Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Such a great way of putting it

Saturday, November 13th, 2004

Such a great way of putting it

Walter Williams weighs in on why we’re such a divided nation. It’s not the water we drink, the air we breathe, the food we eat – it’s the “we”. Read it. It’ll make such perfect sense you’ll wish you thought of it, if you haven’t already thought of it.

On Basketball Towns and Brittle Women

Saturday, November 13th, 2004

On Basketball Towns and Brittle Women

This is a map of California. It is a population-density map, but I embellished it to include, as accurately as I could place them, all the “Hooters” restaurant locations.

Do you notice anything strange about this? Anything at all?

That’s right…if you’re in the Sacramento area as I am, you live in a place with PLENTY enough nose-count and commerce to justify a nearby Hooter’s location, but there’s nary one to be found. You have to drive A HUNDRED MILES to get to the nearest one.

Hooter’s executives have wisely tuned in to this issue and started to do something about it, making plans to build one near Arco Arena. Adding weight to the theory that there is something cultural going on to keep the franchise out of here, a citizens’ committee has formed to fight the move. Why? Rumor has it there is a high school nearby.

Wow, stop the presses. Kids in high school might see some pretty girls.

Hey concerned parents. What’s a Royal Court Dancer? You’ve got them right across the street.

This is all such a red herring. The fact is, women in this location are brittle. By that I mean, they have an idea of what kind of “fun” men are supposed to have, and let’s just say this has more to do with the movies Sandra Bullock makes now than the kind she used to make. “Thou shalt look upon no prettier female than I.” Supply and demand.

I saw this attitude before, in Detroit. Men are annoying; men having fun, looking at pretty girls, are even more annoying. I haven’t seen this anywhere else.

What do Detroit and Sacramento have in common? They’re basketball towns. Hey, it’s just a theory, I can’t prove a thing about it. But I do know basketball towns aren’t healthy mentally. They wish they were football towns, and can’t admit it. For basketball to be the primary spectator sport in a municipality, it seems to do something to the relationship between men and women.

But then again, there are now five Hooter’s locations within 20 miles of Detroit. There goes my theory I guess.

Here’s something people don’t quite get about Hooter’s: It’s actually a very good place to have lunch when you’re on a business trip. It’s CHEAP. The waitresses aren’t just pretty – they’re smart, responsive and friendly too. When you need something they’re all over you, and when you don’t, they buzz off and let you eat. Shoot, skimpy outfits or no, Sacramento could really use something like that.

I’ve seen a lot of Hooter’s waitresses and…uh…their “hooters”. About the size of croquet balls, if that. Nobody’s falling out of their top as far as I can see. It’s not a strip joint, nothing even close to it, so the “I don’t want to explain to my darling baby what a ‘Hooter’ is” is just demagoguery. Fact is, Sacramento can’t have the restaurant because our brittle women won’t let us.

What’s the solution? Maybe as simple as, just ignore all the shouting and yelling and let the damn place in. Women who are so insecure they want to control who all else their men look at, are probably dim enough that they’re just doing what they see other women doing. The cultural stuff will work itself out. The one thing I’ve noticed consistently in my travels is that wherever there’s a Hooter’s, the women are friendlier whether they work there or not. Or who knows, maybe it’s just that I’m in a better mood.

May-December Romances

Saturday, November 13th, 2004

May-December Romances

Patrick Stewart is almost forty years older than his girlfriend.

This means absolutely nothing to anybody anywhere…no relevance to anything. However, it might be useful to you to take note that I’m 20 years older than you, if your name is Lindsay Lohan.

Things That Don’t F@!!*!”!ing Matter

Saturday, November 13th, 2004

Things That Don’t F@!!*!”!ing Matter

These are things some liberal pinheads repeat a LOT, thinking they’re somehow relevant to whatever argument is at hand – usually whether we have a good President or not – but are actually irrelevant. Not only irrelevant, but highly irrelevant. They don’t F@!!*!”!ing matter. Most of them are actually true – but my question is, who cares???

There are a few “Bushisms” in here. You know what a Bushism is, don’t you? They’re things that Bush has said that are thought to be incorrect, either in fact or in opinion. Just harmless, rib-pokin’, good clean fun. Wink wink, nod nod. Hard to remember it wasn’t so long ago, such items were far more malicious and we were being expected to file ’em away until the time came, and pull the lever for “Anybody But Bush.” As if it’s impossible to be a bad president and still say “nuclear,” or a good one and say “nukular.”

