Thursday, June 25, 2009
I don't get what so many see in Obama. Some claim he is a good speaker. Really? Between "uhhs" and his speech impediment where he whistles when he pronounces his S's, I just can't take much of him. Sure politically the guy annoys me, but he also annoys me just to listen to him.
Also, imagine if a Republican were as effeminate as Obama. The guy just isn't very macho. Heck, his wife has bigger guns (biceps) than he does! But since he is a far-left liberal he gets a free pass. Whenever he starts talking tough on Iran I picture Ahmadinejad watching the footage and laughing. It reminds me of the old Eddie Murphy bit where Michael Jackson came up to Murphy and tried to get tough with him.
Also, his policies are annoying. The same tired, socialist ideas that have never worked. His health care reform doesn't take into account that the government can't even keep Medicare solvent. Yet I was supposed to listen to him drone on last night, in between "uhhs" and whistled S's, on the subject? I had better things to do like stick needles in my eyeballs.
ABC News should be ashamed of themselves for that sycophant move last night. Not allowing debate. Not allowing a dissenting point of view. Never once (from what I have heard) mentioning the problems with Medicare. Nope, just another step closer to becoming a state run news organization. At this rate it won't be long before we have to take to the streets in protest, Iranian-style.
Of course when Obama goes on TV to uhhh and whistle his way through a "these protests must stop" speech, we'll all point at the screen and laugh. After all, Michael Jackson is just as intimidating.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Something that is telling in these statements is that atheists do not claim that they will become followers of, or become obedient to, God, but only that they will admit his existence if God were to "manifest himself" in some miraculous way.
Many atheists claim that this is their standard for admitting that there is a God. Whenever an atheist uses this argument it makes me think of the story told by Jesus in Luke 16 about the rich man and Lazarus. Some claim this story is a parable, but I don't agree with that. No other parable of Christ's does He give names of individuals. There are some other things unique to this story that make it different from the parables that Christ told, but that isn't really the point of this blog entry.
Most of the time in this story we concentrate on the fact that the rich man had a good life and disregarded the needs of poor Lazarus. That is a valid take away from the story, but near the end of the story Jesus includes a couple of details that are germane to our discussion about the atheist's demand for absolute proof in the existence of God.
If you remember the story, the rich man lived luxuriously, while Lazarus lived a life of poverty. So poor was Lazarus that he ate the crumbs that fell to the floor from the rich man's table. Both men die and go into the Hadean realm. There the rich man is in torment because of the wicked life he lived, and Lazarus is comforted in Abraham's bosom. Here is the exchange that takes place between Abraham and the rich man:
24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.This exchange tells us some important things, and I believe this is precisely why Christ included it in the telling of this story. Notice the rich man's concern for his 5 brothers. He wanted Lazarus to be raised from the dead, and then to go to his brothers to warn them against the torment that the rich man was in.
25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Abraham's response is that they have Moses and the prophets to tell them what they must do. This is very interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it is important to remember that this is prior to the Day of Pentecost, so the Jews were still living under the law of Moses. The rich man is obviously an Israelite because he refers to Abraham as Father Abraham. Another reason this is interesting is because Abraham refers to "Moses and the prophets".
Now it could be that this story is taking place while Moses was still alive. I find that unlikely. First, the first 40 years under the Mosaic law, while he was still alive, Moses was leading the Israelites in their wilderness wanderings. It is unlikely that there were rich among the wanderers due to the constant struggle of the people to find food and water during that time. Also, Abraham says "and the prophets". While Moses was alive God had no need of prophets because He communicated with the people through Moses and Aaron.
Abraham is most likely referring to the writings of Moses here. Specifically the books of the Torah, Genesis-Deutoronomy. That would have been God's word, at this time incomplete but still the word He had revealed to this point. That is why He used prophets, to further reveal His word to the children of Israel. What Abraham is referring to when he says "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them" is His word as it was revealed up until the time of this story.
