Merry Holiday

Time for a Christmas post!

Let me get straight to the point. The idea that wishing somone a merry Christmas is offensive has got to be one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard.

It seems to be offensive on both fronts: for people who don't like the Christianity aspect and for those who feel only wishing happiness for one holiday is unfair to the other religious holidays around that time. (Why no love for Boxing Day?) Either way, people need to lighten the freak up.

I just do not understand what is so wrong with basically telling someone, "On December 25th, I hope you have a good day." It's just a general wishing of goodwill. It's inherently friendly, and the opposite of offending. I mean, do people who don't believe in Jesus want to have a bad day on Christmas? And so what if you're not a Christian? I wouldn't be offended if a Hindu wished me a Happy Diwali. I'd be honored, actually, that they thought to include me in their celebration and well-wishing. It's basically people just saying, "We're going to have fun now, and we want to share the joy with you."

Why do people care if complete strangers do not wish them well on their specific religious holidays? Most people don't even know when Channukah and Kwanzaa actually take place (or how to spell, or maybe even pronounce them). Besides, many Jews don't even consider Channukah to be a major holiday. And Kwanzaa is a made-up holiday, apparently only for black people, anyway. If I celebrated a specifically Scottish holiday, I wouldn't expect Mexicans to keep track of it.

And why is all the argument over this time of year? Where's the offense in not wishing Jews a Happy Passover around Easter? Or on ANY of their major holidays? If Channukah and Kwanzaa occured in August, I don't think anyone would raise a stink about this.

I just love seeing TV stations and such having their graphics that say the obligatory and PC "Happy Holidays" as to be all-inclusive, but the graphic is decorated with wreaths, holly and red and green. Good try.

So why does Christmas get the prominance? Probably because, and this is key, it's a NATIONAL HOLIDAY. Channukah and Kwanzaa are not. When a holiday is a national holiday, it's going to get a lot of public attention. Especially when it has grown past it's specifically religious roots and expanded as Christmas has. Now it's almost just a joyful shopping holiday full of generic happiness.

So if things keep going as they are, Christians may join the ranks of those offended by wishes of "Merry Christmas." Think about it. It may become all about the materialism. And materialism is a sin. And as Christians, sin is at least supposed to offend us, right?

Speaking of the real reason for Christmas, we should all now be hearing the call from pastors for us to celebrate it's true meaning, the birth of Christ, all year round, not just this time of year. But have you ever noticed that they only say that around this time of year? Isn't that a bit ironic? Why are they not checking up on us throughout the year to make sure we still appreciate Jesus's birthday?

Of course, I wouldn't have a problem with wishing someone well on their specific holiday that I don't observe. But that would probably only be if I knew the person and knew when the holiday was. I just don't like it when people are commanded to recognize only a handfull of specific holidays as a nation, even so much as being threatened with litigation if they do not. That's different.

But, just to cover all of my readers anyway, I would like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Chappy Channukah, Krazy Kwanzaa and Boffo Boxing Day!

"Isn't this America?"

I'm trying to find the words for just how frightening this is, but I can't. Just read. And if it doesn't scare you, that scares me.

"I'm sorry, I thought this was America."

Thanks, Matt.

Folk Metal - It's Not Just for Trolls Anymore

Hmm...how do I feel right now...



Ah, that's it.

Do-do-do-do-doooo-do-do Do-do-do-do-doooo-do-do Do-do-do-do-doooo-do-do TROLLHAMMAREN!!!

Hehehehe...F' yeah.

The Fairness Doctrine, Part Three: Have you heard of the internet?

Anyone who read the comment that Barnes left on my last post has an idea where I'm going with this last entry. He made the case pretty well. Ironically, so did the proponents of The fairness Doctrine in the first link I posted:

"When the Sinclair Broadcast Group retreated from pre-election plans to force its 62 television stations to preempt prime-time programming in favor of airing the blatantly anti–John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, the reversal wasn’t triggered by a concern for fairness: Sinclair back-pedaled because its stock was tanking. The staunchly conservative broadcaster’s plan had provoked calls for sponsor boycotts, and Wall Street saw a company that was putting politics ahead of profits. Sinclair’s stock declined by nearly 17 percent before the company announced it would air a somewhat more balanced news program in place of the documentary (Baltimore Sun, 10/24/04)."

Thank you, Steve Rendall.

You see? We didn't need the FCC to step in. The market handled things all by itself. That's because this is a capitalist nation. That's just how it works. No expensive government oversight. No mazes of buraucracy and red tape. Just good ol' supply and demand. Citizens made decisions for themselves, and it didn't cost any of my tax dollars.

I just wonder why they chose to lead with this paragraph. Rather counterproductive, as long as people actually think about what is going on there. But I think that's the problem...

It can be pretty dangerous for government to interfere using socialist-type policies in a capitalist nation. So much depends on the market doing what it can, and what it can bear. When policies are imposed on it, it may be in such a way that the market cannot bear it. But if you let the people decide what they want, they can find a way to make it happen in a way that will actually work.

And this ties in a lot with my first entry. One of the reasons that we don't want government being so involved is because they don't have to be. If people don't want something, they won't buy it. If what they do want is unavailable, they can demand it, or just supply it themselves. We have the freedom.

But you know what the good news is? Multitudes of people have already exercised their freedom and you can already find all views on all issues anytime you want, thanks to things like cable, satellite, and the internet.

The Fairness Doctrine just seems so absurd in this way. It only focuses on broadcast radio and network television. If the government wishes to regulate effectively, why are they ignoring other large areas where people are getting more of their information? Don't they care? Are they that out of touch with the way technology is advancing? Cos seriously, who relies on network television to keep them completely informed?

It's like the CDC focusing only on the bubonic plague.

In conclusion, it's all about personal responsibility. We need to stop relying on the government for so much. It's like how some friends of mine work with missions organizations that have in programs to teach people how to help themselves with resources that they have. The simple solution would be to just give them some great technology that we have here in the States. But as soon as we leave, or it breaks, they're SOL. So now, when government programs go belly up (which they tend to do), we need to be able to take care of ourselves. But if we need the government in order for us to do something so basic as to stay informed, we are in big trouble.

Just remember: you have the power!

The Fairness Doctrine, Part Two: The government is not God.

Let's step back a moment from all of the legal and political ramifications of The Fairness Doctrine and just take a look at logistics. Now, it would be one thing for the FCC to monitor and regulate every single broadcast signal being dispersed over the air, or by cable or satellite, on TV and radio. But, apparently, this will only concern radio and network TV (for now, anyway). Fine. That's still a freaking lot of content.

There is also another very troubling notion floating around out there. I think that Dick Durbin expressed it well:

"I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

The troubling word here is "both," which is often used in such arguments, and insinuates that there are two sides. Well, Dick, if you believe that there are only two sides to every issue, your attitude is very "old-fashioned" indeed. Dick.

