Polkamaster

I'm not so sure... (Crandon Police Shooting)

2007-10-10T07:33:00.000-07:00

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=673036

No mental tests given to gunman
Screening not required for officer to be hiredBy GINA BARTON
gbarton@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Oct. 9, 2007
Tyler James Peterson, who killed six people at a Crandon party, was hired as a police officer at 19 without a psychological screening, a combination that, though legal in Wisconsin, falls short of national norms and might allow unfit candidates to enter law enforcement, experts said.

I'm reading this point over and over on a variety of news media sources. Of course media is always looking for the "Ah HA" moment of every story.

This raises 2 thoughts for me.

First, it seems like media consistently reports from the perspective that everything is predictable, everything preventable, and everything has a logical pattern of precipitating factors. I suppose its easy to take that luxury of thought when all you ever do is Monday-Morning-Quarterback (cliche #1)on what has already happened. News media has that luxury. Hindsight is 20/20 (cliche #2) and it seems that would lend itself to always being able to pose the self-righteous question "why didn't anyone see this coming". I think that line of thought leads to a lot of poor decisions and beliefs. While everything has a cause, not everything is predictable. Why do some kids get raised in healthy homes and turn out to be murderers. While other kids raised in the poorest of circumstances go on to become educated and acheive the highest levels of success. There are people who struggle with mental issues every day that never snap and "go postal". There are people who've never struggled with a mental issue that come across a circumstance that causes them to snap. I think its media's chase to always portray these incidents (whatever they may be) as the result of something that, if not for some oversight would have been prevented. I think that leads people to have unrealistic expectations and actually shifts accountability away from places where it belongs, and places where accountability would make a difference.

Which ties into my second point which is that I wouldn't be so sure that psychological testing would have made ANY difference here. Until psychological testing can replicate the exact situations that lead people to 'snap' I highly doubt that any of the 'non-invasive' tests that are done could predict what will happen in a particular situation. Those in the industry of providing these tests will surely disagree with me, as they NEED to believe they can predit the future. But I highly doubt the success of being able to do so. I'll bet this kid would have passed psychological tests with flying colors.

Getting back to my previous point about how media's drive to blame lack of psychological testing shifts accountabilty:

So who's to blame here? Maybe blame isn't the word, but what would REALLY prevent this? Psychological testing? I'm not so sure psychological testing would prevent this. I offer another suggestion. To quote Dale Carnegie “When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures of emotion, Based on other news reports of the shooters conversation with a friend after the shootings, he said that he was called "worthless pig" as he was asked to leave the party(and he was already in a jealous rage)? Imagining all the emotion that goes along with relationships, jealousy, hurt, fear, etc. Justified or not, that alone can drive a person to an emotional crisis. If this shooter was in that state of mind, and THEN had to hear people calling him a "worthless pig". Denigrating his job/career. Something people take a great deal of pride and draw self worth from... I think those are some pretty extraordinary circumstances that could cause someone to snap. This is not to excuse what he did by any means. But if people want to have an honest conversation about how to prevent a situatin like this... rather than blame lack of psychological testing which surely can't replicate situations like this, perhaps it out to be suggested that when people encounter a person who is in a fit of jealous rage, the LAST thing to do is to escalate an already explosively volatile situation by calling him a "worthless pig"

But oh well... Media always needs to find the smoking gun.

Someone finally got smart

2007-10-02T09:20:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298922,00.html

Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin suggests Americans should be compelled to pay for the war in Iraq through a 'surtax'

I love the concept. (although this particular use of the idea is just another way to tack additional tax on people)

But I've been wishing for YEARS that people actually recognized what they were paying in taxes, and what for.

I LOVE the concept of having direct taxation for specific government expenditures. Nothing will get people to pull their heads out of their asses quicker than actually seeing the money go.... And along those lines, the only way to make SURE people know how much of their hard earned money they are sending to uncle sam, we should END the practice of WITHHOLDING.

If people had to pull out their checkbook and WRITE A CHECK every April 15th, I am beyond confident that they'd finally get outraged over our excessive tax burden. No more of ghost taxes that come out of your paycheck and you never see. Its time people got a better perspective of just how much they are sending in by letting them ACTUALLY take possesion of ALL their income and have to write that FAT check at the end of the year to their parasite of a government.

Double Standard? Just what is John Edwards saying?

2007-09-28T13:14:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298526,00.html

“We start with the president of the United States saying to America, ‘we cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we’re not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They’re all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

I'm curious what would happen if a non-democrat said this? How would it be interpreted if, for example, Bill O'Reilly said "all African-American Males are going to be in prison or dead?"

I can't imagine the outrage.

From another angle. Clearly John Edwards is REALLY grasping for a vote. He seems to have the method of ass-kiss-pandering for votes down to a science.

What if the tables were turned

2007-09-24T07:19:00.000-07:00

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_US?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

So the Iranian president is coming to the US and he's going to get a forum to speak at Columbia University.

I don't have a problem with it. I'm all for giving crazies a forum to continue to prove in person that they are crazy. But all the fuss over wether he should or shouldn't be allowed to speak... To me, the most start contrast between 'us and them' is consider if President Bush wanted to go speak in Iran? One, from a security standpoint there is NO WAY that would even be consionable, but even if they could guarentee his safety, a country like Iran would never ALLOW him to speak.

I wonder if any of the "U.S. Haters" over there, which surely there are plenty of, consider that despite what they think if us, their leader can come here and not just be safe to do so, but also a country that allows someone to speak his piece. Something our president couldn't even think of doing there.

Which I think is the biggest reason to let him speak here. Because it proves how much different we are from "them". Our citizens (as a whole) are more civilized and our government still respects at least some of our constitutional freedoms.

Has the Senate nothing better to do?

2007-09-20T12:32:00.000-07:00

Than pass meaningless sybolism over substance measures..

Fock me...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html

The Criminalization of Speeding

2007-07-04T20:48:00.000-07:00

So on network TV here in Milwaukee they are running television commercials telling the public how the po-lice are cracking down on speeding...

Its bad enough that our tax dollars go to pay police to sit and eat donuts and run speed traps for hours while out of the other side of law-enforcements mouth they complain that there aren't enough police on the street, blah blah blah... Well then how about policing CRIME instead of petty revenue generation via speed traps. I digress...

Its bad enough our tax dollars go to fund police who sit and run speed traps... Now they are using our tax dollars to buy air-time during prime-time television to run ads TELLING us they are going to take more of our money writing tickets..

But what REALLY strikes me... Listen to the ads... They talk about speeding... And the LAST line of the ad "Over the Limit, Under Arrest"

REALLY? "Under Arrest" Gee Barney Fife, last time I checked speeding isn't a criminal act, its merely a violation.

So drop the drama... Hell, just drop the ads all together and let the taxpayer keep their money... But "Over the Limit Under Arrest"???? What are you slapping cuffs on speeders now?

Fucking bullshit...

Juneteenth Riots and The Absurdity of Hate Crime Legislation

2007-06-27T08:00:00.000-07:00

So I'm reading this article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Not that their editorial staff is known for its common sense but what a stupid editorial.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=625123

Calls for the end of Milwaukee's Juneteenth festivities are premature. With the right community and police collaboration, this can be an event that helps bridge racial divides here.