#1. President Bush is not as good at public speaking as his predecessor
#2. Clinton could play the saxophone
#3. Vice-President Al Gore kissed his wife for a really long time
#4. We gave weapons to Iraq in the eighties
#5. We gave weapons to bin Laden in the eighties
#6. Rumsfeld shook hands once with Saddam Hussein
#7. When he went to visit the troops over Thanksgiving, the lights in President Bush’s plane were turned off
#8. Former President Carter is building houses for homeless people
#9. Saddam Hussein had his mouth checked by a doctor, and the examination was televised
#10. The PATRIOT Act is being used to prosecute some crimes that are unrelated to terrorism
#11. President Bush went into Iraq instead of chasing al Qaeda from country to country
#12. We aren’t responding to North Korea the same way we have responded to Iraq
#13. World opinion is not sympathetic to our handling of Iraq and the War on Terror
#14. President Bush’s approval rating in the U.K. and other foreign countries, is a little on the low side
#15. “They misunderestimated me”
#16. “Gore Got More”, since the Electoral College is established right in the main body of the Constitution
#17. Texas executes a lot of people and does it pretty quickly
#18. President Bush fell off of a “Segway”
#19. Subliminable
#20. President Bush choked on a pretzel
#21. Enron
#22. Congress didn’t get to see the memos from Miguel Estrada
#23. Rush Limbaugh abused pain killers
#24. Natalie Maines is ashamed that the President is from Texas
#25. It could be dicey trying to support a family of twelve on a minimum-wage income
#26. Strategery
#27. People opposed to the war are having their “patriotism questioned.” (Come to think of it, when, where, by whom?)
#28. After 9-11, you may not be able to fly if you act too much like a pompous hippie dickhead around the security people
#29. Wesley Clark used to be a four-star general (before he got fired)
#30. Schwarzenegger’s father was an Austrian Nazi stormtrooper
#31. John Kerry has very presidential-looking hair
#32. Some illegal aliens work really hard doing jobs you don’t find many fully-fledged (white) citizens doing
#33. Howard Dean appears to be very passionate
#34. Jesse Jackson’s opinion on just about anything
#35. Any proposed statement of fact resting on a statement by someone named Clinton
#36. “The Wage Gap between the Rich and the Poor”
#37. Schwarzenegger may have groped women
#38. Some people may be offended by religious symbols
#39. William Bennett has had a gambling problem
#40. “Flight Suit”-gate
#41. Nancy Reagan may have consulted an astrologer
#42. The turkey Bush was holding on a plate wasn’t real
#43. The Washington Times was founded by the Rev. Sun Yung Moon
#44. Pretty much anything brought to light so far about Dick Cheney or Halliburton
#45. Cowboy boots
#46. David Stockman submitted a proposal suggesting that ketchup is a vegetable
#47. The United Nations did not say “Yes” before we went into Iraq.
#48. Any statement containing the words “Bush” and “Friends,” “Buddies,” “Cronies” or “Pals”.
#49. Any innuendo at all containing the name “Karl Rove”.
#50. “Mission Accomplished”-gate.
#51. There appears to be a gap in President Bush’s service records
#52. Bin Laden hasn’t been caught yet
#53. Our enemies never stop thinking of ways to hurt our country, and neither do we

I’m particularly fond of (have huge red flags raised by) Number 27. Believe it or not, when you voice an opinion and somebody tells you to shut up about it, his attempt to shut you up does NOT validate your opinion. It could still be a stupid opinion. That’s just something to keep in mind for later when you’re arguing with a third party about whether your opinion is valid or not. “I’m having my patriotism questioned for saying this” means NOTHING.

That is not to say the original opinion is not correct. It very well may be. But to connect the subject of other people trying to shut you up, to the validity of your opinion, just makes you look ignorant.

Someone please clue Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins in on this.

Platforms the Democrats Could Dump If They Want to Win

Saturday, November 13th, 2004

Platforms the Democrats Could Dump If They Want to Win

A little something I wrote up after the 2000 elections, added onto after the 2002 midterms, and now it’s time to haul it out again. Yeah, I actually kept track of it through all that time. Palm Pilots are so cool.

