If we can't screw our customers, well, who can we screw?

I heard on the news this morning that a big-time national bank has scrapped its plans to raise its fee for using their ATMs by out of system customers from $3 to $5. They evidently did a test, and people stopped using their ATMs. For $5, people are willing to drive to an ATM in their own banking system -- the cost outweighs the convenience of using the nearer ATM for an out of system charge. Imagine that.

Of course, I remember when the banks were trying to encourage the use of ATMs. It was pretty obvious. If they only could get people to use ATMs, they could dispense with hiring tellers some of whom were actually paid more than minimum wage. Providing ATMs relieved the banks of the need to offer customer service.

Yeah, I can remember going into a bank and standing in a long line waiting for my turn at the teller's place, and while waiting having a bank employee come up and offer to show me how to use an ATM so I didn't have to stand in line so long. But I knew how to work the ATM; it was raining out there and the ATM was not sheltered. Thanks for your offer, lady, but this is Oregon and it rains, here. How about getting your sweet little banker butt behind the counter and serving customers instead of pushing them outdoors into the rain.

Now that the teller staffs have all been successfully reduced in favor of ATMs, the banks want to act as if the ATMs are extra special conveniences that the bank offers at great expense and difficulty. Accordingly, we should be grateful for ATMs and willing to pay extra to use an ATM services if we aren't one of their loyal customers.

Oh, bless you, bankers! If I couldn't do my bank business at a machine without human warmth or understanding, I just don't know what I would do.

Loyalty. Yeah, right. One of my banks reminds me from time to time about the great deal on a bank card they would like me to have. I would be charged 0% interest on charges for the first 6 months. Of course, if instead of borrowing, I loan the bank money by leaving it on deposit, what do they pay me? Maybe 1% annually. What do they do with my money? Lend it out to credit card holders for 0% interest for the first 6 months, and then 20+% on the unpaid balance thereafter. And they charge those credit card holders an ATM access fee on top of it, all using my money at 1%!

Yeah, I'm happy to accept their 1% on my deposits so that they can make 20%. That 1% they pay makes me feel like they really appreciate me and not like a sucker at all.

Sounds like a license for banks to print money, doesn't it? Laws have been passed to permit them to do business in this fashion. But then, even with this sort of advantage it's possible for banks to screw up. And when they do, what happens? The government bails them out, using guess-whose money.

I think they may be in cahoots.

Osama Bin Fishfood

They say his body was buried at sea with appropriate wrappings to be respectful of Islamic custom, and so as not to give offense. Of course, they, when they have a body of one of ours, drag the body triumphantly and with cries of jubilation all around the town square for a few hours, so as to avoid giving us offense.

The cult of the pirate . . .

Here's an interesting take on piracy, going back to the Barbary pirates, and European colonialism. Worth thinking about.

Inappropriate content . . .

Went to a store today and while there, my wife wanted to look in the book department to see if there were any interesting books. While looking around I saw that the store had posted a little note stuck on the bookshelf, titled "Inappropriate Content." It said something like the following:

Sometimes some publishers publish content that some people believe is inappropriate although others do not consider the content inappropriate. Our customers are always welcome to call to our attention content that they feel is inappropriate. We would never like for our customers to view content which they believed was inappropriate. We fully support the right of our customers to decline to purchase books that contain content they believe to be inappropriate.

I think that translates to if you don't want to see it, don't buy it, but if you think we are going to let perpetually offended dipsh*ts decide what others may or may not read, you can go pound sand and bark at the moon, for all we care.

So now we all know where we stand and I'm good with that.

This will work . . .

President Obama has said that shutting down the government for absence of a budget would be inexcusable. He has also said that if the House passes a bill to keep the government open for another week to continue negotiations, and if the Democratically controlled Senate passed it too, he would veto the bill thus causing the shut down. Why? Because all this talk about trying to get a little extra time to work out budget details was a "distraction."

Kicking the Imam's butt . . .

Take a look at this Pakistani actress kicking butt. The back story is that her accuser is a high member of the Taliban and had sent her a warning that she is going to be punished for making Pakistan look bad by going to India. You know what punishment that means. Remember, they made good on their threats to kill Indira within days after she returned to Pakistan, and she had already served as President of the country once and was an international figure. Of course, merely "punishing" this actress isn't enough. The purpose of her television "interview" was to scare the uppity out of any other women who saw the interview. She's in more danger than ever; she likely didn't change any minds who matter to her continued security.

Hope she makes it out.

Tsunami!

Horrifying amateur video of Japan's tsunami.

Those poor people!

Choosing sides . . .

What we saw in Wisconsin when the government wanted to cut back employee unions' influence over the budget looks a little bit like what we are now seeing in England, when the country is trying to bring some balance to the budget. Demonstrations, intimidation, and riots. In either case, the government has been handing out increasingly generous benefits which now appear to be unsustainable. Same thing all through the U.S. and Europe.

Western governments, state, federal, European, whatever, are powerfully committed to the status quo, troubled only by the need to raise ever-increasing amounts of cash to meet the ever-increasing commitments to government entitlements/handouts. For example, I read somewhere where our current administration is considering a tax based on how many miles you travel in addition to the already high taxes, state and federal, on fuel.

If you are on the "gimme" side of the government/citizen relationship, you are in favor of government as it now stands. If not, your opposition to government by handout could likely lead to threatened mass street action, intimidation and property destruction to accompany the massive disturbance of the peace such demonstrations require. Somebody had a line I read, I wish I could remember who so I could attribute it, where the left has given up on trying to convince based on the force of their logic, and is now working on developing conviction through the logic of their force.

So, here's the question. Are you in favor of increased government taxes to support government checks? Are you a member of a public employee union, getting government assistance, going to school and living on government student loan money, getting aid for your dependent children, sucking up Social Security? If it comes down to fighting in the streets, will you be in favor of increased taxation to support continuing your government checks? If so, I figure you are what is classically called. . . a loyalist. But if you think about the difference between what our constitution says, and what's going on presently, and figure we should return to the old, pre-Wilson notions of federal constitutional limits you are . . . guess what. . . a rebel.

Choose.

Internet Exploder 9 . . .

This is just great. I updated Internet Exploder. So what's changed? Well, when I compose a post for the blog in blogger/blogspot, I can't post it. Either nothing happens, or up comes the print options. Everything else works just fine, except for the part where I put the post out on the web.

But blogger still works in Firefox. So I know what I must do, now.

Way to go, Microsoft. Did somebody say, "This isn't a bug; it's a feature?"

Virginity tests. . . .

Yeah. Virginity tests. Because everybody knows that if you are a protester and not a virgin, the conclusion that you are a prostitute is inavoidable. And everybody knows that if you are a prostitute, you are in need of torture and humiliation.

What a fine people. Let's invite them to join the country club.

The Koran in flames . . .

Yeah, I can see why Iran would want to have the United Nations condemn a U.S. church for burning a Koran.

Wonder how many Christian Bibles there are, left, in Iran. For that matter, I wonder how many Christians or Jews are left in Iran. Not that long ago, within my lifetime, Iran was actually fairly multi-cultural. Not any more.

I figure that the United Nations ought to condemn all ceremonial book burning. Also execution of homosexuals, female genital mutilation, stoning rape victims to death, honor killings, child brides, slavery, violent jihad, the jiz-yah, and public employee unions.

I threw the union thing at the last minute, Kinda adds a final completion to the rhythm of the sentence, doesn't it?

We need something to attract people to our attractive attraction, which isn't all that attractive enough, evidently, all by itself . . .

I read in a recent Portland Mercury that some of our city rulers are considering, once again, building a hotel in or near the Rose Quarter. I don't know how believable or serious this is or if the local politicians thinking about this are officials of the city, or the county, or metro. Or all of them; they're pretty much in cahoots anyhow.

The idea is to attract more action to the Convention Center. Of course, the politicos who like this idea plan to be using our money, whether or not we think it's a dumb idea. Used to be, if a bunch of people agreed that constructing a building would be a good idea, they themselves would invest in it, to earn the benefits of their investment. Or not. Just as they pleased.

If they asked me, I'd say if you guys have extra money of ours to build a hotel I'd just as soon you use it to repair local roads. We are about at the point where many of the roads are more suited to ox carts and burros, than to cars. Even if the cars are hybrids. Roads deteriorate with use, and you can't patch up deteriorating roads by simply painting bicycle lane stripes and green boxes on the roads, or erecting signs announcing that Oregon is being put back to work.

When government wants to do a project, it isn't as if we citizens have much say in it. If they decide to go ahead, there's no way for the "non-interested" investers to pass on that particular investment so as to save their capital for the next idea that percolates up. Oh, we can vote for somebody else next time, but meanwhile we are still invested in whatever it was. Like light rail. Whose bright idea was it, anyhow, to use a 19th century response to transportation problems, applying 20th century technology, to meet the needs of the 21st. century? Doesn't matter; we've got us some light rail and are going to get more.

And as for the proposed Rose Quarter hotel, it doesn't matter what independent investors might decide. To politicans, a hotel in this area would be -- an Attraction. An Attraction can be named after a local dignitary and can provide income opportunities for cronies. And since the Attraction would bring outsiders into the city and they would leave some of their money behind, benefitting us all, it should be okay with us. Right?