Abraham is basically telling the rich man that the rich man's brothers have the writings of Moses and the prophets, and through those writings, the inspired word of God, they can find out what they need to do in order to avoid joining the rich man in the torment side of Hades.
Another interesting part of this story is the rich man's claim: "but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent." Sound famaliar? Think of the modern day atheists that claim that if God would just manifest Himself in a miraculous, undeniable way, then they will believe that God exists.
But notice what Abraham says: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." To paraphrase Abraham, he is saying: "If they will not heed the word of God, then they won't be persuaded even if one rose from the dead." Doesn't this describe modern day atheists perfectly? They have the perfect, or complete word of God. Christ was raised from the dead. Atheists refuse to listen to God's word, and they are not persuaded even though Christ rose from the dead!
The implication here is simple. No matter what God does, whether it be providing His complete word in written form, raising His son from the dead, or even manifesting Himself in a miraculous way today, there are those that will deny Him and His existence. God could appear to atheists and they would still find some way to rationalize their disbelief in His existence. If they refuse to listen to His word then no matter what He does it would not be enough for some.
We even have examples of this in the Bible. In I Kings 18 we have a story of contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal to determine whose god was true and living. Here is the story:
I Kings 18:21-40
21And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.While this persuaded the people, notice the prophets of Baal. When their god proved to be a fraud, they were so distraught they cut themselves with knives. Even after almighty God proved Himself, the prophets of Baal remained defiant to the point where Elijah ended up killing them.
22Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.
23Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under:
24And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.
25And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under.
26And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.
27And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.
28And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.
29And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.
30And Elijah said unto all the people, Come near unto me. And all the people came near unto him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD that was broken down.
31And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the LORD came, saying, Israel shall be thy name:
32And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD: and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed.
33And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood.
34And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time.
35And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water.
36And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.
37Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again.
38Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.
39And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.
40And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.
Modern day atheists are being disingenuous when they claim that a manifestation of God would convince them. They have God manifested through His complete word. They have God manifested through His creation of the universe (Psalms 19:1). They have God manifested through the death, burial and resurrection of His son for the remission of their sins. Yet they still deny Him. And they would continue to deny Him no matter what God did.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Many industry experts are predicting that with the new federal mileage standards that this is just the beginning. More and more bigger cars and SUVs will see their performance suffer as auto makers struggle to meet the federal MPG standards that the Obama administration has pushed through. These same experts predict that it will mean buyers of bigger vehicles will have to get used to more plodding, slow performing vehicles as a result.
One of Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion says that "to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." This law tends to be more universal than just being applied to physics. For every action we take we usually affect other things and other people around us. Liberals do not get this concept.
Take environmentalists for example. In their exuberance they usually take actions that have the exact opposite effect they were going for. For instance, studies have shown that recycling programs actually have a bigger environmental impact than the benefits they are supposed provide. Yet environmentalists continue to push recycling programs despite that impact.
The Obama administration really thought that raising car MPG standards would be a benefit. But as usual liberal thinking on this issue is short sighted. I predict that all the MPG standards will do is revive the after-market performance parts industry like we haven't seen since the 60's and 70's, during the muscle car era.
Think about it. The new federal standards apply to car manufacturers and the new cars they sell. There is no consumer enforcement to these standards. I could buy a car that gets 30 MPG today, and customize it to get much less fuel economy than that tomorrow. These kinds of customizations, with after-market computer chipping and other performance enhancements, have always been around.
But due to the changes highlighted above, as manufacturers have to sacrifice performance in their vehicles to meet federal fuel economy standards, more and more consumers will begin to compromise fuel efficiency in order to achieve the level of performance in their vehicles that they are used to. Almost no localities have any type of fuel efficiency monitoring of in service vehicles, and there are very few that even require emissions testing of in service vehicles.
So there is basically nothing to prevent consumers from customizing their cars for maximum performance once they roll them off the dealer's lot. And when you are talking about maximizing performance (speed and acceleration) you are usually talking about minimizing fuel economy.