If recent elections are any indicator, people in droves are becoming disenfranchised with the notion of a two-party system because they don't see that only having two choices can represent them fully. We have the classic Democrat and Republican views. But even within those categories we have hosts of differing opinions. Then you also have your Libertarians, Socialists, Anarchists, Neo-nazis, and on and on and on. Are their views going to be represented? Well, if the FCC truly wants to be "fair," then they will have to be.

But could you imagine the bureaucratic nightmare? How could anyone possibly regulate this and make sure that ALL sides are given a voice? They will no doubt have to limit the number of sides being represented just because of sheer plausibility. Then, by doing so, they will be guilty of censorship by omission. But then how do they decide which views to respect and which to ignore?

"Well, we obviously wouldn't go to any trouble to make sure that people like Neo-nazis, Fascists, racists and the like have their views fairly expressed."

Why not? They're Americans. The First Amendment still applies to them.

And now we get into the government deciding what opinions are relevant, and which sets of values matter. That is fucking scary.

So we would either have only a select group of opinions being voiced, or we would try to squeeze so many in that many would not have adequate time. It would be like the Presidential Primary debates. All of them are there (the "important" ones, anyway), but they only get a few seconds to fit in a blurb consisting of talking points and little substance. And who wants that?

If this thing ever gets passed, I would not want to be one of the people responsible for enforcing it. Not only would I feel like part of my soul is just gone forever, but it would be impossible! It would take a miracle to do what they intend!

It's the kind of thing where you see someone so gungho about an idea that you know is doomed to fail, but you almost want to let them try so that they learn something. Unfortunately, they want me (and you) to fund this little exercise in fascist futility. (Alliteration!)

And that may be the biggest miracle of all: getting me to agree to this madness.

The Fairness Doctrine, Part One: I'm not five.

If I were to sum up my views on what the government is responsible for, it would be this: to do for its citizens that which they cannot do for themselves. This is stuff like national security, law enforcement, fixing roads, etc. And though I don't like it when they go to far, I am in favour of safety nets, like Welfare and Medicare for those who legitimately need them and have no other choice (and I believe that the lack of other choice can be blamed in large part on the Church, but that's another entry). With everything else, just stop taking our money so we can do it ourselves.

The Fairness Doctrine does seem to have been founded out of good intentions. People want to be able to hear all sides on controversial debates. Sounds good to me. I'd like that, too. But here's where many good-intentioned causes go awry: we are given a goal that everyone wants and somehow convinced that government is the only way to see it done. It's like how I care about the poor, but think that the government is way too inefficient and impersonal to handle it properly. So I don't "Vote Out Poverty" and suddenly people think I'm a monster.

Things happen outside of politics, believe it or not. We can actually do things without the government. With The Fairness Doctrine, I can take care of the problem myself. Know how? It's easy, really. Say I feel that I have heard enough of one point of view on the radio or TV station I'm on. I can just change the station to hear/see something else! All by myself! [GASP!] Or, better yet, I can just TURN IT OFF. Then I can go research opinions for myself! "But how?" you may ask. Well, I'll get to that in the third section. But it's just plain insulting that the government thinks that I can't handle this myself. I'm a grown man, for crappin' out loud!

Another key problem with issues like this is, how I like to say, the difference between freedoms and rights. Freedoms are things that we are allowed to do and the government can't stop us, but we are responsible for attaining ourselves. Rights are things that the government has to actually make sure we have. See the difference? It's subtle, but very important. Take free speech for example, since it is an important issue here. We have the right to express ourselves. And with that right, we have the freedom to express whatever view we want. We also have the freedom to seek out any view that we want that other people are freely expressing. But, the government can't tell us what views to express. So it's not my right that I hear all sides of issues, but it is my freedom to hear them or express them myself. Make sense?

These TV and radio stations are private entities. In a free country (like we're supposed to be in), the government can't tell them what to say. Or what not to say. Or how much of certain things to say. Period.

Chuck Schumer made what may have at first appeared to be a good point, which is pretty good for him. Here's what he said about those opposing The Fairness Doctrine:

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

And we are expected to believe that there is no difference between one-sided debate and hardcore porn. WTF, mate? The reason we censor certain things is because we don't want our children innocently flipping through channels and seeing things that their tender minds shouldn't be processing. Personally, I think it is far more dangerous for a five-year-old, while channel surfing to find The Disney Channel, to come across upwards of 3-4 adults in the throes of flagrante ardvarkus than to come across discussions about how raising the capital gains tax will lower tax revenues with no rebuttal in sight.

But, then again, I'm not Chuck Schumer.

The Fairness Doctrine: Introduction

The Fairness Doctrine was/is a horrible idea. Leftists are calling for its reinstatement. This has me quite concerned.

But before I launch into my views on this, I want to give you a chance to inform yourself if you are not familiar with it. And, in the spirit of fairness, I will give you links to both sides of the argument. I am always a big fan of people researching things for themselves, so I'm giving you the chance. (And the FCC didn't even have to lift a finger!)

First, the pro-Fairness Doctrine side: The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

Now the opposition: Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair

Got it? Alright.

I basically oppose the fairness doctrine on three fronts: one, I believe that it allows the government to overstep its boundaries; two, the logistics just don't seem feesible; and three, it's just not necessary.

My arguments in these areas can be summed up thusly: I'm not five, the government isn't God, and have you heard of the internet, respectively.

Now, since my points seem to be quite lengthy as I write them, I have decided to give each argument its own entry. This one's basically an intro to give you an idea of the issue at hand. So, I'd appreciate it if you read them through and let me know what you think!

Maybe I am a machine.

Oh, the busyness.

Last weekend, I went out to DC with Steph and my parents to visit my brother, Andy, who works for the RNC. Good times. Went to the National Archives and saw the Constitution. I looked and looked, but didn't find where it said that the President should create jobs or be responsible for the economy, and certainly nothing about spreading any wealth. But it still says we can have guns, and doesn't say anything about them just being for hunting. More people should read it, I think.

Also got a West Wing tour of the White House. That's right. The West wing. Not everybody gets that tour. But Andy has connections. I got to see the freaking Oval Office. And photos of Bush with a chain saw.

Then, in what was a terrific bit of coincidence (if you believe in that sort of thing), Swank had me work at one of their hotels in Bethesda, MD for the week. Big event where they needed extra camera operators. Some kind of conference about fire safety/analysis/prevention/awareness stuff for nuclear power plants. Not nearly as interesting as it sounds.

Just got back this afternoon, then went to work at my hotel here for a couple hours, then straight to Rohs Street Cafe to run sound, where I am now.

Tomorrow, I go back to work at about 6am, then hopefully out of there by 8am to head to Columbus. Some big game, or something, going on there tomorrow...

Then I have to be back to work at 5:30, so I'll have to leave the game early. But, fortunately, this one should be over quickly.

I'm gonna get some sleep one of these days.

Partisan

Ok, I gave it a couple days, and several beers, and I still don't feel good about Obama. But, I digress.