Hey, waitaminit. Wasn't the Convention Center, itself, supposed to be an Attraction to bring action to the city? What does it say about our civic investments when you have to build another Attraction to attract people to your Attraction? Oh, and notice that the first Attraction is nicely located next to a light rail stop so that people can easily come to the Attraction from wherever they might be, without being required to seek out lodging close by.

Gah!

Just another oppressed Palestinian . . . . . .

When they learned that a Palestinian person had snuck around in the dark of night, crept into a Jewish home, and stabbed the sleeping father, mother, children, and an infant to death, five in all, people in Gaza celebrated and passed out sweets.

What a fine culture.

Let's give them a country all their very own, and support it with lots of aid from American taxpayers.

I gotta get out of here . . .

Jeez, what if being in Portland kind of wears off on you? I hope I don't catch any Portland -- I've been here so long.

Here's what I mean.

A man broke into somebody's house in Portland. The Portland owner came home and heard somebody showering and she knew there shouldn't be anybody showering, so she called 911. At the same time, the trespasser heard the homeowner come in, got scared, and he called 911 at the same time. He said he just broke into somebody's house and they came home on him, and he was scared the homeowner might have a gun.

I mentioned this is the kind of thing that has to happen only in Portland, didn't I?

Maybe she should have turned off the hot water at the tank. Right after she hollered "Chill out, Dude. I have a gun but I won't shoot if you stay in there 'til the cops come."

If they're so progressive, how come they keep trying to drag us all back into the dark ages?

See this. Electricity when they want to give it to you. Only.

A Last Word on Obamacare.

Here it is.

Like the man says. What could go wrong?

Curly bulbs, once again . . .

Don't like curlybulbs. You know, compact florescents. Bad light. Expensive, unreliable. Supposed to last for years but don't. (I've already had four of 'em die in the last eleven months.)

Mostly I don't like outlawing the standard incandescent bulbs to force the curlies on us. Somebody is going to make a lot of money on this, and a big chunk of the Big Green Weenie Movement in politics is really about generating gobs of profits without being hampered by the lack of a market. (Vid Big Al and the Carbon Credit industry.)

So. This is fun. Be vewwy, vewwy afwaid?

I see my fate before me . . .

I just looked over the last few posts here. Lately I've wanted to step up the blogging, so I wanted to see how I was doing. I noticed that I have been all about government lately, and I see my future.

I'm not going to be a greeter at a discount store after all. I'm going to become one of those smelly old geezers hanging around a McDonald's every morning, who's mission it is to tell everybody how screwed we are.

Hey, I'll follow you out to your car if I have to.

Washington's budget...

This will fix things. A college student illustrates the contemplated budget cuts in a way that shows just how seriously the administration is taking budget worries.

Break out the tinfoil beanies . . .

Here ya go! The commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the gummint the legal authority to regulate based on what you are thinking, according to Judge Kessler:

As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress's power . . . However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forego health insurance is not "acting," especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that action. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something.

Can't write any more. Have to quick change into my red gym shorts and hurry off for the mandatory morning mass calesthenic exercises. Healthy mind in a healthy body, you know. See, I'm gettin' my head right, boss.

She says Marx is dead . . .

Once in a while I run into a person who asks, with their bare face hanging out all naked and innocent, why I'm against socialism. What's wrong with wanting to take care of everybody?

My short answer is that it has never worked any place it's been tried and it pretty much increases the sum total of misery wherever it's tried, except for a blessed few, and that the poor under socialism are poorer than the poor under capitalism. I don't bother with a long answer because I figure that if people won't accept my short answer, they are impervious to the logic of a long answer.

But that may be uncharitable of me. So if you want a long answer -- not too long, you can read it in less than three minutes, easy, even if you have to use your finger and mouth the words silently -- go here. The interesting thing is that you can see how Marxist thinking has infected our own body politic, to the point where people who should know better don't even realize that they are echoing Karl Marx.

Met any new friends online lately?

This isn't funny.

Looks like the government wants to spread its message -- propaganda -- and figures you might not be all that trusting. Or gullible. So the government wants to pretend that it's just some guy. The government is soliciting for a contract to create fake people to be managed with "persona management" software. Through these persona, the government agents will be interacting with us on social networks. It can spread messages that appear to be part of a groundswell, and gather information about its "friends" -- that means us -- on the social nets.

This is repulsive and is certainly not what I thought they meant when they said government was going to be transparent.

I guessby the time they know all about us from being one of our "friends," they would already have advance information about who is most efffectively opposing government programs. They would then know whose house to go to first, when the "disappearancings" start.

Not that this is the intent of this program now, I don't think. But what would prevent it?

Today, I shut down 84,000 websites to keep the world safe from pornography and aren't you proud of me, Mommy?

So, to shut down ten child pornography websites, our government shut down thousands of non pornographers, and called them pornographers? (See here.) These other eighty-three thousand nine hundred ninety were people were doing nothing illegal, presumably, but they were shut down and slapped with a badge of child pornography. It's defamatory. It's impairment of contract. It's also a violation of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech -- it's government doing it.

Why do these people still have a job?

I think that the responsible individual or individuals in the vast government intellectual swamp (growing as we speak) should be publically identified, vilified, and fired in some suitable ceremony, all as a means of encouraging other bureaucrats to pay-effing-attention-to-what-you-are-doing! Make 'em wear a dunce cap while appearing on television.

Because this event is simply bright, shiny evidence that some our government employees are inept on a grand scale, and they are not accountable for the damage they do.

And we are going to look to this government to do something to increase employment, or literacy, or public health, or reduce obesity, drug-abuse, or homelessness, or shield us from an international politico-religious blood cult buried in a culture that accepts honor killings and female genital mutilation? No. We shouldn't expect good results. We should expect what we've been getting. Ineptitude. The government we have now? It's evidently not the same sort of people who planned the Normandy invation, or strung telephone cable across ocean floors, or put a man on the moon, or electrified a nation with four time zones in a generation or wiped out smallpox and polio. This is now a government that outlaws plastic bags and tobacco.

We are paying for a helluva lot better government then that which we are getting, and there should be some adjustments made.

Smothering anti-government demonstrations . . .

shouldn't be all that tough. They always try to fill up a large square in the capitol city, right? Get rid of the large squares so there's no good place to assemble for more than about 20 people. Why do you need a square where thousands of people can gather anyhow? Yep. No doubt about it. Capitol squares are cause of the downfall of dictatorships, sooner or later.

I don't know how that got there. It's not mine, really. It must be my cousin's . . .

Story here.

U.S. approves Russian state-controlled company's taking over two uranium mines in Wyoming . . .

It's okay if a Russian company takes control of an existing and a proposed uranium mine in Wyoming, according to our government.

I have a couple of questions, beyond the obvious question of - -

What the hell are you thinking?

First, has anybody explained Obamacare and what it is going to cost to do business in the U.S. with all of the expensive social programs built in? Oh, wait a minute. They probably experienced that sort of thing as unwilling members of the Soviet. Nevermind.

But second, isn't this just another example of foreigners being willing to do jobs that Americans won't do?

If you want peace . . .

make them scared of you. One good act of belligerence could go a long way towards gentling things down, internationally, I'm thinking.

Iranium . . .

Got an hour or so? You can watch Iranium, here, for free. At least for a while. This shows what we are facing, and how it came to be.

No surprises in Egypt . . .

We want the kind of democracy where everybody bows down to the mullahs.

Snow and ice . . .

Take a look at this. Most of the entire northern hemisphere is covered by ice and snow. But not Portland.

Must be some slackers aren't doing their part to assure global warming.

Time to start reading up about glaciation, I think. I have read that the earth has been pretty much completely ice free at times, and at other times pretty much covered in permanent ice, and that major glaciation kind of scours the earth clean of the records of previous glaciations. I know that about two thirds of the earth is ocean, where people don't live, and I know that much of the land surface is relatively unpopulated, so that if the activities of people are contributing to climate change, it's probably only on a small fraction of the surface of the earth and consequently is probably only a small percentage of the cause of climate change.

So, are we entering a glacial age? Or leaving one?

Carbon footprints, and other lies . . .

Oh, yeah. I'll believe that global warming is imminent, and government can't cut spending when I see the people in charge acting as if it were true. Until then, I'll remain skeptical.

Look at what Nancy was doing about global warming. She was flying around in air force jets - for free - and sucking up booze and treats. Over 90,000 miles in a jet, funded by tax payers, in less than a year. Now there's a carbon footprint for you.

What to know about your Student Loan . . .

Pay attention to this.

Curly lights and the birth of nations . . .

Coupla' years ago I started replacing regular light bulbs with CFLs. You know. The curly bulbs that sequester mercury to be leaked into the environment someplace, somehow, someday. But they use less electricity so less coal must be burned or less water must be dammed to make the electricity to light them up. For using less electricity is is good.


And we are going to need the electricity to run our cars. Or else we are going to grow food and use up lots of energy to turn food into alcohol and run our cars on that. And screw the people who might have been able to use a few extra calories and need the food.