So Obama in all his genius (puke) must never have heard Sir Isaac Newton's law regarding action and reaction. After-market performance parts manufacturers have to be drooling at the prospects of seeing their sales grow (reaction) thanks to Obama's short sighted action.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Of the 22 active aircraft carriers in service today, 11 of them are owned and operated by the United States. No other country's carriers are as large, powerful, fast, and capable as those of the U.S.
We then started talking about other military vehicles. The B-2 Stealth Bomber, the F117 Stealth Fighter, F-14 Tomcat, A-10 Warthog, and F-15 Eagle. We discussed helicopters. One thing kept coming up: no other nation had as many, as technologically advanced, nor as capable military vehicles as the United States.
So what is it that sets us apart? What is it that has allowed us to become the most powerful nation on God's green earth? The answer is simple really: our freedom.
It is our freedom in our society and our markets. This has allowed us to create an economy where wealth and capital grow at a fast pace. Competition, free-markets, and consumers with disposable income have allowed technology to outpace that of any other nation in the world. Also, once we imagine it, we have the resources to design and build it, then mass-produce it. This sets us apart from the rest of the world.
True, in the realm of television sets and solid-state consumer electronics we may not be the leaders. But what is more impressive, a 100" LCD television, or a 101,000 ton nuclear-powered aircraft carrier? Or if one isn't enough, how about 10 of those all in active service, with an even bigger class of aircraft carrier in construction?
The U.S. has become the most powerful nation in the world not because of our politicians, but because of our innovative thinkers, and the workers that make imagination come to life. We get knocked for our consumption, but in an armed conflict you'd want that consumption on your side because it would mean 11 of the world's 22 aircraft carriers, and those 11 being the biggest, baddest, and most advanced of the 22.
Now there are those that would change all of this. There are those like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Ried, and friends that want us to be more like France (1 carrier in service) or Germany (no aircraft carriers in service). Obama wants to close free markets, ramp up government regulation and ownership of industry, and bring us down to the level of the rest of the world.
Obama talks about our health care system as if that system isn't the greatest, most advanced system in the world. He talks about our military as if they are a bunch of buffoons that are not competent. He speaks of our economy as if there is something fundamentally wrong with it and that it needs to be changed. Obama is wrong on all of those accounts.
The U.S. has the greatest health care system in the world. We need to encourage what we are doing in that realm, not bash it. We have the greatest military in the world, we need to be fully funding our military, not cutting funding. We have the best economy in the world that creates wealth and is more productive than any other nation. We need to be strengthening our free market principles, cutting government intervention, and reducing taxes across the board. Not the opposite.
Barack Obama doesn't get it. He has surrounded himself with seedy, backward thinking individuals his entire life. He has a vision for changing this nation into what he sees around the world. That is flat out the wrong way to go. People were duped by a socialistic media to elect this socialist, and now we are seeing his proposals and realizing that we were duped.
We are the greatest nation in the world. We should be proud of that, not ashamed of it.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Click here and notice the links: Newsone For Black America
Of course the title of that blog entry was tongue in cheek. Apparently people today do not read classic works of fiction and don't realize that the title was in reference to the Brothers Grimm story "The Brave Little Tailor". Also, I am sure that Newsone couldn't fathom anyone, even a die-hard, conservative blogger such as myself, being critical of "The One".
I appreciate Newsone linking to my blog, but I believe their readers are in for a rude awakening on encountering my anti-Obama posts. Too funny.
UPDATE! Apparently Newsone took the link to my blog down. The Obama-mania "media" at work again.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Click here for video: Obama Swats Fly
Have you ever seen anyone more proud of killing a fly? Of course, insect-rights groups will be out in full force picketing the White House.
How about the CNBC reporter saying it was his "Make My Day" moment!?!? What? It was a fly!
It reminded me of this story: Click here for the story of The Brave Little Tailor
By days end the media will have this blown up to "OBAMA KILLS SEVEN GIANTS WITH ONE SWAT!" In the meantime he will continue to be a dove on the situation in Iran instead of taking the bull by the horns.