And yeah, somehow it’s still relevant. Democrats are still losing. They will continue to lose until they eject as many of these as they can stand to:

#1. “It’s good that we got Saddam out, but Bush should be fired and we should give the White House to someone who never in a million years would have thought of getting Saddam out.”
#2. “You absolutely have a right to work for a paycheck if you’re part of a union, and you absolutely do not if you are not.”
#3. “Where the First Amendment is concerned, ‘establishment’ has to do with simply mentioning religion, but we’re only concerned about Christian religions.”
#4. “America has no right or privilege to defend herself if France doesn’t want her to.”
#5. “A four percent increase over last year, when you were planning to provide a six percent increase before, is a cut.”
#6. “Profits are obscene, unless they are profits realized by a teacher’s union, a trial lawyer, or Hollywood, then they’re OK.”
#7. “The National Rifle Association is a big, powerful, sinister lobby; the Teacher’s Union is not.”
#8. “Ronald Reagan and Bush’s Dad are really bad people for having supported the Taliban against Russia back in the eighties…but James Bond and Rambo are okay, even though they did the same thing.”
#9. “Cops are always liars. Crooks always tell the truth.”
#10. “Everyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty, except for straight guys accused by women of sexual harrassment or date rape.”
#11. “Nevermind about the hundreds of dollars in Federal withholding being taking out of your paycheck before you ever see it…but a fifty cent ATM fee is absolutely outrageous and ought to be outlawed.”
#12. “Everyone who believes in ‘God’ and has the balls to mention it in public, is a wild-eyed puritan zealot who will steal all your condoms.”
#13. “Blacks can’t succeed at anything without help from the Government.”
#14. “It’s okay to fight a war as long as you don’t win it too decisively.”
#15. “Straight guys killing a gay guy is a hate crime, but vice-versa is not.”
#16. “Smoking factories in American cities are bad for the environment; smoking CRATERS in American cities will be just fine.”
#17. “The ends justify the means when we take money away from those who earned it & give it to those who did not; but not when we take out Saddam Hussein.”
#18. “As soon as someone can prove to us al Qaeda isn’t providing health insurance for their employees, we’ll stop being easy on them.”
#19. “A smarmy, jaded five-second sound bite is the perfect forum to debate whether someone’s misfortune was bad luck, or bad judgment. Smart-alecky remarks provide all the thoughtful deliberation needed to settle that serious question.”
#20. “Abortion is not a States’ Rights issue; gay marriage is.”
#21. “Hungry people don’t need high-paying jobs quite so much, as free drugs for their rich grandparents, a global-warming treaty and hybrid cars.”
#22. “Wanna stop terrorism? Stop making people mad, that’ll do it. Osama just needs a little counseling.”
#23. “The reason we went into Iraq, was for the oil.”
#24. “We never had anything to worry about with the WMD – we should have SOMEHOW known that, and not gone in.”
#25. “Saddam Hussein is a harmless little old man…except his CONVENTIONAL explosives are really dangerous.”

Now that the election is over, before I tuck this thing away & let it gather more dust until 2006 I should stick in something about Michael Moore.

There is a VERY real chance the Haunted Tree could have won this election…IF he came out nice and early and said “I have nothing to do with Michael Moore, and I don’t put any stock into any of the absurd things he is saying.” I’m not saying it’s likely. But the chance is there. Spewing out Michael Moore theories during the debates, certainly couldn’t have done much to help him.

Lindsay, need a shoulder to cry on?

Saturday, November 13th, 2004

Lindsay, need a shoulder to cry on?

Sorry to hear about the break-up. Tell me all about your feelings. Have your girl call my girl. We’ll do lunch. Maybe dinner and a movie.

Just plain nuts

Saturday, November 13th, 2004

Just plain nuts

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute…I thought in the “America should not have gone into Iraq” school of thought, you were strictly forbidden from even contemplating anything that had not been absolutely positively proven beyond the shadow of any doubt. I thought you were supposed to prove MORE than what was suggested before you spoke it out loud sans question mark behind it, let alone act on it, i.e., you have to prove Saddam had weapons before you said he was dangerous.

What’s with this stuff then?