Bridge racial divide? Yeah, cause nothing makes us whities want to go socialize with brotha's and sista's like worrying that you might LIKELY get caught in the middle of a riot.

As for calls for ending the festivities being premature. Its time for people to be honest. EVERY assemblage of 'citizens' on the north side has been excessively prone to violence. YEAR after year. Greek Fest... Sherman Fest... Both had to be ended or moved because of violence problems..

We agree. Make the neighborhood and this event safe, remembering, however, that the violence didn't start until the celebration was over.

Why does news media keep beating this to death? That the violence happened when the celebration was over??? SURE it did... But it was exclusively attendees of the celebration that precipitated and participated in the riot. If that isn't direct association with Juneteenth what is?

Lets be real here... In Milwaukee, we have a problem. Its a problem with YOUNG Black kids on the northside. Its a huge problem. I'm a pretty brave guy but there is NO way in hell I'd drive up Sherman Avenue on a Friday or Saturday night.

The beating was followed quickly by a call for the cessation of the festival, with some wanting to label it a hate crime.

Kasthurirangaian, who owns a store in the neighborhood, tells us that he heard no racial slurs as he was pulled from the car and as the first blows were delivered, though he adds that things quickly became a blur after that.

Oh, so somehow this isn't as bad because it wasn't a "hate" crime? And so long as no racial slurs were uttered its not a hate crime?

Because this was totally random makes it better than a hate crime? You've got to be kidding me. Get your head out of your ass Journal Sentinel.

Ah the old switcheroo! Rape? Fraud?

2007-05-14T12:03:00.000-07:00

So the Massachusets supreme Court ruled that it isn't rape to trick a woman into having sex with you. In this case, a girl was sleeping, her boyfriends brother came into a dark room, woke her, and had sex with her. It wasn't until he left and turned the light on that she realized it was the brother, not her boyfriend.

So on the surface I thought... hmm... thats an interesting legal opinion...

Then I thought about it...

See article:
http://www.kansascity.com/136/story/105899.html

So on the surface it seems like a no-brainer... This guy tricked her into having sex with him right?

I mean yes, she was a willing participant, but ONLY because she was misled into thinking it was her boyfriend. If she had known the TRUTH she wouldn't have slept with him...

Well... Then I got thinking... If 'tricking' a girl into having sex with you is going to now be a crime... What about the following scenario's:

-If you tell a girl you are rich, she sleeps with you, and later finds out you are poor... Is that rape cause you misrepresented yourself, and upon finding out the truth, she really wouldn't have had sex with you?

-What about if you tell a girl you love her, she has sex with you, and later finds out you lied and you really don't love her, and if she had known the truth, she wouldn't have had sex with you. Is that rape? Cause you lied in order to get her to consent? You fooled her?

In watching a news story about this on TV it was suggested by the anchorwoman that "surely" massachussets needs to pass a law that labels sex by fraud as 'rape' (as it is currently written legal "rape" requires non-consent and force)

So after thinking it thru... While surely underhanded (what this guy did) all I have to say to the girl is "turn the light on next time"

Because if tricking a girl into having sex with you by lying or misrepresenting yourself is a crime... Man we'd have 90% of the male population accused of rape by their ex-girlfriends.

Seriously though, law in this country is based on precedent... and if we change legislation to make it rape when a guy lies or misrepresents who he is in order to have sex with a girl... where is the distinction between telling a girl you are rich and wealthy and you want to marry her, which makes her agree to have sex with you, and other lies and misrepresentations...

The Staggering Shift of the Role of Government

2007-05-13T19:59:00.000-07:00

As a libertarian, I'm for less government almost across the board.

But as far as government services go, things like police and fire... I would consider those to be the core role of government.

And I think its shocking that we see the withdrawl of these core services while entitlement programs EXPAND.

There are hundreds of examples, but here is one of the expansion of entitlement programs... Wisconsins "family care" program is being expanded so more people can get handouts from the government. (aka my taxes) while I have to pay for my own health insurance... While my insurance stops paying for my nexium to cut costs... Other people who suck off the government Tit get more.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=602070

While at the same time, on the same day, we have a report of how the Milwaukee County Sherrif is no longer providing patrol to park-and-ride lots.

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/7470122.html

I quoted the whole article below just in case the link doesn't work.

Comments in the article indicate that there are not enough police resources... and that the sherrif won't respond to property crimes in those lots.

So while we see MORE money getting allocated to entitlement programs (as seen in the first article) we have these core services which we "can't afford"

When will this country and specifically wisconsin come to its senses and get government back to what its suppoe to be? Protecting rights? Not taking money from some to distribute to others while then taking core services of government and failing to supply them.

Park-and-Ride Debate
Heather Shannon
MILWAUKEE - Are the park-and-ride lots safe? The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department patrols 10 county owned lots. But the sheriff is now refusing to patrol seven other lots that are owned by the state of Wisconsin.

The sheriff says state troopers should patrol those lots.

"We are talking about state owned lots. These are not county lots. It's not county property," Kim Brooks, Public Information Officer for the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department said. "Our hands are full dealing with the problems we have on county owned lots."

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke wants the Wisconsin State Patrol to police the state owned lots. But they said Sheriff Clarke cannot tell them to start patrolling, because Wisconsin law says they are "not legally allowed to investigate criminal activity."

In addition, the Wisconsin State Patrol doesn't have any resources allotted to Milwaukee County. Their closest station is in Waukesha County, so some people who use state owned park-and-rides are afraid if something happened, it would take too long until a state trooper arrived.

"Whatever could happen or does happen is going be gone 40 to 45 minutes later," Wayne Dhein said. Dhein is a bus driver for All State Lines. He uses park-and-rides daily, and says he's noticed a spike in suspicious activity since word got out that sheriff's deputies wouldn't respond. "There does have to be somebody at least going through once in a while, to keep things in order."

Sheriff Clarke has been asking the state to take over the patrolling of the lots, and has also been asking for surveillance cameras to be installed to curb crime in the lots. When the state did not respond to either request, Clarke stopped his patrols on May 1.

"We can't be everywhere. We need help. And we need the state to help police state park-and-ride lots," Brooks said. When reporter Heather Shannon asked Brooks, "What if the state says, we're not going to do that?" Brooks said, "Then I guess we're in the situation that we're in."

The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department will still respond to emergency calls involving threats to people. But they will not respond to "property related crimes." Meaning if your car is stolen or gets broken into, you could have a hard time getting someone to respond.

My Directorial Debut. Deserves and Oscar

2007-05-01T11:42:00.001-07:00

Or is this more of a music video?

Shot during the "day without latino's" protest on May 1st

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc1lujJEIOU

"Idol Gives Back" Guilt, Pandering, And The Exploitation of Charity For Personal Gain

2007-04-26T07:56:00.000-07:00

So I was watching American Idol's "charity" show last night...