Hey Obama, why don't you pick on someone your own size?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
But this entry is not about rock radio, it is about WRIF's morning show, "Mike In The Morning", and more specifically the show's "news" reports by one Trudi Daniels. I quoted news because what Trudi does is far from news, it is hiding her own opinion into what she deems "news reports".
I have listened to this morning show, on and off, over the course of at least 15 years, though it has changed and evolved from various forms. One constant has been Trudi Daniels and her "news reports". The show itself is kind of a Howard Stern wannabe, though Mike Clark, after whom the show is named, is a decently fair-minded guy. When he shares his opinion it usually is at least a little right of center, which is refreshing. When he isn't sharing his opinion the show devolves into little more than a vuglarity and gross-out fest.
I say that Mike's opinion sharing is refreshing because what Trudi does during these "news reports" is far from right of center, nor refreshing. I can only describe what Trudi does as spew her left-wing, liberal crap. And she has done that for as long as I can remember. During the 90s it wasn't as pronounced because she loved Bill Clinton and his far-left politics. But when good old George W. Bush took office in January of 2001, Trudi's liberal crapfest took on new proportions.
I have written WRIF over the years to complain about this. These letters and emails have yielded nothing in the way of change. I take especial exception to the station referring to what Trudi does as news, but they've persisted over the years in referring to it as such. After hearing her this morning I almost fired off another letter to WRIF regarding her left-wing, liberal crap spewage, but decided to vent here instead.
In the part I heard she was discussing the story that has gone on for a couple of weeks now about how much Obama's little trips have been costing the American tax-payer. She then sited some liberal new source (CNN?) as pointing out that presidents have always traveled on taxpayer money. She then got a dig in at Fox News by saying "though if you listen to Fox News you wouldn't think that was the case".
Then she went on her daily George W. Bush rant. She sited his 77 visits to Crawford, Texas alone during his 8 years in office. As a typical, left-wing ideologue without any real cognitive thinking skills, she seemed satisfied that this made her point: when it comes to travel Obama is no worse than any other president, especially George W. Bush.
Also as a typical, left-wing ideologue (though in this case idiotlogue might fit better), she seemed to miss the point that some are making regarding Obama's $230,000 leisure trips. And that is that Obama keeps proclaiming that these are extrordinary times, and that we all need to tighten our belts and make sacrifices for the common good, then turns around and goes about business as usual as president. I don't care that most presidents have traveled and we paid for it, if Obama is telling me I have to tighten my belt and make sacrifices then he needs to as well!
Also, Obama, Trudi, and their ilk keep proclaiming that these are the worst economic times since the great depression. During the great depression did Hoover and Roosevelt jetset around the world and country on the taxpayer dime? You might argue that it was a different time then, but it is Trudi and the left pointing to Obama's travel and saying that presidents have always done that.
Of course, Trudi Daniels has no clue about any of this. She was taking what her source reported, and spewing it verbatim because it fit into her ideology. Oh, and she afforded the opportunity to bash Fox News and George W. Bush at the same time. Meantime, she is arguing that Obama is the same as Bush and all other presidents despite the fact that she elevated him above all of the others during the presidential campaign when she fully embraced his "Hope and Change" rhetoric.
So which is it Trudi? Is Obama better than the presidents that came before him or the same? You, CNN, and the rest of the left-wing liberals can't have it both ways. Where is the transperancy and change we were sold during the campaign? Now your argument is that he is no worse, and therefore no different, than those that came before?
As far as Bush's 77 trips to Crawford in his 8 years in office, I did a little math (which I know Trudi couldn't handle herself). In 8 years, there are 416 weekends. I don't know about you but when I travel for my company they fly me home on weekends if I so choose. The fact that Bush flew home 77 times, out of 416 weekends in his 8 years in office means he DIDN'T fly home on the weekend 339 times. If they are justifying Obama's expensive travel based on Bush flying home 18.5% of the time (77/416 for those of you like Trudi), then their justification falls short.