Everyone's talking about non-partisanship and how it's the only way that our country can survive (a statement that seems quite contradictory if you really think about it). It was perhaps most on everyone's mind in this campaign. We had Joh McCain, famous for "reaching across the aisle," and Barack Obama, who would supposedly bring an end to partisan politics altogether.

Now that Obama has been elected, I don't see partisanship going anywhere.

Of all the Senators in Washington, "That one" has the most liberal voting record. More liberal than even Ted "I-murdered-a-woman" Kennedy. How is someone from that far on the left supposed to be able to reach to the other side?

Then you have his offer to Rahm Immanuel to be his Chief of Staff, his first administration appointment. Yes, good ol' Rahm - the man who is so very non-partisan, that he had this to say about the Republicans: "They can go fuck themselves."

Fantastic.

It was Obama himself who essentially called all of his opponents in the campaign racists. "They're going to try to make me seem scary," he said. "He doesn't look like all the Presidents on the money. Oh, and did I mention he's black?"

Who said that? Who, in any campaign, commercial, add, public address, said this besides him? He's the one trying to make his followers hate us!

How non-partisan is it to say that a certain group of people on the other side, in an instance where you were unaware that you were being recorded, are just "bitter" and "clinging to guns and religion" out of "antipathy towards people who aren't like them"?

What about this man gives anyone the idea that he will rid the country of partisan politics?

"He said he'd bring CHANGE!" Yes, "change" like the (failed) economic policies of Jimmy Carter, and appointing that oh-so-eloquent member of the Clinton administration.

But, really, is partisanship really as bad as we think? Maybe. But here's what I dislike: partisanship for the sake of partisanship. Most of the time, IMO, the truth is very partisan. If the correct way to go favours one side, I don't want it getting being altered in the name of some feel-good, let's-all-get-along attitude. Compromise can destroy perfectly good solutions.

I believe that the cure for ills caused by partisanship is not the seeking of compromise, but the willingness of people to be convinced that their opinion is just wrong and to suck it up.

I look at it this way. I'm a Christian. I believe that I have found the correct way to live my life, and that God and the Bible are the true guides for said life. So when I need to make a decision, an attitude of "non-partisanship" would dictate that I seek other friends of differrent religions to see what they have to say. But I know that what I have is right, so I don't need to. Rather "narrow-minded," but being narrow-minded is ok when you're right. Sure, you don't have to be an ass about it, but you also don't have to be compromising, either.

Another great problem is what most people think non-partisan actually looks like. It would seem that many in the popular media and celebrities believe that "progressive" is non-partisan. They just think it's the way it should be. So, when comedy lampoons conservatives, and the media drools over liberal policy, they think it's normal and mainstream. This could explain why just about all accusations of partisan polotics are aimed at the right, when the left is just as guilty.

I think that's all I wanted to say. Don't feel like proof-reading and adjusting like I normally do.

From the horse's mouth

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

– Norman Thomas, American socialist, 1936

Leave it to good ol' WLW

"The turd sandwich has defeated the turd sandwich with cheese."

Aforementioned earned complaining

Ok, maybe not that bad.

Anyway, I just sincerely hope that I am wrong about Obama. I really do.

But this is a historic night. We have elected our nation's first half-white President.

...You did know that, right? Obama is just as much white as he is black. But, for some reason, as long as you are darker than a reasonable tan, you're black in this country. Any amount of whiteness in there doesn't count.

But they're calling him our first black President. And do I care? No. I don't care what colour he is, I don't trust him to lead our country. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

Bush gave us our first (and second) black Secretary of State, but no one cares. They "sold out." Which, I suppose, is code for "thought for themselves." Sound harsh? Not as harsh as those who called them names like "house negro."

I've said it before, so it's not just bitterness after what happened tonight. I honestly do not think that Obama would have gone anywhere if he was white. Or without teleprompters.

Anyway, that's enough of that. Time to look forward.

Palin/Jindal '12!

There's still time.

Decisions are made by those who show up.

No vote, no complaining. That's the rule.

You do want the right to complain, don't you?

Capitalism is just swell. But people suck.

This is a post that I have been wanting to write for almost a year now. Those of you at UCC and Crossroads, as well as other churches in the area, should remember the Consumed series that our small groups went through. Overall, I enjoyed the series. Materialism is perhaps the biggest pitfall of the modern Western Church. But there was just one tiny thing that bothered me. No, this isn't me taking an isolated statement and using it to pass judgement on an entire series. Like I said, I enjoyed it. I just found this one quote interesting and felt like writing my thoughts on it, and seeing what you thought.

I don't have the quote in front of me, but it was talking about capitalism. It said how capitalism has been the most successful form of economics that the world has ever seen. And that's probably true. But here's what got to me. The gentleman went on to say that we, as Christians, must be aware of this: "capitalism requires greed."

My short response to that statement is this: no, it does not.

That really is quite a statement to make. Especially since he seems to think that it is an important truth for us to accept as good Christians. One of the first things that struck me, other than the patent absurdity of the statement, was the list of credentials listed after his name. It had things like pastor and author, but nothing related to economist or financial expert or anything like that. So immediately I have to question if he really knows what he's talking about. Also, it's dangerous because lots of people are going to take his word as authoritative, even though we don't have any clear reason to do so.

I figured that I should look up capitalism in the dictionary to get an accurate definition to start with. I found several, and none mentioned greed as one of the things necessary for it to function. If anything, I find that capitalism requires the lack of things to function, ie government control. It's all about free market and less restriction. It basically lets people and companies run their businesses how they want, within the law, based on things like supply and demand.

Now, does capitalism allow for greed, and can greedy people do well in a capitalist society? Absolutely. But there is a huge difference between something being required and something being allowed for. It allows for a whole range of human behaviour.

Take this example. You have a guy who really likes fixing cars. So, he opens up an auto-repair shop in his town. He runs his business well, provides great service, and only wants his shop to be successful enough for him to support his family, keep everything running, and pay his employees well. Capitalism is at work, and no greed is required. It happens all the time.

It's just all about letting the people go and have the freedom from government telling them how to run their businesses. If greed exists, it's a human problem, not an economic problem.

Too often, I have people wanting me to blame capitalism for greed. But that's like blaming a cliff for people falling off of it. The cliff didn't push them off, but it didn't do anything to prevent it. It just exists and lets people do as they wish on it.

The problem with this way of thinking (other than it just being factually wrong) is that people could place blame on the wrong things. And if we don't identify the correct source of a problem, we won't fix it.

Because Americans love infomercials!

Did anyone catch Barry's primetime paid advertisement last night?

One thing I know is that it must be pretty bad when even Yahoo! News can smell the BS.

I may have discussed this issue before, but I believe that it cannot be stressed enough. You always hear Obama and other leftists, or even moderates, talk about the need to "eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas." On the surface, it sounds good, right? Damn them for their lack of patriotism! Punish them!

But trust me on this: anyone who advocates this has no idea what they are talking about, or they think that the public will buy into it. Do you know why so many companies send jobs overseas? Do you? It's pretty simple, really. They do it because the taxes for operating in America are too high. The US has the second largest coporate tax rate in the world. So, doing business in other countries with much lower tax rates saves them a lot of money.