Using less so-called fossil fuel (so called to imply that there is an exhaustible supply of oil left to us by our brothers, the dinosaurs, so we should be frugal as they are making no more oil, being extinct) using less will benefit the environment because we buy oil overseas from people who will screw up their own environment to get oil for us, and maybe fire-off a few suicide bombers with the cash they get from selling oil. For screwing their environment to help our own environment is good.


Anyhow, I stuck some of the curly bulbs in my bathroom about a year and a half ago. These were the bulbs that cost too much but would last six years.


Guess what? I've now got two of 'em sitting on my desk, all used up, as I type this epistle to posterity. Oh, and I didn't replace one of the "bad" incandescent bulbs in the bathroom at the time, thinking I'd put a curlycue in when it burnt out. And guess what. It's still working and I'm perturbed off. This is not good.


I figure there's a worldwide eco-hysteria going on, and only some of the concerns and solutions to eco problems are legitimate. But others are expensive solutions to imaginary problems, constituting commercial windfalls. But I'm okay with that. If you come to believe that wearing a daisy chain of beer can tops around you neck treats your hypothyroid condition -- go for it. If you become convinced that riding a bicycle to work twice a week will prevent male pattern baldness, peddle your silly ass off with my blessing. And if you want to buy curlycue light bulbs, you should be able to do that all you want. And maybe you're right; Mother Nature will love you and will give you a kiss on the cheek and a friendly little goose in gratitude for your use of curlycue light bulbs and a hybrid car to drive your bike around in a bike rack on the back. Wear a knit cap, so we can identify you as "one of those" from afar. For you are good.


And you are not being compelled to be good - you're doing it of your own free will. That's double good. Right?


But when I see that laws have to be passed to make all of us begin buying an expensive alternative to solve environmental concerns, I have to wonder. I particularly wonder when the testing to support the legislation avoids testing the value judgments implicit in the proposition, and tests only the performance efficiency of obtaining the goals implicit in the value judgments.


Hey, if it makes sense, we'll do it. You don't need a law.


But when a great deal of money is involved, like buying stuff like lightbulbs, electricity, and gasoline, I think we should be suspicious. Ordinarily I would say, follow the money. But in this case, there are politicians' sticky fingerprints all over the legislation that changes consumer buying choices, so I would say, you probably don't have to follow the money. Since politicians are involved and laws have been passed, that is enough for me to think we are being scammed again.


Because it is obviou$ly ea$ier to convince a few corrupt and venal politician$ that they ought to pass a law requiring all of us to do buy something then it would be to convince us that we ought to buy that thing. Being free to make our own decisions, we might otherwise conclude that the product is of doubtful utility when it is of doubtful utility. So our freedom to make such decisions must be eliminated. By law.

Car of the Year . . .

Chevy Volt has just been named the Car of the Year. Seen any yet? Kind of like President Obama's Peace Prize. Seen any?

This is cool . . .

A whole bunch of Muslims in Egypt have attended Christian Copt church ceremonies to serve as human shields to protect the Christians. A church service was bombed recently, and people worried it could happen again. One of the statements was that the attack was an attack against all Egyptians, not just the Copts. Wow. Just, wow.

Three fifths of a person . . .

C'mon, people. Oh, I mean those of you over the age of 45. (Those under that age probably weren't provided this sort of an education, as self-esteem has replaced information in the acedemic schema, so it's not your fault.) But the rest of you. Did you skip history class that day?

The U.S. Constitution didn't say that a slave was only 3/5's of a person. It gave representative votes in the House to southern states at a reduced rate, so that the southern states weren't disproportionately over-represented in Congress based on the number of people in the state -- when some of them were disenfranchised by that state by reason of being treated as property.

In short, the writers of the U.S.Constitution used the 3/5 fraction to discriminate against slave holding states when it came to votes in Congress.

It was a compromise. The slave states wanted representation based on the number of people in their state, slave and free. The non-slave states wanted representation in Congress based only on the free population of the slave states. A deal was cut, because there wouldn't be a union if the north got their way altogether, because the slavery south just wouldn't ratify the constitution. And vice-versa.

Those of you who are still yelping about this after all these years are either cynically trying to drum up political enthusiasm, or you are showing your ignorance altogether. Or both.

Something is happening that I don't understand . . .

A coupla times a month or more, my bride and I go to a local corporate mega fast burger location, 'cause it's really neat to get your meal freshly prepared and wrapped up in individual paper wrappings, except for frenchfries, which are served in a little carboard holster device. You know these places. They always have some sort of music playing, usually something I don't recognize which evidently appeals to the employees working there. But then one day they put some Country and Western stuff into the mix.

No problem -- it has melody and lyrics.

Of course, for Christas season, Christmas music was used.

Then, things got a little wierder. It was Christmas music with a country flavor. You know. Slide guitars. A banjo here and there. Some honky tonk undertones.

Okay, I said. This will be over in a few days.

Went there today. What was playing was stuff from the thirties and forties. Horns. Clarinets. I recognized some of the songs as stuff my parents had on the old wind-up record player, but these weren't the old stuff. These were old songs with old arrangements and bands, recorded in modern times. How can this be? I am greatly confused.

If I go back there and hear bagpipes, that's it. I'm turning vegetarian and buying a tricycle and a shotgun. And swimfins.

Politics 2011, version 1.0

The Republicans are planning to open the next Congress by reading the U.S.Constitution out loud. Their theory is that this exercise is likely the first and only time some members of Congress will ever be required to consider the U. S. Constitution.

The New York Times plans to pronounce every word the reading as a collection of "to be expected" right wing lies, secure in the knowledge that conservatives make things up. Twenty-two percent of all Americans, sixty-four percent of all subscribers to the New York Times, and virtually the entire staff of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Harvard College, and CCNY will believe the New York Times. For they are the smart ones.

And not as much rain in Texas . . .

What? people who earn a million will move to avoid taxes? How come? It's only a 2% increase. Let's see, on a million dollars that's merely $20,000 on top of the already high taxes, maybe $90,000, they were paying already, which were on top of the taxes they were paying to the federal government. Probably over half goes in taxes when it's all over.

The fatcats should stay and pay the taxes.

We voted!

Internet regulation update

It's worse than I thought. We've nationalized car manufacturers, insurance companies, banks, and now communications is next in line. Dammit, the internet was pretty much the only thing that was working to encourage innovation and wealth creation. The rest of the economy pretty much seemed to be rent-seeking and zero sum balance sheet shifting.

Sticky-fingers on the internet . . .

The sticky-fingered commisars of the FCC have been wanting to regulate the internet. We aren't sure how they propose to regulate it or what features of the internet they figure should be regulated. But they went and did it. Their scheme passed today, and pretty soon now, we might learn what it is that they did. But it is a secret for now.

I figure seeing as how they really don't want to talk about what they just did after they done already done it (that's how we used to talk in Kentucky), it's to give them some extra time to either get out of town or to get their stories right.

Maybe I could go along with regulating the internet. I could live with some sort of painful and bloody punishment for spammers, for instance.

But, really! WTF?

I guess its just a whole lot more satisfying and easy to run a democracy if you don't have to put up with a bunch of people yelping about whether or not the rule you are inflicting on the public is necessary, or wanted, or helpful, or even Constitutionally permitted. Next, somebody will say that government should govern with the consent of the governed, and I'm pretty sure, based on the evidence, that that can't be the case.

That's why I always counsel people to vote in every election. You get few enought chances to express yourself to our overlords as it is, so you should never pass up a chance if it comes your way. Because the alternative to voting involves bayonets, ropes, and sturdy tree branches.

Double dip for the holidays.

Looks like Portland is experiencing yet another round of home price reductions. A double hit. I was just saying that it really is sad to drive around looking at Christmas lights, and seeing "For Sale" signs at Christmas. I'm doing just fine but there's a great deal of people suffering through no or low work opportunities out there, who wrapped up their families' lives in their homes and retirement plans, who are no longer able to afford either and are unable to liquidate either in any way that offers relief -- and they didn't do anything wrong or do anything to deserve being punished in this way. Except for the way they voted.

Our government, elected officials and civil service types, represent the fountainhead of the nation's miseries.

Bitter? Oh, no. P.O.d

Pirates have boarded the Ship of State

The budget was due months ago. But at least one has finally been proposed. Finally.

One point one t-r-i-l-l-i-o-n dollars! 1,924 pages. 6,488 earmarks. And 40% of federal revenue is borrowed, at present, before we even get to this budget.

And when somebody objected that this isn't much time to review the budget proposal before voting on it, Senator Reid said we have until January 5 to vote on it and get it to the House. How much time is needed for people to just do as they are told by their elected betters?

Oh, my poor children and grandchildren, and great grandchildren to come if my grandchildren can even manage to have children when the time comes.

Peace be upon the holy business card . . .

Here ya go. A doctor discarded a business card. The card identified a person named Mohomed, that is, he was named after the prophet. It's a common enough name; I've met several "Mo's" in my life so far.

What's the problem? The problem is that by throwing away the card, the doctor was basically disrespecting the prophet because his name was on the card, and Islam, which is a criminal offense requiring punishment.

It seems to me that if one is so insecure about one's religious beliefs that discarding a business card is a threat to one's sense of self, well, maybe the only cure is to just find a warm cave somewhere far from where people are, and spend your days squatting naked in the cave interacting with nobody, right up to the inevitable end. At least it would, anyhow, be better for the rest of us who are cool with throwing away business cards and mean no disrespect to anyone when we do.