I turned off Trudi's news (and comment) at that point because I had all I could stand. Before that she was embracing his healthcare proposal, further cementing her place in the left-wing, socialist movement. Normally I don't even listen to her "news" because I know it is so slanted and biased. I guess I will have to go back to that. The fact that they still get a sponsor for what she does on a daily basis is mind-boggling.
So the station will be changing on my clock-radio. Never again will I have to wake up to Trudi's "news". Unfortunately, that means that I'll also miss out on some good rock-n-roll that is played prior to "Mike In the Morning" coming on the air. Oh well, these are extraordinary times and sacrifices have to be made.
Monday, June 15, 2009
But I digress. Now we are seeing a crop shortage due to global cooling! Here is an article on the issue: Crops Under Stress As Temperatures Fall
I like this part:
It is now more than 200 years since the great astronomer William Herschel observed a correlation between wheat prices and sunspots. When the latter were few in number, he noted, the climate turned colder and drier, crop yields fell and wheat prices rose. In the past two years, sunspot activity has dropped to its lowest point for a century. One of our biggest worries is that our politicians are so fixated on the idea that CO2 is causing global warming that most of them haven't noticed that the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling, with all the implications that has for whether we get enough to eat.
So why is Algore not picketing the sun demanding more activity? Why are the elite left not on letter writing campaigns demanding the sun break out of its lazy apathy and start firing more super-heated nuclear energy rays in our direction? Why are environmentalists not declaring that the exploitation of the sun through solar panel usage is causing our sun to die a slow death?
Oh wait, their agenda doesn't include trying to legislate the behavior of the sun. Just humans. But the point of all of this is a simple truth: God is in control. Nothing we do will bring the earth's destruction. He created it, He'll destroy it.
So go eat beef, drive a gus-guzzler, and consume the quantity of products you'd like. The sun will either warm or cool us and there is nothing we can do about it!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
When you had Obama on what occurred should have been done in private. It was a torrid love affair of epic proportions. The MPAA would have rated it R for sexual content. Seriously, Michelle should have been jealous. I could hear her in the green room going "oh no he didn't! Not with my man he didn't!" I thought you two were going to start making out.
Then with John McCain you came across as a crass, uninformed, brain-washed, biased hack. You were rude, sarcastic, abrasive, and a complete curmudgeon.
I understand that you are a liberal. I understand that you are a Democrat. But you have to realize that half of your audience is neither of those things. Why alienate and turn off 50% of your possible viewers?
And then your attacks on Sarah Palin are beyond the pale. Especially the latest attack regarding "Alex Rodriguez knocking up her (Palin's) daughter". Dave, you may not be aware that the election is over, Obama won, and Governor Palin went back to Alaska. You don't have to continue to try to tear her vice-president candidacy down. Move on.
And then your phony "apology", followed by your phony "invitation" to cover your tracks made you look even worse. You are an irrelevant little twit of a man. You are insignificant to 99.99999% of the general population. Heck, your show isn't even funny any more.
Have you considered retirement? You had a near miss once with a persistent stalker. Remember that? She broke into your house she was so obsessed with you. It could have easily turned into a scene out of Stephen King's Misery. Retirement might be the safest solution at this point.
So Dave, fade away into the sunset. Try to have as much class as Jay Leno had and quit while you are ahead. As slim (or nonexistent) as your lead might be.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
- Company A files for bankruptcy.
- Company A forms Company B.
- Company B "acquires" all of the good assets from Company A.
- Company B opens for business using Company A's former good assets.
- Company A is left to go through bankruptcy with only its bad assets, and therefore into insolvency.
So to simplify this, through legal wrangling a company gets to remove all of the bad assets out of its holdings, keep the good assets, and continue on in business. Obviously there are further complexities, like who owns the new company, etc. But it is basically a way of hiding the bad assets away and keep the good ones.
How is that different than accounting fraud? Similar to the fraud that Enron and Tyco were guilty of. Oh, the difference is that the government is for, and not only for but behind this fraud. Meantime, bond holders and other debtors get the shaft. And favored government entities, like the UAW, come away with large chunks of ownership of the "new" company.