So, what is these people's plan for stopping something that is being done because of high taxes? Why, they raise their taxes!

[smacks self in forehead]

So go ahead and raise their taxes. They'll just continue to outsource even more. Congratulations, dumbass.

It's like saying, "The construction workers aren't building our house as quickly as we want. Let's take away their tools!"

I don't think that a lot of people understand how money works in our economy. I have already talked about how we are all connected to the much maligned "wealthiest 1%" and how our success depends on theirs, and how they give us jobs. It seems like Obama and his constituants wish to use money as simply a system of rewards and punishments. It doesn't work that way.

But speaking of punishments, does anyone see something else here that is potentially even more disturbing and dangerous? Some in the government wish to use these tax hikes as a form of punishment for companies who outsource more than they like. And they are convincing a lot of Americans to agree, creating class warfare. That's a whole other topic - but what else do you call "You in the middle class are struggling, and we're going to stick it to those Wall Street fat cats," or the constant juxtaposing of Wall Street and Main Street? Obama claims to be for Americans, but does he realize that people making over $200,000 (or whatever that number is now - he keeps changing the level at which his tax cuts would apply) are Americans, too? And Wall Street is still a street in America.

Anyway, back to punishments. They have convinced some of us that it's a good idea to punish these people, regardless of the fact that the problem would only get worse. But here's the thing: sending jobs overseas is not illegal.

Do you see what's happening? OUR GOVERNMENT WANTS TO PUNISH PRIVATE CITIZENS FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Anyone else even a little frightened?

Obama may be more unqualified than we thought.

As in Constitutionally unqualified.

You should all remember from your civics and government classes that in order to be President of the United States of America, you must be a natural born citizen. Well, it turns out that Barack Obama, or Barry Soetoro, may not be.

I know, I'm not much for conspiracy theories either. But this is very interesting and deserves a look. And you probably will not be seeing this on the news very much. It also makes our beloved FactCheck.org look not so clean.



And here's the guy's website for more info: obamacrimes.com

Wasting away

It is an absolutely perfect fall Saturday. I should be out in someone's back yard tossing around a football before watching the OSU vs. Michigan State game at 3:30, with some hot cider thrown in for good measure.

Instead, I'm at work, and will be until about 10pm. And I'm realizing something in a very real way: being an adult can really suck sometimes.

An election? Again?!?

Alright, finally got a new poll up. I know, the question is a shocker.

For those who may not have known that VFD was even running, you may want to see this.

And for those of you who may not know what the "F" in VFD is for, just think about it. The answer will come to you.

Oh, and if you're thinking about voting for Obama, you may want to hear what this guy has to say.

He's a pastor. He clearly knows what he is talking about.

Yes, he's totally serious.

Spin it like a pundit

I've discovered that being married for over a year gives one special abilities, such as the ability to explain how the fact that I forgot to water the lawn proves that I will be a good parent.

Yeah. I'm that good.

I didn't know that houses were risk-free.

Interesting video from 2004 about the whole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac catastrophe...



Personally, I don't want the people responsible for causing this mess to be responsible for fixing it. Cos they won't.

So very glad that the bailout was voted down. I like it when our representatives actually listen to us.

Diagon Ally...

...diagonally! Ha! I just got that!

This aggression will not stand!

Unfortunately, I totally called it.

USC only drops to #9?!? Are you kidding?

In other news...

So how's that foot there, Beanie? Good? Good.

"We've achieved mediocrity, gentlemen."

This is an impulse entry. I just read about USC's loss to unranked Oregon State and had to write this.

Anyone who keeps up with college football at all knows that Ohio State has been everyone's favourite punching bag. And why? Because they keep having embarassing losses in big games over the pat few years. Personally, I do not consider last January's loss to LSU in the title game to be an embarrasment. Even though LSU won handily in what was technically an upset, OSU never should have been there in the first place. The fact that they scored over 20 was quite a feat. And Beanie was just stellar against that "speedy" LSU defense.

Anyway, this loss by USC revives a question I have long been pondering: why do people hate OSU for losing to good teams, but they still love USC, who keeps losing to crappy teams?

Seriously. Just after the one loss to Florida, people were already questioning OSU, which continues to this day. But now, after several losses by USC to unranked opponents, I have only begun to see anything resembling questioning. It's like they've become the new Notre Dame. After last season, even Lou Holtz was having trouble defending the inexplicable love affair with the Irish. So I guess everyone needed someone else to dote on just because of who they were. It seems to be USC now. "Oh, I know they lost to freaking Stanford, but they still deserve a shot in the title game." All Ohio State did to be declared undeserving was lose to the best team in the nation. Sure, it was an embarrasing loss, but can you tell me that ANY loss to Stanford isn't?

When people talk about Ohio State's recent performance in big games, why do they leave out their last two meetings against Texas and the phenomenal '06 Michigan game? In '05, the lost by only 3 to the Texas team that would go on to be National Champs (by defeating favoured USC, btw), then blew them out in '06 when they were ranked #2. Then they beat #2 Michigan in a game that was an instant classic. Then there was also one of my favourite games: the demolishing of Notre Dame in the 2006 Fiesta Bowl. Anyone remember any of that?

So now OSU loses to the then #1 USC (without their star player) and they plummet in the rankings. Then USC loses to an unranked opponent. You watch. Their fall will not be nearly as bad. Or maybe the voters will surprise me, which would be fantastic. But that's my prediction.

Seriously. Obama would be a disaster.

Hello, everyone. I have returned, smellier and slightly more sunburnt than when I left. I had a great time and I got some great pics and video which I will share later. Did some hiking, saw some cool stuff, like more deer than squirrels, and drove a lot.

When on the road today and Tuesday, I tried to keep up a little with the Republican Convention. Haven't heard all of Palin's speech, but what I did hear, and the reactions, sounded great. I managed to catch McCain's speech tonight live. Decent, which is about all we expected anyway. The only really exciting parts were the interruptions by protesters.

I saw Obama's speech. There were no interruptions by protesters. And here I though we conservatives were the rude, mean ones. But anyway, it reminded me of something Rush Limbaugh said. Basically, he said conservatives don't protest. Why? We have jobs.

Now, I did manage to think of some examples of conservatives protesting. About all we protest is abortion. But think about it: who do you see out protesting? It's the women, children, and elderly. The men are at work. That's the way conservatives are supposed to be.

But back to tonight's protesters. The first guy had a sign that read, "YOU CAN'T WIN AN OCCUPATION." It got me thinking. In a way, it's correct, but not in the way he probably intended it. You can't win an occupation because the fact that you have an occupation in another country usually means that you already won. That's why you're occupying. It's like saying, "YOU CAN'T WIN A VICTORY LAP."

Just some thoughts.