I have a few problems with the whole concept. "Idol Gives Back"

True charity is anonymous... What American Idol did is just pathetic pandering, self-promotion, and exploitation of those in hardship for their gain.

My first thought when American Idol began promoting its "Idol Gives Back" episode a few months ago is can't we get ANY pure entertainment anymore? Does everything have to be tied to a 'cause'... Whether its breast cancer, child abuse, hunger, illiteracy, or any one of a couple thousand 'causes of the hour'.

My second thought was what is the motivation of the producers for something like this? And I think its guilt. I think all these people who've made MILLIONS off of American Idol feel guilty. And I think "Idol Gives Back" is there way to feel good about themselves, while in the end, benefiting from their 'charitable' venture and instead of being charitable themselves, they merely exploit other people's charitable nature while having a FANTASTIC PR stunt in the process.

Think about it... "Idol Gives Back"

What was the first thing they did when they announced this endeavor... They asked for corporate sponsors... Exxon-Mobile stepped up... AT&T stepped up... Ford Motor Company stepped up... News Corp, parent company of Fox Stepped up...

Shouldn't the first part of "Idol Gives Back" be an announcement of what those who make up American Idol are going to 'give'????

This whole thing SHOULD have been called "America gives back while Idol self-promotes"

Again... I believe this whole thing was rooted in guilt. But for all those who've made millions off of idol. Creator Simon Fuller, Producer Simon Jones, Directors Bruce Gowers, Nigel Lythgoe (principal of 19 entertainment) and Ken Warwick... Damir Kovacevic, and the judges Simon Cowell, Randy Jackson, and Paula Abdul...

Guilt does not overshadow greed. And guilty as they feel for their success... Rather than just turn around and write a personal check anonymously to REALLY be charitable... The "new" charity is using your celebrity (which costs you nothing) to ask OTHER people to be charitable. And that makes these celebs feel better about themselves...

If Idol's primary goal was to 'give back' Why don't each of these American Idol Multi-Millionaires pen a big fat check anonymously?

Anyway... by any means, not to belittle the people they showed in the video's and their hardships, in Africa, in Kentucky, in New Orleans but 'true' charity seems to be lost by celebs and those whose primary interest is selfish in nature.

So Simon Fuller, Simon Jones, Simon Cowell, Ken Warwick, Randy Jackson, Ryan Seacrest, Paula Abdul, Nigel Lythgoe, Bruce Gowers and Damir Kovacevic... Idol has made you all what you are today... Lets see YOU give back as much as you ask America too.

Virginia Tech Killings and Gun Control

2007-04-19T12:30:00.000-07:00

As expected, since the Virginia Tech killings, many of the same old un-informed voices have been calling for gun control... Rosie Odonnell was on "The View" flapping her oversized mouth around painting this as a gun control issue...

Today I noticed the following article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=593348

In it, the author asks:

"What remains to be seen is whether the really big question ever gets addressed: What are we going to do about all the guns out there in the hands of all the sullen loners who are looking for a way to make the rest of us realize what's really important and what's not?"

The author of the article also discards the notion that had students been able to carry concealled weapons (Virginia allows concealled carry with a permit, but weapons are banned from the campus itself) lives would not have been saved. This rampage would NOT have been ended sooner.

I have a few open-ended questions for those who think gun control would have prevented this tragedy, and for those who don't think armed citizens could have and would have ended this massacre with a fraction of the bloodshed.

First, lets just ASSUME that it is actually possible to prevent these "sullen loners" from obtaining firearms. (which of course its not) Guns were banned on campus, but this psycho brought one. So clearly the law would not deter him. And having seen his psychotic manifesto on the news... I'm quite certain he would have found a way to obtain a firearm even if he had to wack an unsuspecting cop over the head with a louisville slugger and steal his gun. Regardless. Lets live in the world of the ignorant for a while and PRETEND that he wouldn't have been able to get a gun.

Do you really believe that if this kid had no access to guns he wouldn't have found a way to create as much death and destruction as possible?

Perhaps it would have been smashing his car into a big crowd of kids (very easy to find on a college campus) and killing dozens, perhaps it would have been a bomb (Tim McVeigh did it with fertilizer). Perhaps it would have been chaining up exit doors and lighting a dorm building on fire during the night.

On Sept. 11th thousands died, and not a single gun was used.

I watched this kids psychotic manifesto on television. I assume you have seen the video also. Is there any doubt in your mind that if not for a gun he would have just found another method to inflict his psychotic episode with?

Do you really believe that if he hadn't been able to get a hold of a gun he would have given up his psychotic intentions?

And how can you brush off the suggestion that if guns were not banned on campus, and students had been allowed to carry guns, that wouldn't have stopped his killing rampage sooner... Yet when the authorities were summoned to deal with a "school shooter" they arrived on campus by the dozens, perhaps hundreds EACH AND EVERY ONE of them running around with AR-15's and other semi-automatic weaponry to deal with this threat?

If having weapons available wasn't a solution to neutralizing this threat... why did the police show up armed to the gills with guns to deal with the situation?

And the bigger picture... When are people going to realize that there are some things you just can't prevent. Especially in a free society. Those with no regard for human life (theirs or anyone elses) will always find a way to kill, and there will never be a way to prevent every incident like that.

The Death of Supply and Demand

2006-01-13T07:27:00.000-08:00

Great Job Maryland...

In a stinging rebuke to free markets, supply and demand, and a victory for big government...

The Socialist Union of Maryland will now require companies with 10,000 or more employees to spend 8% of their payroll on employee benefits.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181550,00.html

So lets review... First Government fucks up supply and demand and the market forces that make a free economy WORK with socialist programs like Medicaid...

THEN when the natural forces of supply and demand REACT (as they ALWAYS WILL) to take advantage of the socialistic system, big government tries to fix the problem by going FURTHER in the other direction and dealing another big blow to freedom, and free markets.

Programs like Medicaid ENABLED.... No... DESTINED Wal-Mart to be able to grow and operate at the pay-rates and health-coverage policies that they do.

The problem was NEVER Wal-Mart.

If you want to make sure people don't take low-wage jobs that don't offer health-care benefits because they can get other taxpayers to pay for their health-care..

STOP OFFERING FREE shit to some people that other people have to pay for.

If there was no Medicaid then the only people who would take jobs at Wal-Mart would be those that don't care if they have company sponsored health care.

If there WAS no Medicaid perhaps free market forces in effect Wal-Mart WOULD have had such a problem finding employees that they would HAVE to offer health care benefits to get workers. OR perhaps only young kids who lived at home under their parents health coverage would work at Wal-Mart. Perhaps Wal-Mart would have to charge more for their products if they have to pay for health coverage to attract workers and THAT would satisfy all the Wal-Mart haters. In anycase... Supply and Demand. Free Market Forces COULD solve the problem. But Government just can't fucking stay out of the way can they...

Rather then address the REAL cause... Government tries to fix their fuck-up with a fuck-up.

If I was CEO at Wal-Mart I'd take one for the team. I'd send a message LOUD and clear to the idiot legislators. I'd close EVERY Wal-Mart in Maryland. EVERY one.