Lions, and Tigers, and missiles, oh my. . .

Just, dammit! Iranian missiles targeting us. How many workers' paradises do we have to contain to the south? Didn't the threat of atomic missiles die down after the end of the cold war and the strategy of Mutual Assured Distruction? Do we have to teach little kids, again, to duck under their school desk and cover their ears?


Kennedy scared the U.S.S.R. missiles out of Cuba but left Castro in place, to appropriate the labor and lives of generations of Cubans to come. Obama gives Chavez big wet kisses on the cheek.


For that matter, how long do we have to put up with Islamic expansionism? To them, we are infidels in a world which should be entirely under Sharia, and the best we should hope for is to be dhimmi.


Western civilization has been periodically plagued by Islamic predations necessitating taking up arms, as in the Crusades, among other things. Islamic incursions damn near made it to Paris, and to Vienna, and pretty much ran Spain before being beat back. Temporarily. President Jefferson read the Koran then went after the pirates of Tripoli. This sh8t isn't new.


Here's the deal. When faced with an implacable threat to your civilization, you either have to win, or you lose. You can't just contain and delay them, as has been the strategy of choice for 1100 years. You can't just beat them back. You have to beat them.


Oh, and by the way. Being dhimmi means becoming a member of a barely tolerated indigenous population eking out an existence on the margins of a dominant occupying population.

It's for the children . . .

The federal government is now contemplating making back-up cameras mandatory on all new vehicles. Parents sometimes back their cars over their children who are permitted to run any damn place they want to, so as to avoid stifling their little emotional developments.

Well, you have to look, don't you? If you are backing up, you have to look in your mirrors, or swivel around and look out the back window, or something. Right? After all, the lady who backed her SUV into my car down in the basement parking lot had a back-up camera in her car. She didn't look at it.

Not everybody pays attention to what they are doing. Not everybody looks; they merely trust the way is clear.

For this reason the original proposal was that reverse gear just be eliminated from all passenger vehicles, altogether. And it would have passed, too, except that the bureaucrats couldn't figure out whether to make circular driveways or solar-panel powered roundtables required features in all urban areas, so they compromised. They'll revive the reverse-gear elimination proposal after all cars are finally equipped with back-up cameras.

It's for the children.

Jihad in Pioneer Square

The enemy is among us. Surely this guy, thinking about violent jihad since he was fifteen, has associates, people he knows, contacts, who are similarly inclined. They just haven't done anything about it -- yet.

More homeland security on the way . . .

No, that's not my arrest record. It's my resume; why do you ask? It shows job experience pertinent to this job. I'm from the government, and of course you can trust me.

If I can't be paranoid now, when can I be paranoid?

Looks like feeling you up and taking nude pictures of everybody is just the beginning. We are starting to shut down web sites, now., under Homeland Security. Hey guys, there's a modicum of justification in either instance, and maybe a shred of law, too, but there is a whole lot more of WTF! in airport searches and taking down web sites. This could be the thin edge of the wedge.

Nah, that's just paranoia talking. Right?

Fix bayonets! . .

Some people just won't compromise with people who won't compromise.

Department of Justice takes a dive.

The DOJ needs to prosecute the law. But people in the DOJ don't necessary like all the laws that they are charged with enforcing. So, we get this:

West said Monday that DOJ was discharging its responsibility to the tradition of the Justice Department while making adjustments to the arguments in line with the administration's views.

"I think that the best example -- let me give you one -- in the Defense of Marriage Act -- you'll notice that we have not only discharged our responsibility to defend the constitutionality of a congressional statute, but we've done so in a way which reflects the policy values of this administration," West said.

"We disavowed some arguments that we believed had no basis in fact, and in fact we presented the court through our briefs with information which seemed to undermine some of the previous rationales that have been used defense of that statute," West added.

"We believe that's being an honest broker with the court, and that's the way we'll continue to discharge our responsibility," West said.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's talking about taking a dive. You know. Act like you are just boxing your heart out but making sure that all your best punches fall a little short, or land on the shoulder instead of the chin. And when the other guy finally gets one good punch in, well, lay down and take a little nap.

Wonder if there might be some sort of ethical rule about this sort of thing, like, oh, I don't know, maybe zealous representation.

On the other hand, this might be brilliant. I can just see the next administration saying to itself, "The corporate income tax sucks. Let's prosecute those corporate tax cheats, but not win, because we'll never get Congress to repeal the tax." Or better yet - selectively rolling over and playing dead. Tax the bejeezus out of Google, but lose the case against Halliburton.

Next time, invite the terrorist to mediation . . .

How can this be? A terrorist who admits to killing a couple hundred people is found not guilty on all those homicide charges, and is convicted only on a single conspiracy charge?

As I understand it, the judge ruled that some available witness testimony was inadmissible because the identity of the witness came from an interview of the accused terrrorist, and the judge thought that interview was coercive. So available evidence was suppressed. Kind of like fruit of the poison tree. So the jury had to deal only with what remaining evidence was presented -- which was evidently insufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yeah, civilian trials affording civil rights to fanatic terrorists will work just fine. (Sarcasm). And the AGs office screwed up a case pretty badly all the while thinking they'd hand the left fringe a victorious show trial.

We are at war. The object of our enemy is to replace our civilisation and history with sharia. They've been at it for over a thousand years, and they'll keep at it for a thousand more if necessary and if we let them. -- until they win. And we are somehow under the protection of an executive branch run by people who seem to want to fight a war for the survival of our way of life with strategies that got them a good grade in moot court and maybe almost got them laid by humourless, intense political chicks.

The hell of it is, these guys think they are being serious.

News of 'toos . . .

I now have my first tatoo. You can't see it and neither can I. A doctor put it there so he could remember and examine that location later.

So then there's this guy who has 98% of his skin, plus his tongue and the whites of his eyes !!!! tatooed. And not tatooed in pretty forest scenes or animals either. His face is a checkerboard, and the whites of his eyes are blue, and his tongue looks like something like maybe a rotten sea slug that has been washed up on the beach. Everything is inked, and inked, and inked. He did his eyes himself. He's been called the most tatooed guy in Portland.

I'm pretty sure no doctor was involved in his tatoos.

I'm pretty sure that this guy doesn't entertain any dreams of employment of any serious kind. Except maybe being used as a shock display in a human oddity show. Which he can continue to do after he dies, if his hide is properly preserved.

Wonder how much money it costs get 98% of your body tatooed.

Wonder if a need to tatoo everything to the point that you become unemployable -- through some extreme self-mutilation neurosis -- makes a person eligible for some kind of socialized disability payments for the remaining 50 years of life.

Yeah, because that's the kind of thing I can really get into as a taxpayer still contributing to the social security system.

Does she keep the plane? . . .

I hear that Nancy Pelosi is going to stay on as leader of the Democrats in the House, although she will now be minority leader instead of majority leader, and she will no longer be next in line after the Vice President to take over if anything happens to the President.

This is a reward from the Democrats for her many contributions to the country and her party.

Hope and change? She got the change part -- the House Republicans changed from minority to majority. And she will continue to focus Republican energy on governing as a majority party.

Maybe she can give the Senate and the White House to Republicans, as well, if we let her keep the big Air Force plane to fly back and forth between California and D.C.

People who should neither vote nor procreate . . .

I don't know if she's my girlfriend or not. I just have her name tatooed on my neck. She just happened to try to cut her name off my neck. She's crazy that way, but I'm okay with that, 'cause I have her name tatooed on my neck. And stuff.

Mid-term elections, gah! . . .

I'm so-o-o-o glad the election is over. I'm so tired of hearing the haters on the left accusing the right of being negative. I'm really sick of the moral posturing on the right. All the politicians are all spending other people's money, campaign contributions, in an effort to get or keep a job -- where they will collect other people's money, taxes, and spend other people's money. Mooches, every one.

But there are some great questions that were raised in this election. What is the function of government? Is it even possible, using the tools of government, to create jobs, or tolerance, or virtue, or security?

I'm afraid that this election simply highlighted these questions, bringing them into intensely sharp relief. The questions raised in this election weren't answered by this election, even though the ideals espoused by the radical left Democratic National Committee took a "shellacking," according to President Obama. The questions abide. We see that too many of us still don't have jobs, or won't have jobs, and too many have jobs that should not be done. Mooches. Too many are intolerant, while preaching tolerance for their own conditions. Virtue is a joke, something to be mocked in computer video clips, and we are targets of politico-religious fanatics.

We'll not be able to go forward as a nation without finding resolutions to the great questions raised by this election.

The 2012 election season starts beginning now.

What's holding us together , , ,

Mark Steyn has an interesting take on current affairs, the border wars, and ever-increasing centralized government. Worth a look.

Election relief is just around the corner . . .

I'll be so glad when this election is over. Politicians will pretty much say or do anything to get power over the rest of us and most of it is blather and nonsense, and a large part of that is condescending and patronizing blather and nonsense.

But once in a while, something shows up that seems sensible to me. Take a look. Since one seldom hears anything like this from politicians, I believe we are engaged in a betrayal whenever we treat a politician with any courtesy or with the appearance of respect.