(One of) The Greatest Adventure(s)

As some of you know, Stephanie left today with Gabriel Wickizer and Ashley Hollingsworth to Guatemala to visit and work with Dan Divelbiss. They will be gone until the 13th. That's awesome for them. Unfortunately, though I have some time off this week, it wasn't enough for it to be worth it for me to go with them. But I figured I need something to do with this time off by myself. So I have decided to leave tomorrow and drive to Shenandoah National Park in Virginia for a couple days. Should be pretty awesome. Hangin out with nature, camping in my car, good times.

So, if you need me, I will have my phone, but not turned on all of the time. Should be back Thursday. Prayers for me and the other group will be appreciated. Thanks.

And yes, I will have that song from The Hobbit stuck in my head a lot. And yes, I am about to watch it.

McCain/Palin '08!

"Sarah Palin: babies, guns, Jesus. Hot damn!"

~Rush Limbaugh

#1

Alright, last one. And it's another irregular one. Started that way, so why not finish that way?

Again, my original plan was thwarted by the lack of good video for the intended play. So, again, I am forced to "settle" for a montage. This time, it's Mr. Chris "Beanie" Wells being featured yet again. I planned on showing that awesome run he had against LSU in the National Championship Game last year, where he beat that infamous SEC speed with some even better speed of his own. But don't worry, that's in here, too, along with another highlight of his where he stiff armed the crap out of a LSU defender, choosing to beat SEC speed with some good old-fashioned Big 10 power. He's versatile like that.

So here to close this out is a collection of some of Wells's finest moments, punishing defenders with either twisted ankles and knees or just some good ol' blunt-force trauma. Take us home, Beanie...



More highlights to come tomorrow.

#2

Now, I didn't realize it at the time, but this is one of my favourite plays ever. It's another one from the great 2006 Ohio State vs. Michigan game. Like the last one, this also falls into the category of, "I know we only need a yard or two for the first down, but I want more." This time it's Troy Smith to Ted Ginn, Jr. in the play I like to call, "Because we can." Because, well, they can...



Oh, and ignore the "2007" at the beginning. Somebody don't know they're years.

Alright, just one more to go, then I am off to Columbus to watch them kick off another spectacular season. Thanks for watching, and stay tuned!

#3

Can Andy read my mind? You decide.

Ok, so I know I missed another day of posting. Working a 15 hr. day will do that to you.

Anyway, to the play at hand! And this one's a doozie.

We all remember the fantastic heart attack that was Ohio State's 2002 National Championship season. And perhaps no regular season game caused more infarctions than the game against Purdue. The Buckeyes were down late in this very low-scoring game (as you'll see by the scores). It was 4th and short. The game was on the line. We had a fantastic running game that included the quarterback's scrambling abilities. Ohio State is known for pounding it up the gut. So, they did the rational thing: Krenzel threw it 37 yards for a touchdown.

Don't believe me? Well, watch the play unfold that is now known by the well-deserved words, "Holy Buckeye!" You'll be glad you did...



I know I just about dropped a load.

#4

As great as the 2006 Ohio State vs. Michigan game was, I think it kind of overshadows the awesome game from the previous year. Sure, all the hype and spectacle of '06 made it one of the best games ever, but the 2005 game had, I felt, a bit more suspense to it, especially down a near the end. The game was more back and forth. Midway through the 4th quarter, the Buckeyes were actually down by 9. They were able to score, then had the ball again with just over 4 min., down by 2. The drive ate up most of the rest of the clock and they were able to score with just 24 sec. left. The key moment of that drive came near the end, with this play which is now known as "The Catch," and you'll see why...



Great music, as well. And a great scoring run at the end there by Antonio Pittman. It almost seemed like he ran into those first defenders just cos he wanted to knock them over. One of the greatest finishes to a game I've seen.

Oh, and...

New poll for the week!

I spoil you people, you know.

#5

Wow. Two posts in one day. You lucky ducks.

Not that I was doing these in any real order, but now we're getting to some really good stuff. Here's another play from the '06 Fiesta Bowl against Notre Dame. Another great run play, but this time performed by a wide receiver: none other than the great Ted Ginn, Jr.

More great running, more great blocking. It's just a beautiful thing...



Now, watch it again, but imagine it with music from Keystone Cops.

#6

Ok, so I missed a day. Sorry. Went out of town.

So you get another bonus (partially cos I couldn't find a good video of just the one play I planned on posting, but also cos it's another "can't reduce a player to one or two plays" thing - and we need more defense stuff anyway). This time, it's a lovely montage of DE Vernon Gholston. So, just sit back and enjoy the carnage...



The play I was planning on posting was the time he just ran over Chad Henne at about 3:50. The play before it at 3:40 was also pretty good. Went out of frame and just came back. Awesomeness.

#7

So, you're probably thinking to yourself, "He's posting videos about Ohio State, so where's the famous defense?"

I'll tell you where. Here. That's where.

One of my favourite linebackers was Andy Katzenmoyer (at least his first couple years). And this is one of my favourite hits of his. The game was against Missouri. Their quarterback was Korby Jones, and he liked to run. At least, that is, until this happened...



That's "The Big Kat" for ya.

I know, there was no sound, but I couldn't find a video of this that did have sound. So, I know you feel ripped off. But fear not! I anticipated that, so I included another great hit. And with sound!

This one is more recent. Indiana is returning a kickoff, and then Brian Hartline comes down and, well, you'll see...



Haha. He's limping.

Oh, and did I mention that Hartline is a wide receiver?

Respect your rights

Here's a testimony from Texas State Rep. Dr. Susan Gratia about Texas's assult weapons ban in the late '90s. Seriously, people. The 2nd Ammendment is there for YOUR OWN GOOD.



Brilliant closing statement. I love the shots of Schumer sinking in his chair.

And yes, I blame legislators for killing those people.

In another interview, she talked about how some argue that if she had her handgun on her, it could have made the situation worse. It could have jammed, she could have shot a bystander, or been shot herself. In her words, "But I'll tell you the one thing that nobody could argue with: it sure as heck would have changed the odds."

And, unfortunately, we don't have to wonder what could have happened if no one had a gun.

Here's another video, cos it's good and, I must admit, I love taking shots at Rosie.



Just remember: the point is for the government to be afraid of the people, not the other way around.

#8

Today we're back to the ground. This play was from the historic game, and highlight reel, that was the 2006 Ohio State vs. Michigan game. I'm sure you remember it. The biggest rivalry in all of sports got even bigger as the two teams came into the game undefeated and ranked #1 and #2. And it absolutely lived up to the hype. OSU had six touchdowns, and each was scored by a different person. The second of these was scored early in the second quarter by Chris "Beanie" Wells, giving the Buckeyes a lead that they would keep for the rest of the game. So without further ado, let's watch the then true freshman show why he's a Heisman favourite today...



And today, Beanie continues to take Ohio State's classic gameplay style of "3 yards in a cloud of dust" and elevate it to "6 yards in a cloud of dust."

#9

Here's one from just last season, featuring our current star receiver, Brian Robiskie, making a beautifully acrobatic catch against Minnesota. Not to mention quarterback Todd Boeckman making a great throw.