WATCH retail prices SKYROCKET at other places (target, etc) when there is no competition from Wal-Mart. Watch unemployement filings SKYROCKET when all the people employed by Wally World can't find a job.

At some point I hope Big Business stops capitulating to Government and is willing to take a hit to their bottom line to stick it in over-zealous freedom raping legislators ass-ends.

Welcome to America.

FFHL

Tax Cuts could solve almost EVERY issue in this Country

2006-01-06T12:33:00.000-08:00

Something I've often considered in random ponderings and personal observations over the years is that 'good people' people that would make great parents seem to tend to have fewer kids.

Why I don't know. Some of it is probably selfishness. (Don't want to be tied down.) BUT I tend to think MOST likely it is probably financial responsibility. (These are conciencous people who want to make sure they can support themselves and their family.) (unfortunately the burden of taxation means they are supporting OTHER families of people who said to hell with financial responsibility) Its sad... If not for the burden of taxation (a large part of which goes to support those that are NOT financially responsible ) the 'good' people would probably have more kids.

But back to the point. Good people don't have as many kids... Idiots screw like rabbits and have 5...

It doesn't take a sociologist to understand the ramifications...

Its tempting to whittle everything down to a 'single' answer. And there never is truly a single answer. BUT... I can't help but think that it TRULY does revolve around taxes...

If people were not taxed to death to support HANDOUTS to people who didn't earn it. They'd have MORE money to raise and support a bigger family... and the idiots would have LESS of an ENABLER (because they wouldn't get 'free money' which was handed out by the government collected from taxes on responsible people) to allow them to have big families they can't support.

Nothing happens without money. If the government has less money it can't enable losers to be unproductive losers. If government has less money they can't spend BILLIONS on bullshit "studies" and who knows what else.

If government is kept on a starvation diet financially they would HAVE to focus on CORE services like military and courts and law enforcement.

Tax cuts can solve so many of our woes.

New York City Transit Workers Strike

2005-12-20T08:01:00.000-08:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179241,00.html

"Meanwhile, transit workers took to the picket lines with signs that read "We Move NY. Respect Us!"

You want respect? Then either do your job, or quit and find a new job if you think you aren't paid enough.

What a bunch of fucking prima donnas.

Why is it that everyone thinks they are 'owed' respect? Respect speaks for itself. If you don't have it, you probably don't deserve it.

I can't even phathom the audacity to say to someone "Respect Me". You're pathetic just for saying it. One of the reasons people will respect you is if you respect yourself. And standing on a street corner with a sign saying "Respect Us" shows how pathetic you are. If you are willing to dishonor yourself by standing on a corner with a sign saying "respect us" you deserve none.

You want my respect? Do the job you are paid to do. If you don't like your pay, find a better job and resign your current. If you can't find a better job. NEWSFLASH: "YOU ARE BEING PROPERLY COMPENSATED"

I'll respect you if you quit your job because you marketed yourself and you found yourself a better job. I won't respect you if you walk off your job with all your lazy-ass union buddies and grind the city to a halt so that all the people who actually DO want to do their job today... Who DON'T have the luxury of a union contract... Who actually earn a salary on the open market without strong-arm tactics like unions use can't get to work.

If I was the Director of Operations for the NYC Transit authority I'd fire EVERY one of them and immediately for failure to report to work and start accepting applications. I'll bet there's MANY MANY MANY people who'd love a 55K salary to drive a bus and a fully funded pension at 62 to go along with it.

"Respect Us"?????????????????

Please...

FFHL

"Gotcha" politics and selective outrage

2005-12-16T10:32:00.000-08:00

Report: Bush Authorized NSA Eavesdropping in U.S.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178893,00.html

Well, once again, I'm sure the democrats and Bush haters have found some ripe territory to attack Bush on. Really, I could give a shit less about Bush anymore. He failed me on every reason I voted for him except the Tax Cut. Social Security reform went nowhere. Government has grown... I digress...

But I have a feeling this issue is going to be HUGE "gotcha" politics for democrats and liberal news media. They'll eat this up.

So lets summarize. After 9/11 Bush probably authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on anyone they felt necessary to prevent another terrorist attack without a warrant. OK, fine. That 'ain't right' but I've got a beef with this kind of shit (imagine that) Here's Russ Feingold:

Russell Feingold, D-Wis., called it a "shocking revelation" that he said "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American."

Really Russell? A chill down the spine of every senator and every American...

Here's the crux of why I think this is such a load of crap...

If Americans want to be pissed off... If there is ANYTHING that should send a chill down the spine of Americans, this kind of thing should be LAST on the list.

How about the fact that our woefully lacking in accountability government has taxed us into oblivion so much so that of our total economic activity, government spending now has a 43% 'share' of total spending and Private sector 'share' 57% (before World War II it was around 12% government share and 88% private sector share)

How about the fact that we ALL have given up rights on a daily basis every time we fly with strip searches and pat downs, and shit that hasn't caught a SINGLE terrorist. NOT ONE!

How about the fact that there are still several states that IGNORE the constitution and the ULTRA important (according to the founding fathers) right to bear arms?

Yet these fucking politicians think that because the Bush Administration authorized the NSA to, without a warrant, spy on SELECTED people who they felt were a terrorist threat... NOW people should be outraged and have 'a chill running down their back'

Are you kidding me? Why now and not in light of all the other DAILY loss of freedoms and rights we put up with?

Why does Russ Feingold think that in light of the TONS of freedoms that most Americans bend over, grab their ankles, and allow the government to illegally and unconstitutionally take from us on a DAILY basis for NO GAIN... For NO measurable benefit on anyone's part. Why should allowing the NSA to spy on a few selected people who for all practical purposes were legitimate targets of surveillance get anyone's panties in a twist?

Especially in light of the fact that the reports indicate that this 'spying' PREVENTED ATTACKS!

Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.

In a nutshell... We all give up our freedom on a DAILY basis when we fly. Each and every one of us... And noone is outraged... But when a the NSA spies on some legitimate terrorist targets without a warrant there is outrage?

Get your head out of your ass America.

If the government is going to trounce on rights, I'd rather have them break the law to do it (like what might have happened here) then pass laws and regulations to MAKE IT LEGAL and do it anyway (like Democrats have done for the last 75 years)

I'm not here saying heads shouldn't roll on this one. If laws were broken let heads roll. But come on... Shit like that (that actually prevented an attack) deserves a "thank-you" as well.

This is like shooting a child molester on his way into court. The guy who shot the child molester should still get charged with murder. You just can't 'condone' vigilante activity... But as you are slapping the cuffs on the dude you say "job well done"

And as far as most people being outraged about this...

That would be like eating organic foods because you are worried about the possible but unproven cancer-causing effects of pesticides... Yet smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. Its absurd to worry about one unless you are more worried about the other first.

FFHL

Friggen Idiot: Milwaukee Radio Commercial

2005-12-14T20:54:00.000-08:00

So there is this gay-ass nonsense radio commercial running on Milwaukee Radio stations. Some selfish freedom-comprehension-lacking doctor is narrating the commercial telling us how he got lung cancer... But he's never smoked...