I accept the fact that they lie by habit and inclination. What I hate is, first, that they expect us to believe the bull and, second, so many do. The true believers, left and right, are called "the base." Politicians play to their reliably thick headed base instead of trying to represent all of us, and lots of them get rich doing so.

Any politician who has served in Washington the least little bit -- has served in Washington way too long. Time for a change.

Lock 'em up? Or what?

The idea is becoming commonplace that we in the U.S. are locking up way too many people, when compared to most of the rest of the world.

Well, maybe. But what's the chances that a large portion of our population are just plain outlaws in the first place? It's not as if there isn't a strong cultural thread idealizing the young, charismatic outlaw on the run. It isn't as if we have any movies -- or video games -- stressing that decision making should go beyond a knee-jerk and contemplate the long-term consequences of an action.

Aren't we supposed to lock outlaws up?

Beats death or amputations.

I didn't like XP or Vista, and I don't like 7.

My first operating system was DOS 1.1. My first iteration of Windows was 3.1. I have now spent hours of my life looking at a little graphic hourglass, as Microsoft churns the bits of my computers. Sometimes they are blinking hourglasses. It's almost like a rating system. Microsoft gives your request one hourglass out of five.

Oh, the computer is processing all right. It's sorting through all the files of little cartoon puppies, nutty professors and dancing swizzle sticks to pick just the right tone to inquire of me, one more time, am I absolutely -- last chance now -- really sure fershur? -- honest, now -- sure that I want to do what I just told my computer to do? And do I really want to link to that? 'Cause websites, such as the one hosted by my employer, may not be secure.

Gah! Making the interface different is not improving the product. Computers are not selected for the interface.

It's like they move the contents of your office and desk drawers around every few months. Oh, they hit upon the optimum arrangement years ago and now they are just moving stuff around to be able to provide a fresh new look, despite the fact that for now the television remote control must be stored in a bundt pan in the kitchen just when you got used to looking for it on the pantry next to the tuna, when it was originally, a long time ago, placed on the end table next to where you sit to watch television and it generally worked pretty well there. At least you didn't have to go looking for it.

I know the answer. The ever-increasing, incredible speed and processing power of computers transformed the computing tool into an incredibly effective communication device. Also, it's a toy. And it's really a toy for the Microsoft kids.

Howabout the Microsoft stable of elves start writing code pretty much to improve the computer experience, not the interface? For one, they could make available some simple commands to accomplish everyday tasks quickly and simply. You know, things like, "Copy files on C: to E:/oldstuff." And it would be done.

Oh I know Microsoft wants us to use a mouse. Microsoft believes a good computer experience must be a graphic experience. Well, in addition, you could just give us a list of such like commands and we'll point and click. No graphics; no sound effects. Just. Done. So we wouldn't need ever to see a message that says,

"Windows is hung up and non-responsive because all of your various commands are getting in each other's way because doing the stuff you want done is just way too complicated, doing it the wonderful ways we do it, with the figures of the dancing girls, and the music soundtrack and the countdown clock. And the eyes of the Phoenix fading into the background with a toolbar in his beak. Please try again tomorrow. Would you like to send this message to Microsoft where it can be ignored?"


Or if you really want to do something useful, how about an automatic Microsoft message that says something like,

"Your hard drive has just been trashed by Yuri Buttmunchikoff's computer, located at 27 Splotzplatz Square in Braunshtain, Dirtbagistan. He planted worms in 2 dozen computers located throughout Iran, Iraq, Syria and Djabouti, which in turn infected yours and about 75,000 others so that a little explosive program planted in a waterworks in Washington state will blow up on Halloween. Microsoft has its eye on him and has forwarded his name and address and that of all his wives and one first cousin directly to Interpol for arrest and prosecution, and Microsoft will pay $1000 to whomever can cut off an ear before he is captured by the authorities. And we just melted his computer. Just thought you'd want to know."

Now that would be an operating system, right there. Automatically tracking and busting the web desperadoes would be an awsome accomplishment. I would give it 5 hourglasses.

9-11 Ribbon of Grudge

Look at the browsers. Bing, Ask, and Google. All have a remembrance of September 11. Google's may be characterized as a "Ribbon of Grudge."

Hey, they had to put something up or the rubes would be all worked up about it, but let's not get all carried away. /sarcasm.

Flaming Koran

It's okay with me if we don't burn the koran. Read it first, and resolve doubt about the enemy.

Flamers with wheels.

Okay, so I screwed up. I freely admit doing so. I should have anticipated that another citizen might prefer to run his red light to waiting politely for a green, while I was going through the intersection on a green light.

How fortunate for both of us that your vehicle was equipped with a horn to be used to instruct me in the finer points of driving. I took every honk to heart.

Flamer.

Yahoo Breach Alert.

For the last eight years, I've been in contact with my students throught email. Many have used Yahoo email for years, and continue to do so. Nothing wrong with being a Yahooer. But recently I've been getting email messages appearing to be from old students whose names I recognize, with "no subject" and the message is some moocher website attempting to interest me in Viagra and such like. I'll get a couple dozen messages all alike, with slightly different URLs, all apparently from the same ex-student. I even got them from my daughter's Yahoo account and I'm real sure my daughter isn't trying to sell me Viagra. And I'm getting these phony emails from a lot of different students, at least a dozen and maybe two dozen different names, and multiple contacts from each name.

Hey people. Somebody has figured out a way to get into your Yahoo address books. For we who are getting all these messages, this is really annoying. But for you whose email addresses are being used, you have to wonder what else of your personal information is being compromised.

I wonder if Yahoo knows about this? And I don't know what you should do about it. I can tell you that blocking things at my end as spam or junk is not stopping the traffic.

And I can also say that whatever unspeakable douchbag has decided this is a good way to sell stuff deserves several pointed toe kicks in the cojones.

Surveys and Things that Suck Rant . . .

Went to a restaurant -- it's a local chain. At the end of the meal we were handed a check and a little piece of paper asking us to telephone/log-in to take a brief survey. If we did, we'd get something the next time we came in. I won't be taking the survey, just like I haven't taken the survey on all the other times I went to eat there.

What's the chances that you give everybody this survey scam every time, and the little something given as a thank-you for taking the survey really is an incentive to return to mooch out on the little something you get when you return the next time. In otherwords, it isn't information the company seeks. It's return customers.

Oh, and how was it? The food was what we expected. That's why we went there. The new menu sucks, in that any information one might be seeking is cleverly hidden in and amongst the pretty pictures the marketers think must be necessary for the illits they serve, all of whom can presumably be trusted to salivate for the right psychological cues provided a smart marketer, such as the ones who designed the new menu, manipulates the emotional symbolism correctly. Our server never returned to our table with an inquiry about anything further we might require, and we had to ask for a check to leave, for fear of being left sitting there, forever. Our server was engaged in a tedious conversation with a different customer, explaining how our server could not possibly have been 50% responsible for the accident, as his own insurance company had concluded, because he is a safe driver and the other driver was driving a Ford Explorer. I listened to his story -- it couldn't be avoided -- and both he and his insurance company are wrong. He's 100% responsible, and his insurance company is attempting to screw the other driver out of half his claim by asserting our server was only 50% responsible.

But I don't judge. Certainly not. I just don't give my usual 20-25% tip.

Hey, restaurant. Want some real information about how you are doing? You don't need a survey. Just look at your monthly receipts, your head count, and your tips. And I know you know what the tip level is because it's information required for IRS.

If management of a company, any company, wants to improve its business, the strategy is easy. Give excellent service with excellent products at an excellent price, and continuously look for ways you can improve service, products, and price. Don't ask your customers what you could be doing to get better. You should know that already. It's your job. And if you can't tell what constitutes excellent service, product or price, then you are in the wrong job. You should know that. It's your job to know that.

And if you want to find out if your employees are delivering, get somebody to step into a pair of jeans and drive into your own establishment and act like a customer. Or do it yourself. It's your job to know these things. And if your employees are not delivering, don't bother to chew on them or on their supervisor. There's a 95% chance that your company has instituted some policy or procedure, or maybe whole bunches of them, that disincentivize your employees. (I don't think that's a word, but if not, it should be.)

You want a survey? Here's a good one. Only two questions offered to your employees who have direct customer contact.

a. Has the company done anything to piss you off lately?
b. If your answer to the above is "yes", what was it? List as many as apply.

Betcha you'll learn something. Betcha if you try to fix the stuff that bothers your employees, your business improves. Also, keep in mind that sometimes a business is successful in spite of itself. And sometimes a business is successful because of politics. Money coming in isn't necessarily a sign that you are doing something right. Contrarily, money not coming in is definitely a sign that you are doing or have done something wrong. Oh, let's see. Your disincentivised employees have contact with your remaining customers, and you don't.

That's a hint.

Oh, I know. This isn't what they taught you when your were earning your Masters of Business Administration. They were all into statistics and measurement, weren't they? They want you to survey your customers, and they want you to count up the number and type of responses so you can compare survey results over time, and draw charts and graphs. They want you to see what measurements you have that aren't so very good, so you can call those little failure events opportunities for improvement. Gah!