Nothing really special about it other than that. No dramatic back story. And we pretty much just pummeled the Gophers, as usual. It's just a pretty play...



See? Wasn't that just fun? And we have more of that to look forward to this year.

#10

While we're on the ground, it would be ridiculous for me not to include the great running back Eddie George in all of this. As another key player in Ohio State's famous '95 offense, he went on to receive the Heisman Trophy, and it's no surprise why. Now, I found it difficult, and seemingly just not right, to reduce mention of him to just a play or two, so I'm posting a video covering highlights from an entire game. The game is against Illinois in '95. Fans will know why I picked this one. Let's watch...



Hellz yeah.

#11

Today we're going to the ground. This play is from one of my absolute favourite games of all time: the 2006 Fiesta Bowl. This was the tie-breaker game for the series between Ohio State and Notre Dame, with the teams at 2-2. Besides that major story line, there was also a more personal one. OSU star linebacker AJ Hawk was dating Notre Dame quarterback Brady Quinn's sister. But he obviously didn't let that get in the way of sacking the crap out of him.

I could post the entire game on here, but I'm just going with one play. The Buckeyes were ahead late in the game, and just needed one good drive to put it away. Running back Antonio Pittman took it upon himself to perform most of that drive in this one play. But there was more to the play than just the fantastic run. Watch, and you'll see...



Indeed. As the announcers said when they broke it down at the end, a perfect way to end a classic game.

That's why they're Ohio State.

Break in the action

Got the new poll up. I'm going with the whole Olympic thing. I will even take suggestions for other events you'd like. I've also decided to extend voting until Saturday night. So, vote and comment away!

#12

Keeping things going with the pass plays. This one was also in '06, but this time it's against Iowa. Troy Smith throws to Anthony Gonzalez for a simple play to get the first down. At least that's how it starts...



Really kinda came out of nowhere. You can really tell how dumbfounded the commentators were. You kinda get that reaction of, "And he's running...dodging defenders...oh, and, uh, touchdown...huh...well what do you know."

Or, as Andy would say...

#13

Now for something a little more recent.

The game against Penn State in 2006 got off to a slow start. Very slow. Pretty much a defensive battle/fighting the elements kind of first half. The Buckeyes were ahead 7 to 3, but needed something to really get going and get this game put away. Then Troy Smith did what many called his play that really earned him that Heisman. Let's watch...



Holy crap.

Ohio State went on to return two interceptions for touchdowns and put this one to bed. Spectacular finish to a classic game.

#14

Today we have another oldie but a goodie. Goin back a little more to 1995 at the Horseshoe as Ohio State hosts Notre Dame, the first time the teams played each other in about 60 years. They had played twice, and the Fighting Irish had won both times, and pretty handily. Now they face each other again in front of what was then a record crowd at Ohio Stadium, a crowd that I was actually a part of. I also found out later that Stephanie's grandfather had attended the last time the teams met, so that was kinda cool.

Now to the play at hand. One huge part of OSU's high-powered offense in '95 was receiver Terry Glenn. He was kind of an oddity; not only for his incredible speed and acrobatic catches, but also because he came out of nowhere, played one year, then left for the NFL where he disappeared again. But holy crap, was that a good year for him. Here's just one example...



You've also gotta love this clip for the Regis element.

The teams would play each other again the next year, and the Bucks would again defeat the Irish, tying them at 2 wins apiece. The tie-breaker game would come in 2006 at the Fiesta Bowl. But we'll see more on that later.

#15

In case you didn't already know, I am a huuuuuuuuge fan of Ohio State football. And college football in general. But especially the Buckeyes. So it would come as no surprise to you to know that I have been greatly anticipating their opening game coming up on August 30th at 12pm against Youngstown State (especially since I will be going to the game!). I am so excited that I have decided to post a video every day from now until then of various great plays in recent Buckeye history, in no particular order. Should be fun.

To start things off, I'm already doing things a little differently. Instead of just one great play, this is a video of an entire offensive drive.

The date is January 1st, 1997. If you're any kind of Buckeye fan, you know exactly what drive I am talking about. It's the Rose Bowl against Arizona State. The Bucks are down by 3 with 1:40 left in what has been an intense back-and-forth battle. Jake "The Snake" Plummer just ran an impressive touchdown run after being mostly contained all game. Now, the ball is in Germaine's capable hands for a last minute drive. All they need is to get into field goal range to tie it up. But let's see what happens...



Spectacular. So come back tomorrow (all one or two of you who probably care) and see some more amazingness. Seriously, I look back on some of this stuff and realize that I had no idea just how awesome it is. I was just used to Ohio State doing stuff like this all the time. But it's pretty awesome.

But speaking of the one or two who care, sorry about not updating the poll this week. Terribly busy. Hopefully there will be a new one next week.

Getting to know you

Hello, dear readers. The new poll is up. Just trying to get to know my audience and what demographic you may fit into. So, answer away!

Quote of the day, so far

"You know it's an interesting conversation when you have to clarify whether you're talking about coffee or ass."

Notebook worthy perhaps?

Do I look like I have a plan?

Alright, folks. You, the people, have spoken (a few of you, anyway). The new poll question has been decided and is now up for you to voice your opinion. So get to it. You have til Friday night. Enjoy!

Meanwhile, I saw The Dark Knight this weekend. Twice. It's that freakin awesome. Like Batman Begins, and to an even greater degree, it really transcends the "Comic Book Movie" genre to just being a great movie. As far as Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker, I agree that it's Oscar-worthy and career-defining. Never before have I simultaneously greatly anticipated and greatly dreaded a character's next on-screen appearance so much. My only issue with all of the praise that Ledger has received is that it takes away from focusing on how spectacular the writing was, as well. A great performance is only worth anything if it is a performance of great material. The Joker was truly a team effort. The way that they treated his character was brilliant. So I hope the writers and director get credit, as well. But still, you can't say enough about Ledger.

So there's my take on it. Sure, it's no Barnes at the Movies, but what is?

It's sad cos it's true. It's funny cos he's British.

I know, you probably didn't really want to sit thru all 3 of those videos full of dry, but still fascinating, material. So, I've done you a little favor. I found a shorter, more entertaining clip which is still quite compelling. It's part of a presentation by a man named David Icke. Now, a lot of the other stuff he talks about is total crap, but this is pretty good. So enjoy, and you're welcome.

Just doing my part

You may be tired of reading my posts about global warming and how we are so not the cause of it, so I'll let you watch some videos of other, more knowledgeable people talking about it. It's a nice little visual dose of truth. And it's so good and truthy, this dose comes in 3 parts!

The first part includes fun stuff like showing that the famous, and immensely important, "Hockey Stick Graph" is actually total bupkis:


This section blows a hole in another graph showing rises in temperature related to rises in CO2.


And now the dirty politics of Global Warming.


Convinced yet? Well, that's not totally my goal. If anything, I just want to try to show people that the debate is not over. My side may or may not be right, but it's definitely credible and deserves to be heard.

