The Monkey Blog

Troops Return From Iraq

2011-12-15T11:00:00.001-06:00

A war that never should have been fought solemnly comes to an end. After thousands of deaths and ill spent money, the United States finally turns the page and closes the chapter on the Iraqi war and occupation.

The war was a tremendous waste of manpower, money and resources. The whole premise for the war was a straw man. Alleged cloak and dagger along with false intelligence estimates lead American leaders to believe Saddam Hussein owned weapons of mass destruction. Only after the invasion did the truth come out.

There was no link between Iraq, al-Qaida or any other terrorists.

Instead of straining the military, spending money and resources chasing a bad lead, the effort should have been focused on completely dismantling terrorists and their networks.

While I disagreed with the Iraqi invasion, I fully supported military action in Afghanistan. The Taliban harbored Osama bin Laden who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. When they refused to turn bin Laden over, the U.S. was justified in toppling the government and seeking bin Laden out.

A two front war strained the military. Only one war was justified. All resources and manpower should have been focused on that one objective.

War is not a noble endeavor and thus should only be used in extreme cases. The 9/11 attacks justified war...a false lead in Iraq didn't.

For those that sacrificed, a grateful nation thanks you. Welcome home to a well deserved peace.

Gov. Perry's Day of Prayer

2011-07-22T22:52:00.000-05:00

The ACLU and some other atheist group are trying to stop Governor Rick Perry from speaking at a call to prayer planned at Reliant Stadium.

I'm no fan of Perry and am more offended (sarcasm alert) that the religious group will defile my place of worship by holding their Day of Prayer at Reliant Stadium. Reliant is my sanctuary as well as Cathedral of the Texans. I don't want other religions using my temple.

On a more serious note, I don't see where the ACLU and atheists have any standing in this case. Perry attending, or even speaking, is not a violation of church and state. Just because Perry hold office it doesn't preclude him from taking part in a public religious ceremony. Even if he endorses religion in front of thousands, it will be as an individual and not as the government.

Even if people want to argue that the a public financed facility used for a religious ceremony violates church and state separation, I don't see that valid either. How many public venues have hosted a Billy Graham crusade?

While I'm a strong advocate of separation of church and state, I don't see this as a violation of that doctrine. Perry's opponents would do better attacking his real weaknesses instead of going after something as Mickey Mouse as this.

Instead I'd love to hear what Governor Good Hair has to say and then use it against him if I can.

The Casey Anthony Verdict

2011-07-10T01:51:00.000-05:00

I'll be the first to admit I wasn't shocked the day the not guilty verdict was announced. That morning I was listening to lawyer on CNN or Fox News comment on the verdict before the announcement. I took it that he either watched the trial or was well versed in it. His words foreshadowed the verdict. He basically stated that he could see how jury could not convict Casey Anthony. He stated that the prosecution left many holes in the case.

The more I thought about it the more curious I got. The verdict came down from the jury and I wasn't surprised by the not guilty verdict.

There seems to be considerable misunderstanding of what a not guilty verdict means to the general public. To obtain a conviction, a prosecutor must prove guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard to meet. Unfortunately there is no clear cut definition to the idea. Basically, if a juror has a doubt that most reasonable people would have, then he is to vote not guilty.

The general public also confuses not guilty with innocence. All not guilty means is that the prosecution failed to prove the case.

So where did the Casey Anthony go wrong? From what I read, the first issue is they didn't show how Caylee Anthony died. We know the unfortunate child died. We don't know the cause of death. The prosecution implied that duct tape was placed over Caylee's mouth and nose to suffocate her to death. No DNA, skin or hair samples were found on the duct tape.

Alternate juror Russell Huekler spoke first to the media. He basically said that prosecution didn't prove the case by not showing cause of death, motive and evidence to show murder or manslaughter. Asked if he thought she was innocent or the case not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he stated the case was not proven.

The case was a circumstantial case. That in itself is not fatal. A circumstantial case has no direct evidence but instead has a set of circumstantial evidence and a chain of scenarios that tries to prove a case. To build a strong circumstantial case, the chain reaction of evidence needs to connect clear and strong. Any weakness in the circumstantial chain and the whole case could come down.