Let me tell you about your M.B.A. degree. I'm sure you worked hard and did all the case studies, and maybe came to be indoctrinated into the M.B.A priesthood and you wholeheartedly believe in everything you learned. Well, you should figure out what was sensible, and what was not. Consider this. The university that gave you an M.B.A. likely offered an undergraduate degree for academic credit -- in women's studies. Or womyn's studies. And paid their football coach more than you'll ever make with your M.B.A. That same university is the one standing for the proposition that you can be taught in few short years, with summers off, how to manage a business where you don't have to be directly in contact with the customers who pay you. That same university is the one that expects you to believe that measurements are superior to leadership, and that employees can be managed by directive and deception, and budgeteering. (Another word I made up. It's kinda like racketeering isn't it, 'cause it shares the same objectives and many of the same methods.)

If you can't figure out the likely cause and a useful solution to the problem of a declining revenue, or one that isn't rising at the rate some imbecile in a necktie budgeted for, then you shouldn't have the job. It's not your customer's job. Their job is to pay for the product and services you offer, if you offer them a better deal then they can get elsewhere.

Figure it out for yourself, sparky. Surveying the customers sucks.

But the worst surveying is the phony survey. There are two kinds. The first phony survey is the one where the surveyor is looking for specific responses it can use for future marketing. For example:

Would you rather shop at Walternatives or insert a rabid wolverine up your own fundamental aperture? a. shop, b. wolverine, c. how big is the wolverine d. what's a fundamental aperture

Marketing message: Sixty four percent of shoppers prefer shopping at Walternatives!

But the worst is the mooch survey. I get these from the Republican party all the time, both by mail and by phone. (I get mooch letters and calls from the Democrats, too. Both parties enjoy the fiction that I somehow must agree with them.) Mooch surveys ask questions that I presumably have responses to and that I'm all-a-tizzy at the thought that somebody cares to hear my response. The questions are all variations of the below:

How bad does Obama suck?
Would you like him to stop sucking?
How bad do Democrats suck?
Would you like them to stop sucking?
Aren't you glad Obama and the Democrats aren't Republicans like us?

But the last question is always something like;

How much money would you like to send us, the non-Obama non-Democrats?

They appear to expect me to put a check in an envelope and put a stamp on the envelope and mail it in. Good thing they don't us a postage prepaid envelope. A person could write "bite me" on the survey, stick it in the envolope, glue the envelope to a brick, and drop the brick into a mailbox. Not that I would do such a thing. I'm basically nice. But I would understand, if somebody did.

In conclusion, it is probably not a surprise that the company I work for likes to survey. The company periodically has a mandatory voluntary survey of employees. It's not a phony survey. The company even honorably publishes the results of the employee survey, to the employees. The survey always has a little place where one can comment by means of writing sentences to supplement marking the little computerized choice boxes. I always offer a few comments, kind of like I might as well as I'm already in the neighborhood, and I feel it is expected of me.

Survey comments are never published.

Basically, surveys suck.

Commercials in our times. . . .

It struck me tonight. My wife and I were watching television, a thing we don't do often. When we do, it's usually one of just a few cable channels, as there are only a few that are bearable. We have been seeing the same commercial several weeks now, maybe a month. Several times an evening. Actually, too many times in an evening. My wife thought it was advertising a new movie we wouldn't be interested in watching.



I knew better. The commercial features some voluptuous yet firm female in a series of quick-cut female super-action-figure poses, ending with her flashing an insinuating smile. That's evidently what a female super-action-figure does right after overcoming the forces of sleaze and insobriety. Or something.



It was a commercial for lemon flavored vodka. I'm pretty sure.



The commercial had obviously cost considerable bucks to produce, so the ad people were going to get all the good out of it by showing it over and over and over again, all to maximize its influence. And cash registers were ka-chinging in advertising land and television city. I'm sure all the professionals involved in creating this little few seconds of commercial drama worked to the highest standards of their profession to produce a little commercial skit. So the company whose product was supposed to be showcased obvious spent and continues to spend a lot of money for this little commercial jewel.



And the commercial doesn't do a damn thing to make anybody interested in buying the product. It's possible, my wife illustrates the proposition, that intelligent people being exposed repeatedly to the commercial, would remain unclear exactly what product is being sold, here. There was so much art and artifice in putting the message out there, that the message itself was lost somewhere. Probably wasn't all that important to the commercial-making talent.



I would call that a failure. An expensive failure. I think the guys with the checkbook who want the buy a commercial product frequently find themselves unwittingly facilitating a bunch, dare I say it, of self-involved commercial artistes. In other words, the "talent" has the business guys charmed to the point where they've lost sight of the purpose of a commercial, which is to generate increased sales of the product.



You tell me. Does the sight of a hot, self-satisfied, hot woman in a hot, tight yellow hot skin suit engaged in the illusion of stylishly kicking the ass of an obnoxious sleaze with a toupee cause you to want vodka? Me neither. But she looks good, right?


And while she is pleasing to look at, that's not enough to sell a product, whether it's green beans, cell-phones, or liquid fertilizer. And it isn't just lemon vodka, it's all sorts of commercials. Hell, maybe even most of them.



Commercials should say, "Hey, look at this product which you should try because it is either enjoyable or provides some benefit to you." The commercial should not say, "Hey, look at me; I'm creative. I can make stuff you will see on television, paid for by some guys in suits. Hey, seriously, look at me."



Oh, I know. They want to make a commercial that will catch our attention without getting lost in all the many stimuli facing us. I"m just thinking that maybe they are going all out for the getting our attention part, but the selling a product part -- not so much.



In conclusion, first, I think the buyers of commercials should go for more than simply the assurance from the advertising company that it's responsible for increasing the number of eyes at the fairgrounds.. Hold out for a product that works.


And second, I'm getting really bored with the same useless commercials over and over. If there's gonna be bad commercials, can we at least get some new ads? They obviously have the money to spend on the current ad, and commercials pay the bills, right? I promise I'll watch 'em of you guys make new ones. I mean, I'm pretty sure I'll watch new ads. Really, I might watch your new commercials.

-Walt

Git Off'n Mah Proppity or Ah'l sue!

Drug banditos have invaded and hold two ranches in Texas. An act of war? This is serious, but this cannot be reported on CNN and the U.S. government cannot respond. Would contradict the narrative, doncha know. We can't distract ourselves with this while all of our attention must be directed towards suing Arizona for invading the federal government's turf.

Hope the oil away, yeah, that will work!

The well isn't the only thing broken. It appears that our government is broken when it comes to dealing with a little good sense. The old statement is that the perfect is the enemy of the good. In this case, good would be a helluva lot better than what we got.

If the Dutch oil skimmers available only get 90% of the oil, well, they aren't good enough. We won't settle for anything less than 99.44% pure unicorn dew. And buttercups.

Won't make a difference at all . . .

See, A Smoking Gun in the Kagen case. It isn't about the issue. It's about honesty. There's the old test beloved by trial attorneys -- if the witness lies about something, how can you believe anything else they say because they could be lying again. If she says she will judge "impartially and modestly, " well, maybe she has her fingers crossed.

On the other hand, I doubt if this will make any difference. This hearing is just another show for the rubes.

Oh, and banning books is okay, too.

Married to the Congressional Mob.

You guys have an overwhelming majority in both the House and Senate, and the White House, and you can't, or won't, pass the budget? You know. One of your most important constitutional obligations? Gah! It's bad enough that you can't stick to a budget when you pass it. But what the hell? You don't even have a budget? If we were married, I'd cut up the credit cards. If we were married, I'd want a divorce. You have been taking me and my vote for granted for too long. I want out.

Veteran's Day

Hey. Google put up a Veteran's Day thingy. Way to go.

Thurpy dogs.

So I'm standing in line at the grocery store and I looked around, hoping to find a shorter line. I saw a woman standing in line holding a leash and on the other end of the leash was one of those little, furry-all-over dogs with the juvenile facial features so beloved by little old ladies, adolescent princesses and spiritless husbands. It was jumping and running a few steps back and forth on the leash, wagging its dustmop of a tail to spread dog dander, allergens, and its scent all around -- and slobbering on the floor with doggy happiness. With an advanced canine sense of smell, for dogs probably all the odors and scents in a grocery store might be kind of like a hallucinogen drugs for people. (Oh, the colors! The colors!)

Anyhow, I was moved to make a polite comment, "HEY! THERE'S A DAMN DOG IN HERE!"

I forgot I was in Portland, Oregon. People can and do ride bicycles naked in Portland. Seldom are any of the naked bike riders people one would relish seeing naked, but we nevertheless must indulge them in their need to benude themselves. They have the right. The law won't touch them. (Nor would I.) People in Oregon can and do persuade doctors and pharmacists to give them life-ending drugs. The law teaches how to do it. They have a right. (I wonder what would happen if a terminally ill patient got suicide drugs legally, and then gave them to her husband instead of herself. Would she get the death penalty?)

So this being Portland, when I mentioned the dog in the grocery store I was informed that nobody much likes it but not much can be done about it because the definition of "therapy animal" is a unclear. Evidently, a therapy animal may be equivalent to a trained service dog, in Oregon law. So self-indulgent people can drag their pets into the grocery store. I was told there's a some kind of bill being considered in Salem on the subject. So, the store felt it had to look the other way, because it sure didn't want to deal with a novel civil-rights claim by some settlement hungry sue-monkey. And his client. This being Portland, and all.