The stance taken by Bush and Blair in blowing their trumpets so often spells out two things: first, that they are deep-down uneasy with what they have done, indeed Tony Blair nearly resigned earlier this year and contemplated changing from Anglicanism to Catholicism, which, however noble a quest, reveals that he is troubled inside and second, this Anglo-Saxon Alliance remains and continues to be an insult to the international community which through the United Nations Organization, made one simple request: that Washington and London adhere to international law.

These Bush-haters have throroughly engraved new wrinkles in their brains and I’m afraid if they woke up tomorrow fully intending to think straight again, the process would elude them forever. Bush and Blair blow trumpets? This proves something entirely unrelated to trumpet-blowing?

Soon after we invaded Iraq I found this page which nicely defines your “adhere[nce] to international law,” Mister hyphenated-last-name Pravda guy. In summary, the United Nations authorized member nations to enforce the provisions of Resolutions 687 and 678. Resolution 1441 did not call for additional deliberations or consideration by the Security Council to use force.

Let’s face it: “Illegal under international law” is nothing more than a rallying cry. It has little relation to the truth, and it is not designed to have any such relation at all. You repeat it over and over, people get riled up. Their numbers grow and their anger grows…but not quite enough to win an election. So stick a sock in it.

FINALLY someone gets it…thank you Mr. Krauthammer

Saturday, November 13th, 2004

FINALLY someone gets it…thank you Mr. Krauthammer

I really like Charles Krauthammer. He actually makes a habit of getting things that other people don’t get. The myth of the bigoted Christian redneck.

I wouldn’t call it a “myth” because there are some bigots out there. Not a majority, but Republicans do need to court them somewhat to get their votes, just as Democrats need to court people who hate America to get their votes. But I’ve been looking for someone to notice this and so far no one, save Krauthammer, has:

The way the question was set up, moral values was sure to be ranked disproportionately high. Why? Because it was a multiple-choice question and moral values cover a group of issues, while all the other choices were individual issues. Chop up the alternatives finely enough, and moral values is sure to get a bare plurality over the others.

This is Polling 101 stuff. If there is anyone out there who follows polls just for the fun of it, not making any money doing so, or doesn’t follow them at all, then congratulations. You are excused for not knowing the difference between an aggregate choice that covers several lesser choices, and a singular choice that does not. The professionals who compiled this data, or interepreted the data in the way they have and trumpeted their flawed discovery from the highest mountaintops, don’t have that excuse. They’re paid good money to know better. A pox on their houses.

And can someone please explain to me this scandal that seems to be involved with believing in God and Jesus nowadays? Maybe “Ron” (see below) knows something I don’t.

Fry, you S.O.B.

Saturday, November 13th, 2004

Fry, you S.O.B.

Looks like Americans know how to think rationally again. First a good President is re-elected, and then a guilty person is actually found guilty.

U.N. Withholding documents on “Oil For Food” program

Friday, November 12th, 2004

U.N. Withholding documents on “Oil For Food” program

If you have been following this scandal, you should have all kinds of new disturbing questions raised in additions to the ones you already had by the United Nations’ refusal to release documents. I’ve past my boiling point with the U.N. long ago. Why are we still in this thing? Why not at the very least have a high-profile debate, during our presidential elections, about whether we should get out? This is silly.

I’m really liking this one

Friday, November 12th, 2004

I’m really liking this one

Councilman goes shopping for steaks. Lawyer for the Franchise Tax Board knows the councilman, also knows the councilman has been a Bush supporter and is evidently displeased about this. Lawyer follows councilman around taunting him. Councilman calls cops, Lawyer spends night in the pokey and blames his behavior on medication. I swear, you can’t make this stuff up. http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/11375003p-12289516c.html

Reaching Out

Friday, November 12th, 2004

Essay Completed Nov. 4, 2004:

I heard on the radio, just before President Bush announced that he would reach out to his opposition, that Gallup reports 13% of respondents think the election was fixed. That’s more than 25% of Kerry voters. I know I’m violating a fundamental rule of statistical analysis here, but it seems safe to say there weren’t many Bush supporters in the 13%.