OOOOH no... He got lung cancer from second hand smoke.

He goes on to talk about the ills of second hand smoke and makes the following comments that make my skin crawl. Mostly because non-thinking idiots probably hear it and think "yeah, that makes sense".

This idiot says in the commercial: "You could change your social habits [to avoid second hand smoke] but WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE TO????"

"You could change jobs... But WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE TO????"

And he goes on to ask that you, the listening public please support smoke free workplaces. (translation: Please support taking away the rights of bar and business owners to decide what is allowed on their PRIVATE property)

Look... I can't fricken stand smoke. I hate it. And when someone is smoking around me I feel like shoving the cancer-stick up their nostril...

But I'll never support smoking bans in private places. And NEWSFLASH Mr. DOCTOR MAN (in the commercial) and any idiots who think he made sense...

Bars ARE PRIVATE PLACES. They are owned by private individuals. Telling Bar owners they must ban smoking IN THEIR PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT is no different then telling them they can't smoke in their own house.

Noone hates smoke more then I do... But I'll fight smoking bans in private establishments til I'm blue in the face.

Same thing with 'workplaces'.... Whomever owns that company has a right to decide if people can smoke there or not.

So to answer this boneheads question "You could change your social habits, but why should you have to" Well you should change your social habits because just because you don't like smoke doesn't give you a right to tell anyone else what they can allow on their PRIVATE property.

I HOPE bar owners would choose to make their bars smoke free. I really do... But the choice is theirs. Not anyone elses but the person who owns the bar or owns the business.

Its easy to support rights and freedoms you utilize. The ones that benefit you. How hard will you fight for rights that don't 'benefit you'...

How hard will you fight for peoples right to do things that you don't like?

Freedom baby.. Embrace it!

FFHL

The Death Penalty and Justice

2005-12-13T12:46:00.000-08:00

So lately there has been all this bullshit about granting Tookie Williams clemency because since he has been in prison he has turned his life around.

What a crock.

What else are you going to do in prison sitting on death row besides lift weights, exhaust your appeals, suck up taxpayer monies,and find God?

Sorry, call me insensitive, but I don't have much faith in people who have ANY kind of life-change AFTER they got caught for something. If Tookie Williams wasn't arrested and put in Jail 26 years ago, he'd have spent the remaining years of his life killing and doing all the things that gangs do. Finding redemption when you've been sitting in jail with NOTHING to do but think about ways to keep yourself from being executed does not represent a high degree of character. I'm skeptical of anyone who's motivation to do good was a result of being caught. If Tookie Williams had woken up 28 years ago, before the crimes he was arrested and convicted of had taken place and decided to change his life of his own free will, not because he was in jail, just because he had an epiphany. THAT demonstrates character.

But it raises a bigger question for me. Am I for the death penalty... No... I don't think I am. I don't think the death penalty serves 'justice'. I don't think anyone benefits from putting someone to death.

Here's my theory:

When you commit a crime... You don't owe a debt to society. You owe a debt TO YOUR VICTIMS.

No victim... No crime...

So when you steal from someone and are caught. You owe reparitions to the person you stole from. A court assigns a dollar value that you owe a victim (for the cost of their loss including monies to compensate for stress etc) You go to jail... A different kind of jail. A 'forced labor' prison where you work to pay off 2 things.. You work to pay off the cost of 'jailing' yourself and you work to pay reparitions to your victim. You don't get out of jail until BOTH are paid off.

Prison structure would be different. There would be some private enterprise integration to provide compensation based tasks for prisoners to do. Perhaps its diging ditches. Perhaps its stamping out license plates. Perhaps its some type of assebly. But prisoners would be forced to work. No work... No food... If they don't pay the assigned reparition to their victim. They stay in jail until they get motivated to do the work.

There would need to be special cases for certain types of crimes (again, judges would determine).. A person who is a threat to society (a serial killer who you would never want released) would have to work the rest of their life to pay reparitions to their victims families. Of course reparitions would be so high that they could never earn enough to do so... So in order to motivate them to work to pay what reparitions they could, they would again, not be fed unless they worked. Prisoners wouldn't be tortured or anything. Everything would be a choice for them. They work, they eat.. They don't work, they don't eat. They don't work, they get the heat shut off in their cell, or whatever.

Victims would get reparitions. Criminals who wanted to could motivate themselves to work TONS of hours and pay back their reparitions faster. You would make inmates who had a realistic shot of getting out accountable... And prisoners who we would not want to ever get out would not be a burden on society. They wouldn't be 'paying their debt to society' by making us law-abiding citizens pay taxes to feed and house them while they do nothing. They would be living a HARD life in prison paying to stay alive and feed themselves and paying to repay their victims. Believe me, prison would be a REAL deterent to your low-level criminals. (robbery, theft, etc)

FHL

My Theory Was Tested

2005-12-12T07:49:00.000-08:00

Last week I wrote about our airways being safer not because of gestapo-like security checkpoints at airports but because as a flying public, we got a rude-awakeing and we because aware of the threat we face. (see Idiots and Airport Security Topic)

Case-in point:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178407,00.html

"This guy just bolted. He screamed as he flew by here. He was heading for the cockpit," Crowley-Friendly said. "This fabulous stewardess just grabbed him by the collar and he screamed again."

Her husband, Andy Friendly, and three other passengers tackled him, she said.

Imagine that...

No Federal Air Marshalls to shoot the guy... Security searches at the airport didn't prevent the guy from charging the cockpit.

John Q. Public took care of the problem. Your average law-abiding citizen. Accomplishing something that BILLIONS of dollars of federal monies and freedom-raping practicies couldn't prevent.

FHL

Federal Air Marshall Shooting

2005-12-10T10:55:00.000-08:00

Been thinking about the Federal Air Marshall shooting in Florida.

Most of all I think its a tragedy. Its a shame an innocent person was killed.

I did pause to think about the fact that they shot a guy who was pretty much isolated in a jet-way. But the truth is... Wether or not he said he had a bomb. I think thats irrelevant. Mentally disturbed people are probably among the most dangerous. You just never know what they might do.

When you exhibit behavior like this guy did... You never know what he's capable of. The Air Marshall in my opinion were right on to follow him off the plane. Not so much because he exhibited terrorist behavior.. But because he was obviously disturbed. (reference my original point that you never know what a mentally disturbed person might do)

When a law enforcement officer asks you to show your hands/put your hands on your head/whatever because you have exhibited some irrational and inordinate behavior... You are very likely going to get shot if you reach in a bag. Plain and simple.

I don't care if the guy said he had a bomb. He was acting erratic. He was at gun point and he was probably being told to drop his bag or to put his hands on his head. IF he reached in the bag. (and I have no reason to think the FAM's would shoot ANYONE just because they could) If this dude reached in a bag. I'd have pulled the trigger too.

On the good side... I think its GREAT PR for terrorist to take notice. FAM's are out there and they shoot to kill.

Just like I think EVERY news story about a lady walking along who gets attacked by some punk criminal pulls out a gun and shoots the scumbag has a deterent value to other criminals who might think twice not knowing who may have the capacity to fight back... As unfortunate it is that this guy couldn't have been subdued peaceably... What a GREAT signal to terrorists that FAM's are on flights and they have guns, and they are enabled to kill people who pose a threat.