Having a pet close by is thought to be necessary to the emotional well-being of emotionally broken people.

Okay. But all my life I've seen dogs tied outside the door of stores, waiting for owners to return. I've seen some stores have watering bowls for the comfort of pets who must wait outside. It isn't a problem for the pet, because nearly everybody walking by will speak to the animal. Outdoors. Not indoors.

Maybe we can get a test case going. We need to get a bearded Progressive to drag a dead, flea-encrusted possum on a stick all around Walgreen's, claiming the right based on his so-called great emotional needs, to chase customers out of the store in revulsion. He can claim the need to do so based on the sound advice offered by his emotional counselor, a Native American shaman known as Wah-Wah-Tippito, which means Solitary Coyote in his native language (and whose birth name was Donald Scheisskopf when first born in New Jersey.) That should do it.

Hey. If you don't have a specially trained animal to guide you through the dark, or to alert to the onset of an epileptic fit, or to bring things to you in your wheelchair, or some such, you don't have a service animal. You have a pet. And if you claim the right to bring your pet into the grocery store, you have an atitude.

And if you are given a legal right to bring a dog into the grocery store because it is a comfort to you, despite it being an annoyance to others, then I should be given the legal right to smoke a cigarette after coffee in a restaurant, if I want to.

(Oh, Walt. It isn't the same thing.) Yes. It is. It is exactly the same thing.

The Nobel prize? Really?

When the French, yeah, the French, can see it, maybe there could be a chance for San Francisco after all.

Remember, it was the French president, of all people, who described our president as naive and narcisstic, when it comes to his approach to atomic threats from Iran. Yeah, the French president. (I may be wrong about this, but my impression is that the last time the French were seriously warlike was with Napoleon. Or maybe back in 1066.)

I don't think it's that the French have decided to "cowboy up." (I'm in Arizona right now, and I heard somebody say that.) I think it's that the French are thinking that they are closer to Iran than we are, and they are seeing Putin "cowboy up."

Could it be that the French are rightly concerned whether or not we could be trusted to come to the rescue, for a third time?

And that's a fair question, the answer to which I'm not at all certain I'm comfortable that I know how it should be answered, let alone how it would be answered when the time comes.

I'm back

I"m back, but not in a big way. I haven't been blogging on either of my blogs. Politics. Bleagh!

I hear you knocking . . .

Looking for me? Try here.

Memorial Day good bye to Google. . .

Has anybody noticed that I've been mad at Google all day? Well, I still am.

Memorial Day Bye Bye to Google.

Have we all noticed how Google likes to add little artistic changes to the Google logo to commemorate various days of note on the calendar? Just a cute little acknowledgement, a snowman, or something. They even commemorated something as pedestrian as Sherlock Holmes. So, what did Google do for Memorial Day?

Not a damn thing.

Hey, it wouldn't take much and the those sorry sacks at Google wouldn't even have to be sincere. They could just make some little gesture to acknowledge that today is the day set aside on the calendar to remember that many Americans have died in service to their country. Betcha they remembered to stay home from work today.

So, as of today I'm going to disengage from Google. There are other search engines. I can start using my other e-mail addresses other than Gmail. I can take my blog elsewhere.

This isn't about politics. This is about arrogance, and a flat, self-important inability to consider all those Americans who knew, or were related to, or were friends with, or loved somebody who died in their country's uniform -- those Americans who may take comfort in the thought that perhaps for a few moments this day, other Americans will remember and honor their dead.

So --Screwgle.

And I only wish I advertised, or paid for services or owned stock with Google, so I could register my disapproval a mite more effectively.

Bye-bye, Google Memorial Day

Google may be one of the best search engines there is, but it isn't the only one and it isn't the only one I use.

As of now, I'm no longer using Google to search the web. As of now, I'm looking for another way to blog. As of now, I'm going to start favoring my non-Gmail e-mail addresses.

Here's why.

Google regularly puts up all sorts of little decorative devices on the opening page -- all sorts of little artistic variations on the Google logo to mark special days on the calendar. They can remember to do it for something as relatively trivial as Sherlock Holmes. So what do we have for Memorial Day?

Not a damn thing.

Hey, it's not as if the happy band of Googlers even had to be sincere in acknowledging that many Americans have died in uniform and today is marked down as a day to remember the sacrifices of friends and relatives who died in service of their country. This isn't about politics; it's about rude, self-centered arrogance. But I'll bet the whole sorry pack of Googlers took the day off as a holiday while nevertheless ignoring those for whom Memorial Day is meaningful.

I feel bad that I don't pay Google for their services, or run advertisements on Google or own stock in Google. If I did, I could communicate to Google in a more meaningful way.

Can this be right?

Google it. The population of Mexico is a little over a hundred million. Is that right? And we have a reported twelve million illegals in the country, most of whom, I'm told, are Mexican. So, roughly ten percent of Mexico is in the United States?

Telephone tax refund ...

The IRS is going to pay back some taxes collected. A long time ago, like about 1898, the government imposed a 3% tax on long distance telephone calls. This was a temporary tax, of course. And it was okay because only rich people had telephones, and taxing the rich and not the poor is thought to be a virtue. Of course with the passage of time, we see the error of imposing a temporary tax, or permitting a tax because it is only imposed on those who can afford it. You and I have been paying the 3% tax on our long distance phone calls.

Anyway, since the government has lost lawsuits about collecting this tax, and lost more than once, it has decided it won't collect the tax anymore. And it is going to give some money back. There will be an opportunity on the 2006 tax forms to claim 3 years worth of federal taxes on your long distance calls. Oh, the other 105 years of taxes? Gone.

Boy, we sure showed IRS they can't mess around with the American public.

The evolution of dance. . . .

Take a look at this. If you start watching . . . you'll watch it to the end.

Hope this works . . .

So, why are we giving aid to Egypt and the Palestinians, when we should be giving a whole lot more support to this radical Muslim?

This idea will get me into trouble . . .

It sucks that Americans can't get jobs or own businesses in Mexico. It sucks that Canadian and Mexican doctors can't come over here and work without going through a lengthy wait, but people less qualified can just sneak across the border and get jobs. It also sucks that we've permitted millions of border jumpers to come over and stay here and we've taken advantage of their labor, but now we want to talk about sending them back, after they've become kind of a part of things here. And it sucks for all of the legal immigrants who followed all the rules and put up with considerable delay and annoyance to live here under the law, if they now see others obtaining the same benefit without being obliged to "play by the rules."

So, here's the idea that is sure to get me in trouble. Let's let the "illegals" earn amnesty and citizenship. If they work on erecting a wall across the Mexican border, we'll pay them minimum wage to do it and let them stay on this side of the wall as citizens when the wall if done.

. . . . . Sorry. I can't help it. Absurd notions just kind of come over me and make me laugh.

Big oil sucks . . . .

Big oil is sure just sucking in the cash here of late. Why, they've gone from an average of six cents a gallon of gas in profits, all the way up to nine cents a gallon in profits, in a matter of months. Greedy bastids, aren't they?

By the way, the U.S gummint gets 13% royalty on all gas pumped from our off shore wells. In addition, the federal government takes fourteen point four cents a gallon in taxes at the gasoline pump, which makes the oil company's nine cents a gallon look a little puny. And in addition to that, the state of Oregon, which was the first state in the Union to ever tax gasoline in the first place (We're number one! We're number one!!) takes forty-two point four cents a gallon in taxes at the pump. So here in Oregon, every gallon of gas you buy gives at least fifty-six cents a gallon in taxes to the politicians, and nine cents a gallon profits to the greedy capitalists.

So, what is the solution that occurs to the politicians? Why, capping the profits that greedy oil companies can make. That would mean that once this wonderful new law was in place, a gallon of gas would cost as much as nine cents a gallon less, depending on just how much profit the politicians wanted to deny to the oil companies. Hooray! Our troubles are over.

Oh, can you guess which two states take sixty cents a gallon or more in taxes? New York and California -- I sure didn't see that coming.

And can you guess which politician, state or federal, figures maybe the taxes on gasoline could be reduced a little to cut us a break? Me neither.

And hey. Remember how we were going to Iraq to steal their oil? How it was all about the oil? Well, I think I'm going to have to agree with all the moonbats who say Bush has made a mess of things. He really did. He been screwing around pursuing foolish notions like trying to get democracy started and eliminating "insurgents" and he never did get around to stealing us any of the damn oil!

So, big prices at the pump? I think we should blame politicians, state and federal. Foreign and domestic.

Those pros knows how to do prose . . .

I haven't been writing here much. But others have been writing all over the place. Why, just here, we have some writing where another hard-hitting, award winning news reporter is, as they say, BUSTED.

Choosing between the worser or the worserest . . .

And here's another good one by Mark Steyn.

After us, the deluge . . .

Ooooh, this is a good one. Really.

Portland, the city that works . . .

Jim Redden for the 3/28/06 Portland Tribune reported on the animal rights persons protesting every Saturday in front of Schumacher Fur & Outerwear Co. in downtown Portland, Oregon. Redden further reported, with quote marks, that Precinct Cmdr. Dave Bennett thinks that the company should just move away.