More to keep you coming back

I've done a little updating on the blog here. One new addition is a poll on the side. I'll try to have a new one every week, starting on Monday and going thru Friday, and I'll keep the results up over the weekend. This week's poll: What do you want the first poll question to be? Respond, and the winner will be the question for next week. You can also leave comments on any post suggesting questions that you'd like to see.

I also added a new links section called "Issues," where I have links to websites covering the obviously correct sides of various debates and such. Check it out.

For all you techies out there

Some of you may have heard of the blog Stuff Christians Like. If not, go check it out.

I really appreciated one of the recent entries. It's a collection of haikus dedicated to church tech people. It meant a lot. You can read it here: #304. The Sound Guy/Girl - In Haiku Form

Here's a personal favourite of mine:

Can you mic a bird?
I have a worship eagle
You might need some gloves

It's good to know that there is someone out there who understands our pain.

"Ow, that hurts my brain...ow..."

So, what has our magnificent city council been up to lately? Useful things? Improving our schools, perhaps? Or maybe the roads, or crime, or other things that it's actually supposed to be doing with their time and our money?

Why the hell would they do that? There are more important things! Things like taking the time to research and tell us that we shouldn't be eating so much red meat because of, you guessed it, our old pal GLOBAL WARMING!

*gasp*

I know! So, why, you are probably asking, would eating more meat fuel global warming? Well, never you fear, because our wise and benevolent city council has taken the time (and your money) for you to answer that themselves. In addition to all the carbon emissions from production and such, apparently there is also a very large amount of methane emissions from THE COWS' FLATULENCE.

That's right. Accoring to the council, we all need to eat less beef to save our planet from farting cows.

"But wait," you may also be asking, "if we eat the cows, will that not stop their flatulence?"

And that's a very good point. After all, steak cannot fart. But apparently, the more we eat, they are afraid of all the other cows being bred to meet demand. This prompted one citizen to suggest that if the city council is afraid of cows breeding more and farting more, maybe the council members should go out and apply condoms to all of the bulls, if they really care.

You can read the report here.

Now, this raises some questions. Some very specific ones, actually, that I shall quote from our friend at 700 WLW, Darryl Parks:

WHY IS THE CINCINNATI CITY COUNCIL WASTING ITS TIME ON SOMETHING IT HAS NO CONTROL OVER?

HOW MANY OF THE SEATED COUNCIL PERSONS HAVE READ THE 212 PAGE REPORT?

HOW MANY COPIES OF THE 212 PAGE REPORT WERE PRINTED AND DISTRIBUTED AND HOW MANY TREES WERE DESTROYED TO MAKE THIS POSSIBLE?

FINALLY, IF A COW FARTS ACROSS THE RIVER IN KENTUCKY AND THE WIND IS BLOWING FROM THE SOUTH, WHAT IS THE CINCINNATI CITY COUNCIL GOING TO DO TO KEEP US SAFE FROM THE GAS?

Good questions. There's also the point that our city council is telling us not to eat so much meat, while simultaneously trying to get more people to go downtown, where we have featured many steak houses and such. So, go downtown where we have all kinds of wonderful beef to eat, but don't eat beef.

And while I'm in a borrowing mood, I will end by quoting a sign put up by an industrious flood victim at his house:

MOTHER NATURE AND AL GORE CAN KISS MY ASS.

Thank you, sir.

Here's one for Eric's gone by...

It just keeps getting funnier and funnier.

We can do it! We have the technology!

Alright, one more thing (for now) about this oil business. One of the chief complaints that Obama and his ilk have against drilling here and drilling now is that it would still take about 5 years for it to affect gas prices. That may be true, but it begs a few questions:

One, then why didn't we start doing this at least 5 years ago? And in another 5 years, when gas is $10 or more a gallon, we'll wish we had started now. Just think: if Bill Clinton had let us do it back in his Presidency instead of keeping the ban going, it would have affected prices by now, and we'd be much better off.

Two, can you name me another idea that WILL affect prices immediately? Seems to be that the only one that some have does indeed affect prices pretty quickly, but in the wrong way. That idea would be raising windfall profit taxes on oil companies.

WTF?!?!?!?

People, this is really simple, so pay attention: the more you tax the production of something, the less production you will get.

DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.

Obama hates your grandmother

Another thing about the government and oil companies. They want to raise taxes on "Big Oil." And a lot of people who don't really think this stuff through think it's a grand idea; a good way to stick it to those oil fat cats.

But do you know who this will really hurt? Do you know where those taxes will come from? No, not the big guys at the top. It will come out of things like pensions and investments that people have in the companies, people like elderly retired folks - like your grandmother, perhaps.

Nevermind how much more it will raise pump prices for EVERYBODY (which still includes your grandmother).

It's like how people like to pirate music and movies to stick it to the big record companies and Hollywood moguls. Do you actually think for a second that the execs are looking at the loss of revenue and saying to themselvs, "Golly, with all of this money we're loosing, I had better take some out of my salary to teach myself a lesson for being so greedy."

.....

No, it usually goes a little more like this: "Ok, what low-level people who live paycheck to paycheck can we lay off by the boatload?"

People need to realize how much we all are connected to that damned "wealthiest 1%."

See, when you give tax breaks to the guys at the top, it is impossible for it to effect them only. Think about it: who gives poor people jobs? Other poor people? No, middle- and upper-class people. And what do those people need in order to hire more people? They need more money.

Can we still give tax breaks to lower-class people? It'd be swell, cos I like tax breaks for everybody. But they don't really pay much (if any) to begin with, so it'd be pretty difficult.

You say the poor people still are paying too much and aren't receiving enough help from the government? Well, send them to the Church. After all, it is our personal responsibility to take care of all those in need, right?

...Right?

Pay attention. There's a quiz at the end.

Sorry I haven't been able to blog about it (cos I'm sure you all care), but I suppose you all heard about the major oil companies being brought before Congress for hearings. And I'm sure some may actually appreciate the government doing something about high gas prices, not enough being invested in alternative energy sources, oil companies making too much money, etc., because "it's all their fault." (Can't believe I typed that with a straight face.)

Now whether or not you place full blame on those big bad oil companies for the mess with oil prices, you have to admit that THIS IS SO RIDICULOUS IT'S SCARY.

Think about this: our government, in our "free and democratic society," our blessed republic, is harassing PRIVATE companies about what they are doing with their "excessive profits," going so far as to accuse them of not using their "excessive profits" well enough by investing more in alternative energy. These are private citizens for crapping out loud! It's their money! Where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the right to do this?

But I love what one of the oil execs said when questioned about why his company hadn't invested more in non-oil energy. He said, basically, "Um...we're an oil company. Why the hell would we want to do that?"

Seriously. It's like asking McDonald's to invest in Burger King, and then being confused and offended that they don't want to.

But even if our government had the right to question a company's use of their own excessive profits, what makes us think that the oil companies' profits actually are excessive? If you take the time to look at the numbers, you would realize that their profit margins are actually right in line with other industries, if not on the low end.

