and all the others who have been raped and killed by these monsters. As well, do not be afraid, but rather be mad. Mad that these monsters have been allowed to destroy so many children over the years. Mad that there are thousands out there ready to do so again. Mad that they can so easily escape the requirements for registration (as Jessica's killer has done). As Jessica's father said, it is now time for these monsters to go away and rot in hell.

Free Speech, Democrat Style

While I would not personally hang a picture of a sitting President in my home or office, I would consider hanging a Presidential seal, or something similar. Of course not everyone shares my sensibilities. Case in point, a business owner in Lancaster County, PA has a photograph of Mr. Bush hanging in his stall. David Stoltzfus owns and operates the Upper Crust stand, when opening his business two years ago, he thought it would do well to display a picture of the sitting President. So he did, and it has been displayed there for two years now.

Of course, now that the Democrats have lost the election (okay, so it should be now that the Democrats were humiliated at the polls) a Democratic City Councilman is up in arms over the picture being displayed. Mr. Nelson Polite (the Councilman in question) went up to Mr. Stoltzfus on November 12 and asked the picture to be taken down. What were Polite’s reasons? Why since this was a public place, there should be no political paraphernalia, and since Mr. Bush did not carry Lancaster County, “it is like rubbing salt in a wound.” At least those are the ones he gave the reporter later on (click here for the newspaper article).

Let’s deal with that first reason to start off with. First, while yes the market may be a public place, Mr. Stoltzfus pays rent, as such he is able to display anything he deems fit. Secondly, our great nation allows us to have no lines on expressions of political speech. That is the essence of the First Amendment. If Mr. Stoltzfus wished to display a mock picture of Kerry and Little John in bed, that is Mr. Stoltzfus’ right as an American.

Of course, that is not the true issue that is affecting Polite. Polite is upset that Kerry lost. Now, in true Democratic fashion, he is trying to throw away anything that reminds him of his dashed hopes. So he’s trampling on the rights of a fellow citizen, Polite as a Liberal and a Democrat are only concerned about the rights of fellow citizens when such rights further liberal and socialist agendas. At any other time, rights are things to be stepped upon. Polite in his demands of city council to legislate free speech says “there should be rules.” Ah, the joys of being a Democrat, if you don’t like something, then you can legislate it to death.

Of course, Polite’s propensity to trample the rights of others notwithstanding, Polite’s comments reveal a deeper issue where Liberals are concerned. That of course is the plight of the offended. On November 12, when Polite first approached Mr. Stoltzfus, he requested that the picture be taken down because it offended him and other city Democrats (ah, that old salt feels good in those wounds). What this translates from liberal speak as is “I don’t agree with what you are doing or saying, so you need to stop.” Whenever a Liberal claims offense for their selves or some other group, what they are saying is that what the speaker is saying they cannot agree with nor can they logically defend their position against it.

The “OFFENSE” label has become the bane of logical discourse, for anything can offend someone, but of course the only people that get to claim offense at the actions or speech of others are liberals and those groups (or more accurately those who vote liberal in those groups) that are classically defined as liberal. Groups that are conservative and members of liberal groups that vote conservative are not allowed to claim offense. Just look at how liberals treat Mrs. Rice and Justice Thomas. Liberals, rather than being proud of what these two minorities have accomplished routinely insult and denigrate them because they are conservative.

Of course the entire appeal of liberalism is that it makes you feel good. It is government through emotionalism, which I consider the worst thing since religion through emotionalism. Of course maybe if enough Liberals learn there is no Santa Claus, they will grow up and stop living by their emotions. Government and business should both be approached with common sense and logic. If Legislation makes you feel better about yourself, then there’s probably something wrong with it.

Why Liberals Hate God

In the aftermath of the 2004 elections, we have heard a lot about the ‘moral’ voters and the religious right. Throughout the entire thing, we get constant bombardment about how evil these two groups are. Think of it this way, those eleven states that denied same-sex marriages (and I still get irked at that particular oxymoron), the battles against the amendments were based upon protecting the ‘rights’ of homosexuals.

What does that have to do with liberals hating God?

Think of this, where do our rights come from?

Could they come from the individual? Does each individual person determine his own set of rights? No, that concept is utter drivel. Rapists have no intrinsic right to rape. Murders have no intrinsic right to murder. See my point? If rights are generated by the individual then anything anyone does is within their rights. That leads to anarchy and oh so many deprivations up to and including rape and murder (of course NAMBLA would probably love the ability to have a right to pedophilia).

So, they don’t come from the individual could they possibly come from the Government? This is the Liberal’s solution. They want everyone to think that rights are endowed upon the electorate by the government. The problem with this is that it is merely an extension of rights are from the individual. The government, especially ours, is merely an extension of some group of individuals. In a royalty that group is a certain family, in a dictatorship that group is whoever led the revolt, and in our society that group is the majority. Of course the major problem with this concept is that if the government gives us our rights, then the government is allowed to remove our rights

So, since rights do not come from the individual nor do they come from the government where do our rights come from?

For that, why don’t we see what our Founding Fathers had to say about the rights they determined that we have (this is from the Declaration of Independence):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

To far away in time, and let us not forget that Mr. Jefferson did not believe in a personal c