As it turns out according to Commissioner Randy Leonard, the Schumacher company is partly to blame for the situation because they have disregarded police advice to close the store down on Saturdays, when the protesters show up. Further, the business owners have argued with the protesters and mocked them!

Redden further reported that some of the protesters "dress up as animals and roll around on the sidewalk pretending they are being killed." Now how could a person bring themselves to mock a person dressed in an animal suit rolling around on the sidewalk?

It's likely true that if the Schumachers go away or shut down, as suggested by police, the protesters would lose further interest in protesting them. The Portland Tribune's explanation for the accompanying photo of a protester all dolled up in a goofy gloves, a skull mask and a blonde wig ??? is that Kit Collins (presumably the person so righteously costumed) hasn't missed a Saturday protest since they started and her goal is to "keep showing up until the store closes." If that's the goal, and if the protests are organized around that goal, it seems to me that there may be at least a borderline violation of the Animal Enterprise Terror Act. (Public Law 102-346 - U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 3, section 43). The law makes violation a felony if over $10,000 in damages occur, and there have been convictions under the law. Wonder what the damages could be if a well established fur store would be forced to close, losing the considerable investment in the store location?

There have been arrests of the protesters, exactly three so far, despite the obvious disinclination of the police to make any arrests. Redden quotes Benson, "My own personal contact with the protesters and the contact had by my sergeants is that they are generally very nice people that have very strong views about selling fur." A person would, of course, have to have "strong views" to dress up in an animal suit and roll around on the sidewalk pretending to being killed. I guess one definition of "strong views" might be "poor impulse control."

According to Redden the police see this as a matter of the nice people acting within their first amendment rights. So I must suppose that in the police view, those other people acting within their first amendment rights, the Schumachers who argued with and mocked the protesters, are just not nice and for this reason, should just go away. (Covering mouth and sneezing, AH-CHOOO, equal protection of the law.)

This is really pretty repulsive on the part of the city government. I mean, the protesters don't even get sympathy from Jeff Alworth on a local progressive website (go to blueoregon.com.)


I feel sorry for the Schumachers who are doing nothing illegal - except possibly playing Christmas music loudly in response to the protesters' city-licensed use of a bullhorn to augment their supposed first amendment rights to protest until a business shuts down. The Schumachers have a considerable investment at risk. I feel sorry for the businessmen of Portland who are trying to steer businesses through the antagonism of much of the local government busybodies who are largely responsible for a "toxic" retail environment. (Dave Rogoway of Cutters Jewelry) I also feel sorry for the residents of Portland watching business after business being replaced by the ever-increasing number of "quick loan at unconscionable interest" stores. (Betcha every one of 'em you see represents a real business which once provided goods, services, and jobs but then died at that location.) Shoot, I even feel sorry for the boneheads, I mean nice people with strong views every one, who are protesting. It is pitiful, when you think about it, that a person's entire notion of self worth could be so shriveled and weak as to require dressing up like animals and rolling around on the sidewalk pretending to being killed by an electrified probe up their inconsiderable anuses.

I don't, however, feel sorry for Commissioner Leonard and Precinct Commdr. Benson.

You should all find out where they live and go shout at them every weekend without end until their neighbors and families urge them, beg them, to move away to someplace else where you won't feel like going to shout at them anymore.

I am, to be sure, merely exercising my first amendment rights, here, in making such a suggestion.

21st Century piracy . . .

Looks like attempted piracy to me, and even Aljazeera News treats it as a liklihood.

Suspected pirates off the coast of Somalia started shooting at U.S. navy ships. We shot back and then fished what was left of the suspected pirates out of the water. This hearkens back to the original internationalisation of the U.S. navy -- Islamic pirates capturing ships and enslaving or beheading the occupants of the European ships, with the European response being appeasement.

Lately, the pirates around Somalia have been raiding ships trying to bring charitable aid to the starving Somalis, who were starving well before 1991 when the warlords wiped out the government and then turned on each other. Before, the government was socialist and disposed to make decisions based on tribal or religious grounds.

Hey folks. This sort of thing has been going on for hundreds of years. I bet Columbus wasn't looking for a shorter way to China. He was looking for a safer way.

Getting away with the crime . . .

The prosecutor says that the death of Milosevic in his jail cell is a defeat for the United Nations war crimes tribunal.

So they are going to call for an autopsy to show that Milosevic was or was not poisoned. His supporters would surely think he was poisoned. Right? Because when you want to terminate somebody, you have to lock him in a cell and put him on trial for years and years, and then poison him after four years of trial. You surely couldn't just go ahead and do it, right at the very beginning, when it might mean something. That wouldn't be the United Nations way.

I figure the United Nations war crimes tribunal was screwed up as soon as the trial went into the third month. A trial shouldn't have to last for years. If it does, probably the judge, the prosecutor and defense attorney are all dealing with something other than the guilt of the defendant. They are turning a trial into a career. Self-important clowns.

The same mistake is being made with Saddam and it's too late at this point to do anything about it, now that he figures he can game the system and make speeches. What should have been done right after the taking the photographs of him, dirty and mortified and having his teeth examined, was to hand him a pistol with one cartridge and lock him in a room to himself to consider his options and reflect upon his prospects.

What passes for courage in SoCal . . .

I didn't watch the Oscars this year, pretty much like I haven't been watching for the last few years. The news from Holliwoodistan just annoys me. But Ben Stein watched all the stars and he's kind of Hollywood himself. Take a look at what he has to say.

A million dollar bounty . . .

The bounty pledged by the Muslim cleric to kill the cartoonists is a million dollars. Where's a Muslim cleric in Pakistan going to get a million dollars?

Either he's going to steal it, or the killer is going to get a hand drawn note for One Million Fatwa Bux (FB1,000,000.00) with a picture of a camel's ass on the back and a picture of the prophet on the front, the irony of which will escape CNN

Inshallah.

Here's a surprise. . . .

So now, some radical Muslim so-called religious leader is putting a bounty up to reward anybody who kills a cartoonist who dared to put up an image of the prophet.

I have to say it. [sarcasm alert]

I try to see the good in all, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to continue to respect these psychopathic dribbles of dog snot.

A burning mailbox . . .

Evidently, I'm not the only one who thinks that the current whoop-de-do over cartoons depicting Mohammed might be more than meets the eye.

It would be easy to dismiss the whole thing as just more of the same old same old from the seething Muslims.

But images of Mohammed aren't new, and it isn't even a sure thing that Islam forbids such images. Take a look; there's bunches of them that never before required the burning of any embassies.

Why now?

I figure it's a diversion. They only want a little more time for whatever real mischief they are planning, but they need a distraction so they can catch us while we are not looking. Based on the history of the last twenty years, burning embassies and cars won't provoke anything like a decisive response on our part. But it will occupy our leaders while they ponder what -- if anything -- we should do. And it will increase the fright among those among us who will always suggest that timidity is a rational diplomatic posture, and who will always argue for a measured response to any provocation. Debate in the U.N. sounds about right.

Yeah, I figure the heat over the cartoonish insult is a diversion. If we go for the burning mailbox on the curb, they plan to storm into the kitchen through the back door.

Breaking News! Cartoons plunge civilization into the dark ages!

The Muslim "street" is ready to burn and pillage over a few cartoons in a little country that is neither inclined nor capable of doing Islam any real harm whatsoever. In Syria, they are burning embassies because of the "insult" to Islam. And mostly it's their leaders who are deliberately and irresponsibly rousing the "street" to arson, automobiles earlier in France, and now, western embassies.

We aren't talking a competition of civilizations, here, Western civilization against theirs. This is barbarians who want to disassemble all civilization, because they think they can, because they enjoy the feel of their own potency. C'mon. There was a great Islamic civilization once. Now, Wahabbi-flavored Islam is going everywhere but Islamic civilization is in shorter supply.

Islamic civilization was not diminished because we won the Crusades, because we didn't. The Islamic civilization has shriveled because of the influential figures within Islam who despise the civilized processes of building and maintaining social and urban structures, and who are in love with arson, decapitation, blood and death. The sword and the flame. (Photos.) They reject civilization itself, ours, and theirs.

It looks to me as we have civilization besieged by the barbarians.

It happened to Rome, leading to centuries of the dark ages. It could happen again

I'm not sorry . . .

Now the police say they are sorry that they ejected Cindy Sheehan for the left, and the wife of a congressman on the right, for wearing tee shirts with messages on them. They say they went too far and they apologize.

I'm not sorry. I like the rule.

If it is decided that the audience in the balcony can wear tee shirts with messages, the state of the union speech will quickly become a lineup of self-important morons, left, right --and really out there -- together with their media co-dependents and facilitators, all stridently banding together to post their messages over the presidential message.

I don't actually know why the president couldn't just stop by and drop his written state of the union message on the congressional desk and leave, for all the good that it does. It's not as if presidents need to stay up nights trying to think up ways they can provide an opportunity for the likes of Cindy Sheehan to make a spectacle of herself.

First Amendment freedom to tee-shirt . . .

Looks like it wasn't just Cindy Sheehan who was removed from the capitol building for wearing a tee shirt with a political message. AP is reporting that the wife of a Republican representative was removed from the audience because she was wearing a "support the troops" tee shirt.

She was heard to shout, "Somebody stop me before I tee-shirt again!"