Here's an interesting statistic. Of the price you pay at the pump, 15% of it is taxes that go to our government. But, only 4% is profit for the oil company. So if 4% is excessive, then 15% is just ridiculous. Maybe the oil companies should hold their own hearings with Congress and ask what they have been doing with all the money we've been giving them, cos we actually have the right to hold our government accountable, because IT'S OUR MONEY.

Nevermind the fact that our government is simultaneously telling the oil companies that they need to produce more, and also that they are not allowed to drill here in the US.

"Oh, but that would be harmful to the environment! Remember how much that nasty ol' Trans-Alaskan Pipeline decimated the precious caribou population?"

...Um, actually, the pipeline isn't harming them at all. In reality, they really like it cos it's nice and warm. They even sleep and mate near it.

And speaking of alternative energy, why not more nuclear? I mean, people are always saying we need to be more progressive like the Europeans. Do we realize that the majority of the energy in countries like France and Sweden is nuclear? Why not us?

Ok, now for that quiz. It's pretty simple. Just one question:

Why the hell is it in style for men to leave the bottom button of their suit jackets unbuttoned? I mean, for my suits anyway, they look much better when all buttons are buttoned. Anybody have an answer for this? It's been confounding me for some time.

Reason #32

Alright, I'm back. Sorry about not updating like I said, but evenings actually turned out to be eventful in St. Louis. The others in training were pretty cool, and we ended up at least going out for dinner every night.

The company treated us very well. I mentioned the airfare, hotel, and food. But then there was the free limo to take us anywhere in town on Wednesday night.

And it was a Hummer limo.

So training went well, and so has my first week of work. I'm pretty sore, though, from all the setting up and whatnot.

But now something else. UCC is advertising something called Vote Out Poverty. Now, I think the intentions here are fantastic. Poverty sucks, and we need to do something about it. It's good that awareness is being raised by things like this. But I have also been informed that this isn't just a liberal or conservative thing, but is bipartisan or whatever.

*ahem*

Really. So tell me exactly how many conservatives you know, or even libertarians and such, who choose to overcome poverty by voting it out, no doubt for certain government programs and raised taxes and whatnot.

Here's how a conservative would vote out poverty: vote for people that will stop taking our money. And I sincerely doubt that that will be the method this initiative will advocate.

And this goes back to a discussion that I've had too often. Just because Republicans don't want to use government to eradicate poverty it doesn't mean that we don't want it eradicated. Cos honestly, I see "voting out poverty" as the lazy (and more expensive) approach.

But again, at least we're talking about it and not just ignoring it.

Live from St. Louis

Greetings, all. In case you haven't been keeping up, I am currently out in St. Louis for the week for my new job training. Just arrived today. Swank AV is covering a lot of stuff, including the flight and hotel, as well as transportation to and from training, and money for dinner every day, which is sweet. There's a bbq place right next to the hotel. It doesn't look too impressive, but it's probly pretty good at least. I also found one less than 2 mi. away. It's nice cos if I wanna go anywhere not right around the hotel, I need a cab, so it wouldn't be too terribly expensive. Unfortunately, downtown is like 16 mi. away, so I won't be hanging out there too much, I'm afraid.

Another downside would be that I forgot my phone charger, and my battery is at about 1/4. So I won't have it on very much, except maybe once a day to check for voice mail. So if you want to get a hold of me, you should e-mail me or call my hotel @ 636-861-8300, rm. 400.

Training starts tomorrow. More updates to follow, since I'll probably just be hanging out in my room a lot. Maybe I shoulda rented a car. Oh, well.

Not so pure anymore

Well, it looks like global warming alarmists have a new scapegoat: the very spirit of competetive sport.

I'm sure that China appreciates the break from the bad press.

Enjoy the Unknown

Good news. I gots a new job.

Not only that, it's one in my field.

I accepted a Technician position with Swank Audio Visuals. And I promise that they're quite reputable. They do in-house a/v services for hotels. I'll be working at the Sheriton up in Sharonville. I start Mon. the 28th.

But not before I go through training the 21-25th.....in St. Louis!!! (Can you say ribs?)

So I am excited. Here I am almost 2 years out of college, and I'm about to start a career. It's quite an interesting feeling. It's one of the few long-term things I've ever undertaken. Other than marriage, most things in my life, like other jobs and college, were only things for a few years, if that. Growing up is weird. I'm still figuring it out.

And now I will continue what seems to have been made a tradition: the drinking of a double bock in celebration of a new job. I had the Samuel Adams version when I found out about my present job. But tonight, it's the Christian Moerlein Emancipator Doppel Bock. It was brewed to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the repealing of prohibition (which was yesterday to be exact). And it's a bit of an emancipation for myself. Whereas that was freedom from lack of beer (legally anyway), I have freedom from the lack of a good job. How deliciously appropriate.

Cheers!

And Amen.

Standing tall and stuff.

People, I'm tired.

I'm tired of all of the fear and scare tactics being used by so many in our government and news media. They tell us that we're all in danger and anyone who disagrees is ostracized and ignored, at best. Those of us who think that we're being lied to are just some "lunatic fringe." And now, based on lies, we are asked to make sacrifices; to change our very lives as we know them. Even the government is taking costly actions for this purpose, and they affect us all. But we are assured that these are necessary sacrifices and that we will be safer, so it's worth it. But again, if we refuse to give in, there are consequences.

I guess they assume that because enough important people say it and if they ignore and don't tell us about dissenting opinion, we will also believe it.

I am, of course, talking about the theory of man-made global warming.

Seems like some people detest these fear tactics in the area of terrorism and national security (which are pretty well proven to be major concerns), but they're suddenly ok with them when talking about man-made global warming (which is still a theory - and not a very good one).

I was reading this article: A Really Inconvenient Truth

I had to stop part-way through cos it was pissing me off.

For those who don't want to read the whole thing (though you should - and so should I), here are a couple highlights.

Remember that "consensus" of 200 scientists who concluded that "changes in the atmosphere, the oceans and glaciers and ice caps now show unequivocally that the world is warming due to human activities"? I'm sure you do, as it was widely publicized. Well, I'll bet you never heard of the 400 scientists who disagree.

Thats right. So, how is it that 200 scientists think one way, and 400 think another way, and yet the thoughts of the 200 (the minority) are considered to be the consensus? That is sheer idiocy.

Don't believe me? Read the report.

An here's another bit from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change entitled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.

What's really sad is the treatment that very reputable scientists are receiving. Many are “'denied tenure, shut out of scientific conferences and rejected by academic journals because no matter how scrupulous their research,' their conclusions contradicted the truth espoused by the climate change pharisees (National Post, March 10)."

Another interesting tidbit:

"One Canadian survey of 51,000 earth scientists and engineers by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA), released last week, showed that 68 percent disagreed with the statement that 'the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.'”

Looks like Canada's good for something after all.

So don't believe the hype. Educate and think for yourself.