This should fly in the face of every right-thinking, capitalistic American. It could be argued that debtors were stupid to allow GM to run up as much as $20 billion in debt, and therefore incur the risks that kind of lending includes. However, to just let a company purge itself of bad assets, keep the good ones, and go on with business undermines our entire economic system.
Then again, anything the Obama administration is involved in undermines America.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Click here for story: U.S. War Funding Bill Brims With Unrelated Extras
A $100 billion bill to fund U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is rapidly accumulating extra items such as money for military aircraft the Pentagon doesn't want and possibly a scheme to jump-start sagging auto sales.
The cars and planes are not directly linked to the U.S. war effort. But they are typical of Congress' penchant for loading bills with unrelated spending in hopes the funds will sail through on the strength of the main legislation.
President Barack Obama originally sought $83.4 billion for the two wars and more foreign aid for countries like Pakistan.
But then he too sought more -- $4 billion extra to combat H1N1 swine flu and $5 billion to back credit lines to the International Monetary Fund, which is trying to help developing countries weather the global economic downturn.
Wow. And why would they use this bill to try to shove through such ridiculous pork? The answer lies in this excerpt:
A senior Democratic House aide said the requests for flu and Pakistan money were appropriate to include in the bill because they were emergency needs Obama cited. The aide also noted that Republicans in the past backed items like the IMF funds.
"This is a dangerous game Republicans are playing by jeopardizing the well-being of our soldiers to score political points," the aide said. "The supplemental will be passed, but they will have to answer for their actions if they oppose it."
So they admit that if Republicans object to the pork, then Democrats (and their cronies known as the media) will use it to bash them for opposing "war funding for our soldiers". Please.
Don't worry folks, the treasury will just print more money...........
Monday, June 08, 2009
I guess 9.4% unemployment isn't high enough for this idiot. He wants to force even more employers into insolvency.
Of course the fear-mongers, that want to use GW as an excuse to make us do everything from mowing our lawns with a straight razor to driving lunch pails with wheels, are freaking out. They are demanding that Burger King force this franchise owner into submission (IE, take down the signs).
The franchise owner is telling BK corporate to take their orders and put them in various places in their bodies that will remain unmentioned. Admittedly, he isn't saying that in so many words, but has said he doesn't think that the BK corporation has the authority to make him take down the signs.
So this guy is my new hero! You can read the full story here:
Friday, June 05, 2009
So here is my question? Can we make a trade? Al Gore for the two American reporters? North Korea would probably balk at that trade though. So we'll sweeten the pot by throwing either Joy Behar, Michael Moore, or Janeane Garofalo. Or better yet we'll do a 2 for 1 swap: all 4 of those mentioned in exchange for the two American reporters.
Now that is a trade I would make!
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Well on the Drudge Report today I find this news article: Facebook Brings In Payment System
So my "digital crack" wasn't far off. Drug dealers have been notorious for giving product away for free, at first, to get users hooked. Then hammering them with elevated street prices once a user needs their fixes. Facebook is doing the same thing. They've got millions of addicted users, and now they are about to start charging to get your fix.
Mark my words, this is an iterative process. Once this "payments system" gets moving full swing, what is now free on Facebook will start to have fees attached. This reminds me of what the site Classmates did a few years ago. And you can also count on future fraud on Facebook, just like Classmates has been accused of in the past.
(Those that don't know, Classmates will sometimes have fake users send you email, and when you go to read the message Classmates tells you that you need to upgrade to their premium paid service to receive the email. You get a message from someone you've never heard of before AFTER you've ponied up a membership fee.)
Maybe I should start a Facebook detox center. I could charge thousands of dollars to break people of their Facebook habits. The first step is admitting that you have a problem.
(Note: The words Facebook and Classmates aren't links above because I refuse to give a link from this blog to those sites.)
Past Facebook entries:
Facebook Is Rotten
New Study On Social Networking Sites