Remember this before “reaching across the aisle.” For every forty noses in the opposition, only thirty of them support democracy regardless of the outcome. The other ten are �fair weather friends� who just want what they want, voting being just a first opportunity to get it. I�d say the ten are sufficiently repugnant to somewhat besmirch the thirty. Why reach out to these guys? Our landscape is peppered with more worthy groups & schools of thought that have been ignored for generations.

The President�s detractors have shown incredible solidarity throughout the campaign. That really must take some doing when their leadership has taken every position imaginable on each issue that surfaced. You could explain this because to a collectivist mindset, solidarity is easy to come by – not so easy to explain the duality of issues on which they have shown the MOST unity:

1. Iraq is the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place; and
2. We have to tax productive people punitively so we can spend money on lazy people.

I�m on thin ice, since a consensus has been formed that there is something terrible about questioning the patriotism of democrats. That seems settled, while left unresolved is whether I even have the right to do this in the sacred theater between my ears. This right is not only in jeopardy, but its continuance is apparently of diminishing concern. Compared, I suppose, to the sacred right of democrats to be thought of as patriotic.

I’m initially reluctant to cogitate on a party that was just defeated so soundly, but that�s logic talking. History, not logic, will dictate that democrats will be just as powerful after their defeat as they ever have been. History, not logic, tells me the principles they follow that led them to this resounding defeat, whatever they are, will continue unmolested. I wish to understand those.

Here’s the itch I can’t scratch: It occurs to me that on a philosophical level, the “Robin Hood” pitch doesn’t have a lot to do with opposing the war.

I�m thinking I could understand the appeal of one or the other of these positions, if I could find an apostate of either, or a devotee of one but not the other. Someone somewhere should say, “I want all rich people to lose their jobs and that includes Saddam Hussein.” Or, “rich people should keep everything they have even if they’re dangerous, like Saddam Hussein.” Problem: I haven’t found one yet. Collectivist loyalty is uncompromising, even regarding agendas opposed from one other.

If you embrace the “help lazy people” mission because you don�t want people starving, I would expect that you would approve of invading the old Iraq, in which there were a lot of poor people who were pretty far from being lazy but suffering terribly nonetheless. Perhaps the “money to lazy people” people are exactly that, and don’t give a damn about truly “poor” people.

Some people support “help lazy people” only because they despise others who are well off. That’s supposed to be fiction, promoted by evil Republican strategists, but it turns out many of the people so motivated are willing to outwardly admit it. In their minds, wealthy people never get wealthy through hard work; wealthy people are simply lucky. These thinkers see themselves as proletariats who are driven into hard, dangerous labor that pays poorly, while the wealthy elite �work� by surfing the Internet, receiving sexual favors in the fax machine closet, and enjoying long, liquid lunches. Of course once rich people get more money they use it to hurt people, whereas the suffering poor people use their meager earnings to selflessly provide for their families. Simplistic thinking is a matter of pride to the folks who subscribe to this.

Well guess what. Hussein didn’t get his cash by swinging a pick-ax. I don’t have much concern to share with these folks about Saddam’s long lunches or whether he was gratified in a closet, but as far as using money to hurt people, that’s been proven beyond dispute. Now, I could understand if a few people here and there support the Government Robin Hood agenda while at the same time passionately opposing the removal of the predominant Sheriff of Nottingham. A few may labor to sustain this contradiction. But an entire voting bloc that encompasses the continent and beyond? No exceptions? None?

There�s got to be a unifying principle somewhere, somehow uniting these opposing objectives. Whatever it is, I�m oblivious to it, while millions of others believe in it passionately. What could it be?

The only link I can think of, try as I may, goes back to questioning patriotism. Sorry about that, I guess. But I notice that these two missions would both generate difficulty for our society, such as it exists today, to thrive. Saddam’s regime, and the uncertainty generated by it, had a confounding effect on our continued existence if not a threatening one. He caused us to delay impeaching a president who richly deserved it, just for starters. And capitalism takes on a burdensome pointlessness in a society of hybrid communism: If the government will take your property on behalf of resentful, envious, under-performing voters, what point is there to earning property in the first place?

I’d like to find a different common motive to these contradictory items, one that can exist in harmony with our nation � at least not harm it. I can’t think of one. Any democrats wishing to “educate” me, you’re welcome to do so.

Meanwhile, Mister President, I respectfully ask you to retract your hand from that direction, or else change the gesture.