Anyway... For as much as I support the FAM's in my personal analyzation of the situation. It makes my skin crawl when I hear people make comments of careless disregard for the tragedy of the mentally disturbed person being killed. Even though the FAM's were in all likelyhood justified and acting properly for their training. Its sad that a person who was not acting in a sane capacity was killed.

FHL

Donald Trump, stick a sock in it...

2005-12-09T14:26:00.000-08:00

So I caught a snippet of 'The Apprentice' from last week.

Beyond the couple dozen or so reasons why I find this show annoying and about as far from reality as possible...

Is anyone else sick of hearing Celebrities say shit that you KNOW they don't really belive or 'live' in their own life?

Donald Trump saved the most priceless lesson for last: giving back to society is the ultimate success. As 'The Apprentice' candidates battle to raise money for these worthy causes, you can do your part by donating to the charities as well. Contributing to the greater good is the most fulfilling reward, and life is the bottom line

I'm SURE Donald really believes that giving back to society is the ultimate success. Get real...

I wonder if he made up that line of bullshit or one of the writers.

Several beefs here:

Celebrities seem to think 'showing up' or 'lending their name' to a cause counts as 'charity work'. I think not.

A celebrity showing up at an event does not constitute a charitable act in my mind. All the people who showed up to SEE the celebrity are the only ones being 'charitable'.

So when some ego-hole celebrity says they raise a million dollars for charity... Bullshit... The people who paid to see them did.

As far as I'm concerned a celebrity showing up for a free diner, after having been flown in on a chartered jet that someone paid for for him, and then shuttled him to the event in a free limo. The celebrity deserves no credit at all. The people who paid money to see him/her do.

One step up from that are the celebrities that actually give a chunk of change. I give them credit. (especially the ones that do it quietly, rather then make their charitable contribution nothing more then a PR expenditure) I've seen some celebs write some BIG checks for Hurricane Katrina, the Tsunami etc. Although really... Lets be honest... Beyond the PR value/motivation most of these celebs have run out of things to spend their money on, and them throwing a cool half-mil at a charity is easy for them compared to the average joe sending in a couple hundred. The difference. The average Joe probably had to sacrifice another purchase or want to send in their couple hundred. The celeb can still buy anything they want even after forking a couple hundred grand over.

Isn't it disengenuous for a billionaire (The Donald) (barf) to be telling or asking ANYONE else to contribute to a cause? Once again... Using your celebrity power to get OTHER people to send in money doesn't count as charity... Nor is it 'giving back to society' Of course I'm sure they think it is.

Hell, celebs get free dinners everywhere they go. Celebs are the biggest freeloaders in the world. The people who can afford it most.. Get most for free. Why am I not suprised they feel guilty.

So a word to all the celebrities out there. Asking someone else to donate money is not charity on your part. It is not "giving back to society".

If you want to give back to society, how about you support a conservative/libertarian politician who wants to return freedom and control over ones monies to the private sector, not the federal and state government. If you want to give back to society, use YOUR power and influence to support candidates who would give the AVERAGE person BACK their power instead of supporting candidates who want to raise taxes and take more of the average citizens money to support things you rich celebs feel compelled to embrace. Take the side of the person who doesn't have every need fulfilled because of their millions and who doesn't want anything from anyone except the efficacy to be able to see their own labor be more profitable without the siphoning of taxes off the top.

Idiots and Airport Security

2005-12-02T08:01:00.000-08:00

Hearing on the news and reading today that the TSA is going to allow scissors and tools on airplanes again. (link to article on Foxnews.com)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177410,00.html

All I can say is its about f'n time.

Of course you've got the pussy-ass idiots who are playing the scaredy-cat game (quote from the article)

"On Sept. 11, we witnessed the devastation and death that can be perpetrated onboard a plane with commonly-used items like boxcutters, and TSA wisely took action to ban such sharp objects. Now is not the time to overturn this ban, since we know that Al Qaeda continues to put passenger plans near the top of its terrorist target list,"

Rather then rape peoples right to privacy with illegal gestapo-type searches at airports before you can board a commercial airline. How about this for common sense.

1. We were safer from hijacking on September 12th 2001... Before ANY freedom raping security procedures were put in place at airports. We were safer because before Sept. 11th. We had a society of complacency. A society of "attrition". For years we had been told by news media and law enforcement to "comply" to "not try to be a hero".

For years we had seen terroristst that only wanted hostages. We had been lulled into a belief that if you just 'do what they want' noone gets hurt, and they get their television time, and then you get to go home.

There was an awakening on Sept 11th. In fact that awakening started on Flight 93. The only hijacked flight to NOT hit its intended target. The people on that flight were made aware by cell phones etc what happened to the other planes, and the people on that flight decided it was time to be hero's (actually they just probably wanted to live) and try to take back the plane. "Lets Roll"

I assert that no wack-job would ever make it anywhere near the cockpit of a plane anymore. They'd be jumped by passengers before they ever got close because our population got a rude awakening on September 11th.

We were made safer instantly by our knowledge, and our awareness of the new reality.

2. My second point is that if you DID want to take additional measures to protect the safety of flights. Confiscating tweezers and nail files and scissors from law-abiding citizens is a pathetic feel-good-accomplish-nothing measure. REAL security would be to put locks on the cockpit doors. And to my knowledge, this has been done.

3. Pilots with guns. Trained to use them. I don't think this needs any explanation.

So there you have it. We CAN be as safe as we possibly can be (without taking away civil liberties) because of our new awareness, and because of taking common sense measures that in no way encroach on civil liberties.

It doesn't take a 1.5 billion dollar a year tax on air travel... It doesn't take freedom infringing body searches at airports... It doesn't take the lost productivity and loss of convenience of air travel for millions of people who waste HOURS and HOURS of their time standing in security lines over the course of a year.

It just takes a little common sense. So to the idiots who are crying about screwdrivers and scissors and nail files being allowed on plains again. Get your head out of your ass.

And to whomever initiated this more common sense move at the TSA or wherever. Its about time. Good start...

fhl

I wonder if this dude is a liberal?

2005-12-01T09:52:00.000-08:00

http://www.freespiritspheres.com/

Looks cool as hell. I just wonder if they'd sell one to a conservative NRA member. I have a feeling birkenstocks and granola and a green party membership card are required.

Although in the faq section they do mention they could be used for hunting. hmmm

Start Your Day Off Right

2005-11-17T07:27:00.000-08:00

I'm always amazed by the sacrifice of Soldiers. Especially American soldiers as we have a completely volunteer military. Everyone there chose of their own free will to enlist.

About a week ago I came upon a link, the kind that circulates around the internet about a soldier in Iraq who was awarded the Navy Cross, the 2nd highest award for Valor in the military. Which of course got me thinking about the highest award for Valor. The Medal of Honor, also known as the Congressional Medal of Honor.

I think it sucks that political games like accusing Bush of mis-representing intelligence to lead the country into war make headline news night after night, day after day when soldiers are dying in Iraq fighting for a good cause. (Agree or not with going to war... someone tell me a democratic Iraq isn't a good cause?)

We don't even get NAMES anymoe... Just "2 soldiers died in Iraq today". WTF?

Can't the news media take time out of bird flu hysteria and pointless and irrelevant political cat-fights to spend 2 minutes of HEADLINE news time to shine the spotlight on every soldier that dies for our country? Not for political purpose so some dumb fuck democrat can win the PR game, but so people can see what sacrifice really is. So people can hear the story of a real person who gave the ultimate sacrifice? For freedom... For their country?

I digress... Start your day off right. Go to U.S. Army website: Congressional Medal of Honor Recipients

There is a full list of citations. The story of what each soldier did to earn the highest honor this country can bestow on a soldier. There are less then 3,500 recipients... Around 118 still living. Many of the soldiers died during the event that they received the award for.

Bookmark it... Read one every morning...

In addition to honoring someone who gave their life for our country, it serves as a great motivator. Its hard to bitch about your job after reading about someone who gave their life, for their country doing their job.

For more information check out the Congressional Medal of Honor Society Website

FHL

The Man In The Arena-Teddy Roosevelt

2005-11-15T07:30:00.000-08:00

Let the man of learning, the man of lettered leisure, beware of that queer and cheap temptation to pose to himself and to others as the cynic, as the man who has outgrown emotions and beliefs, the man to whom good and evil are as one. The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twisted pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes second to achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticize work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not, as the possessor would fain think, of superiority, but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part manfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affectation of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the The rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into a fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride or slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he by cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of the great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and the valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a soldier..."

FHL

Oil Companies must hate news like this

2005-11-14T14:24:00.000-08:00

I've often said that if government gets out of the way, technology, (not legislation) will fix economic problems like out of control gas prices, and record profts from oil companies.

After a discusson about oil, gas, and the market forces in play with a friend on Saturday night, I came across this article. So often hydrogen is kinda thought of as a 'far-off' thing. Its actually very much a reality. Even if it doesn't replace petroleum fuel based engine powered vehicles totally, just having an alternative that would put a dent in demand could SHARPLY reduce gas costs and no longer would oil companies have the luxury of being able to charge what basically ammounts to 'whatever they want' for gas.

http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/nov05/370124.asp?source=tmj4

quotes from the article

Eggleston envisions motorcycle fuel being made from small gas reformers about the size of a shoebox. They could convert sunflower oil, soybeans, corn, sugarcane or other bio fuels into hydrogen gas.

The reformers would emit no more carbon dioxide than a plant's natural decomposition would release, adding to the bike's eco-friendly theme. Hydrogen also could come from petrochemical refineries where it now is burned off as a waste product.

"The current cost of filling up the bike's tank, about $4, could be reduced to 25 cents," Eggleston said.

Fuel-cell vehicles are considered by some to be the next big breakthrough in transportation technology. In such vehicles, a small chemical reactor converts hydrogen and oxygen into electricity, water and heat. The electricity drives a motor that powers the wheels.

There are so many sources of hydrogen, so many ways to produce hydrogen... it would be nearly impossible for ANY company to oligopolize the supply of hydrogen or its production.

In Wisconsin, companies such as Modine Manufacturing and Virent Energy are developing fuel-cell products.

Modine has 17 engineers working on its projects. The company already has played a key role in the development of prototype fuel-cell cars and buses, working with companies such as Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler.

Auto industry experts have predicted that fuel-cell-powered cars will be available for business fleets first - in the next couple of years - and to the general public in about eight years. Some have said fuel cells will overtake gasoline-powered cars by 2018.

ACTUAL cars will be on the road in the next couple of years. That's awesome! (even if it is just fleets) because like I said.. Its not important that hydrogen be able to completely replace petroleum based gas. Its just important that it provides ENOUGH of an alternative to put a dent in demand which will send shockwaves thru oil futures, the cost of oil futures will drop like a rock (who wants to hold onto crude oil futures when hydrogen is going to take a chunk out of it)

OPEC will be BEGGING us to buy their oil. The towel heads who sit there now in their OPEC board meetings and as a CARTELL agree to pump and ship less oil will be SCARED SHITLESS that in a few years we won't want their oil anymore. They'll SUDDENLY want it to be REAL cheap so we stop looking at hydrogen so hard.

17 Engineers is a LOT of staffing to devote to fuel-cell prototypes. (and that's just one company) That's proof positive that its a viable source of power. And Modine, working with Ford and Chrysler. That's what I was talking about friday when I said that the power of automobile manufacturers is a counterbalance against "big-oil"

And all of this WITHOUT the government having to fund it.

Chevron thinks that in many cases, it may be cheaper and more practical to produce hydrogen at the stations where it's pumped into vehicles than to deliver the fuel by tanker trucks.

This is HUGE... The fact that it can be produced on-site... at 10's of THOUSANDS of gas stations across the country! That makes it nearly impossible for any one company to monopolize production and distribution.

And being able to produce hydrogen on such a small scale. If people (oil companies, or gas companies) start abusing customers price-wise, starting up a hydrogen production facility would be EASY (relatively so). No harder then starting up a microbrewery for example.

Virent Energy Systems of Madison has developed a method to make hydrogen from the sugars in corn and other plants.

Virent Energy is building a prototype fuel-cell generator that could provide electricity for homes or businesses in rural areas, said Eric Apfelbach, Virent's chief executive.

The fact that you can make hydrogen from so many sources... and that hydrogen powered devices can be used to do everything from heating homes to powering vehicles.

This is exciting.

I feel like Oil companies are probably fucking us now because they know they are on the way out in 5-10 years. This is their hay-day. They are making hay while the sun shines, and they know the sun ain't gonna be shining for long.

FHL

Trendy Media-Hype of the moment

2005-11-01T08:23:00.000-08:00

Never mind me... I'm just compiling a list of all the things over the past few years that were top headline news which were going to ravage the earth and destroy life as we know it.

Shark-Attacks
Kidnappings
Mad Cow Disease
SARS
West Nile Virus
Killer Bee's

(I'm sure I'm missing a good dozen more or so)

And now for the news media hype story of the moment!

BIRD FLU!

Give me a fucking break.

Since when do losers get to decide?

2005-10-31T09:14:00.000-08:00

This quote I read today struck me: A quote from Karen Pearl, President of Planned Parenthood

"Judge Alito would undermine basic reproductive rights, and Planned Parenthood will oppose his confirmation," Karen Pearl, interim president of the organization. "It is outrageous that President Bush would replace a moderate conservative like Justice O'Connor with a conservative hardliner."

Where is it written that a supreme court nominee need 'mirror' the justice they replace?

And why do losers think they get to call the shots? And what is "outrageous" about President Bush nominating a supreme court justice who would be supported by the constituency that elected him?

I don't like Bush anymore (now before you Kerry voters start saying I told you so, I'd STILL vote for Bush over Kerry without hesitation if there was another election tomorrow) But Bush is a failure for me. For various reasons, and certainly MUCH different reasons then liberals consider him a failure. Regardless. He was elected. He got the majority of the vote. His only concerns in naming a supreme court nominee should be to nominate someone who will strictly apply the constitution and satisfy the people who elected him.

The only thing "outrageous" would be if Bush nominated someone who was NOT supported by the people who elected him or if in the approval process, any of the Senators voted contrary to the wishes of the constituency that elected them.

So Karen Pearl... Go piss and moan on someone elses ear. There's NOTHING outrageous about a president nominating a supreme court justice who has the support of the constituency that WON the election. Theres no rule that says just because SDO was a moderate GW or any other president has any obligation to preserve the philosophical make-up of the court as it existed previously.

And a message to all the losers in this country... If you want to call the shots... WIN

You don't get your way by losing, you get your way by winning.

What's worse? Child Molester or Politician

2005-10-28T07:07:00.000-07:00

So I'm reading this story in the Journal Sentinel today (yeah, I can reed... Hooked on Phonics wurked four me!)
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/oct05/366284.asp?source=tmj4

No trick-or-treat for state's sex offenders
Special rules prohibit thousands from Halloween activities

Wow, great... That sounds like GREAT legislation.

I have a question? If Sex-Offenders are so dangerous that they can't be allowed to have ANY contact with minors under 18 (see rules in article) and they can't answer the door if a trick-or-treater comes knocking?

What the fuck are they doing out of prison?

I don't know about you, but I can't think of many places I go where you don't come into contact with a minor. Grocery store, walking down the street, anyplace???

I don't know the psychology of a sex-offender so I can't speculate on what their 'risk' to offend really is. But IF legislators feel the risk to offend is SO great that a child walking up the stairs to your porch and getting a snickers bar is a danger doesn't that wave a red flag that the offender shouldn't be in the general population at all?

What's the real problem here? Are we out of prison space?

I've got an idea. Lets define what a sex-offender REALLY is. So lets eliminate the dudes who got labeled a sex-offender because they turned 18 and knocked up their 16 year old girlfriend. (I'm sorry, but mommy being pissed because boyfriend took your daughters V-card doesn't make you a sex offender)

And if you are a 'real' sex offender. If you are a risk to the population. You should be in jail.

So to the moron legislators who write up this stupid I'll-look-like-a-champion-for-kids legislation: If you want the soccer-mom do-gooder feel-gooder vote go kiss some babies at the state fair. Don't blow sunshine up my ass with b.s. legislation to try to solve a problem the wrong way. Use the left side of your brain, not just the right.

fhl

Don't Tread On Me

2005-10-25T10:06:00.000-07:00

So I looked at the news this morning and saw that Rosa Parks died. Usually when a celebrity dies I feel bad... I feel bad because now I'm going to be inundated with endless tributes and dedications and news piece after news piece about some celebrity whom I could give a fuck less about.

MUCH greater people die every day than the dumb-shit celebrities and they don't get more than a few lines in the obituary section of the local paper. Being famous doesn't make you a great person.

I digress...

Rosa Parks is different... You know what I like about Rosa Parks? She had BIG fucking balls. She wasn't afraid to stick up for what she believed was right, even if that meant going to jail for it. And what I like even more was she was just going about her everyday business, minding her own business. Yet when someone came to step on her rights, she had the balls to stand her ground. Knowing that meant getting a fine and going to Jail.

And she didn't do it because there were TV cameras, or Newspaper photographers standing around like todays media-whore activists (cough Cindy Sheehan, Jesse Jackson) ready to make her an insta-celeb.

She didn't go lay down in a street and cause a disruption like some dread-lock-Birkenstock-tie-dye-pot-smokin idiot who has time to lay in the street protesting against who knows what because they live at home and don't have a job. She was just living her life. Nothing more, but absolutely nothing less.

Every time I throw my Allen-Edmonds on the conveyer belt and walk thru the metal detector at the airport in my socks with my pants falling down because my belt had to come off to go thru Checkpoint Charlie... Er.. I mean the TSA Screening area.. Everytime as I stand there and get patted down with the back of some dip-shit government employees hand. Everytime I check my rights at the ticket counter I think "I don't have the balls" to do something about it. Everytime I open my luggage at the hotel to find the nice little TSA "We-just-bent-your-right-to-privacy-over-sans-KY-and-dry-humped-it-a-few-times" note that my baggage had been 'inspected' I think... "And I just took it"
Everytime I write the check for Uncle Sam in April knowing 75% of that money is just being given away to someone who didn't deserve it I'll remind myself that I'm not doing anything about it like you did.

So good on you Rosa Parks... Good on you for doing something you thought was right. Something that WAS right. Without the aid of a PR staff... Without television cameras to witness your 'civil disobedience'. Good on you for not wanting something from anyone else other than just your own inalienable rights to which every human being is entitled. Good on you for taking one for the team! People like Cindy Sheehan and Jesse Jackson don't have the character to stand in the same room with you. I hope we can all find a little 'don't tread on me' inspiration in what you did.

fhl

Breaking it in

2005-10-19T11:18:00.000-07:00

What am I doing here?
Having the time and freedom to do something you love is one of the great things about living in a quasi free country. Taking that one step further and getting PAID to do something you love is the epitome of success. So I sat and thought about the things I loved the most. And logically what kind of money-making schemes I could think of for each. I don't think I'll ever make the kind of money I want to make riding my motorcycle... Boating doesn't net me any cashflow.... Drinking Bourbon doesn't line my pockets, and lifting weights hasn't turned into a cash-cow either... So what else... Oh yeah.. I like people (ok, liberals excluded) and I love the interactions of people. Human behavior is fascinating, and that encompasses current events, politics and a variety of other topics. Brainstorming my dream career one day... I came up with a couple of ideas. Motivational Speaker or Radio Talk Show Host.

Since you can't just walk into a Radio station and ask for a tryout, starting this blog is my way to put an idea into action, and DO something rather than sit and think about doing something.

I don't know if one common theme will cover everything I will talk about over the upcoming months/years. I don't want to be arrogant and think I have something great to say that people will listen to... But then again... I think I have an interesting perspective on 'stuff' and I think I can put into writing and words what a lot of people think, but can't quite describe or verbate. I don't think I'm any smarter than then next guy... (ok, who am I kidding, I'm SURE I'm smarter than every liberal on the planet, 99% of women, and 90% of men) But seriously, I want to have fun with this. Maybe change a couple of minds, and hopefully piss off some idiots in the process. At the very least even if you think I'm full of shit, maybe you'll get some entertainment out of it.

I've never really cared if people liked me or hated me, as long as they had an accurate idea of who I was. Like I always say... I'd rather be hated for who I am, then loved for someone I'm not. I think if I can accurately represent myself, I'll find just enough like-minded individuals to keep me company and hopefully with feedback from people who read this shinola, learn something new in the process.

All in all I want to share my thoughts. If you enjoy it. Great. If you don't... Well go fuck yourself ;) (unless you are female, really cute, 4'11" and 110#s or less... Then call me and I'll come and help!)

In the meantime.. I think I'm going to throw something up on the walls. The echo in this place bothers me.

FHL