Huekler's interview gives good insight on what went on in the jury room. They could find no strong indication of how Caylee died. There was reasonable doubt about manner of death. No one knows for sure. Take the method of death out of the equation and the foundation of the circumstantial case starts to crumble. If there is reasonable doubt about the death, there is probably no way they could make the leap to murder.

It also looks like the prosecution tried to play on the emotions of the jurors. A dead little girl, a dysfunctional family and a party girl mom. He tried to tug on the heart strings. In the end, the ploy failed. It wasn't enough to overcome the lack of evidence.

Based on reports and statements by a juror and alternate juror, I feel the jury reached the right verdict. The jury did an outstanding job regardless of the verdict. They put emotions aside and looked at the evidence or lack of evidence to reach a verdict.

Pakistan Parliament Denounces U.S. bin Laden Strike

2011-05-15T00:10:00.000-05:00

The parliament of Pakistan condemned the U.S. strike against Osama bin Laden.

Pakistani politicians are grandstanding against the U.S. due to unrest in their own backyards. The people of Pakistan are upset with U.S. drone strikes and bin Laden raid. Of course the solution for the Pakistani government is to improve security for its people, root out terrorist organizations and encourage economic growth.

Failure to root out terrorists and economic troubles stir the ire of the people. Instead of fixing the problems, the government is doing what all governments that have a tenuous hold on power do. They try and distract from the real issues by inflating an on going problem or create an enemy. In this case, it is the U.S. violating Pakistani sovereignty.

Since 9/11, it is the stated goal of the United States to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. It could have been done with Pakistan's help if Pakistan proved to be a reliable ally in the fight against terrorism. Pakistan instead allows terrorist organizations to operate in the borderlands. There are areas of Pakistan that the government has no control over. In these lands, the terrorists and outlaws run the show.

After the Taliban was driven from power in Afghanistan, they took refuge in Pakistan. Some are even under the protection of elements of the Pakistani Intelligence Services.

The U.S. drone attacks will stop and raids into Pakistan will stop when the Pakistani government gathers the political will to root out the organizations that not only threaten the U.S. but Pakistan itself.

The End of Bloody bin Laden

2011-05-06T21:12:00.000-05:00

As all know by now, terrorist and 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden now sleeps deep beneath the waves.

In a raid ordered by President Barack Obama, a Navy SEALs team attacked a compound where intelligence indicate bin Laden lived. In the aftermath, the SEALs killed bin Laden with a shot to the chest and to the head. U.S. forces gathered computers and storage media along with bin Laden's body. They spent 40 minutes on the ground.

Using visual recognition clues, know body marks and DNA samples to identify bin Laden. A wife allegedly identified the dead man as bin Laden.

Bin Laden's body was washed in accordance with Islamic tradition and quickly buried at sea. The sea burial took care of two problems. First no country agreed to take the body. Under Islamic law, a body must be buried in 24 hours. Second, the sea burial robs others of a chance to raise a shrine or a rallying point for terrorists. He slipped into the ocean and thus brought the end to man most wanted by America.

The end also brought a sense of justice to victims, their families and the United States in general. It also serves as a warning to terrorists that the U.S. keeps its promises. bin Laden was targeted shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan. That was almost ten years ago. It took a long time but it also showed the United States doesn't give up. Those were ten long years but the patience paid off.

Osama bin Laden openly called for warfare on civilian targets as well as using force to bring down corrupt regimes in the Muslim world. He declared jihad against the United States. He backed up his words with four deadly attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The attacks provoked the U.S. to look for and bring him to justice. When the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan refused to had him over, the U.S. launched an invasion. Thus began the hunt for bin Laden.

Like the cowards all terrorists are, bin Laden went into hiding while sending his jihadis into battle blowing themselves up and killing civilians and occasionally a military target.

Never did the USA back down. President Obama said it best at the Thursday memorial ceremony at Ground Zero,“When we say we will never forget, we mean what we say."

So long and good riddance to the coward Osama bin Laden.

Air Traffic Controllers Gone Wild? Not Really

2011-04-19T21:50:00.000-05:00

The FAA, media and public currently are taking a close look at the sleeping habits of are traffic controllers. With good reason. Controllers are just that...controllers. They are in charge of ensuring airplanes and the skies are safe. They guide and keep planes from flying into each other, giving weather reports and other incidents as they arise. Recently seven controllers were caught sleeping. One was on the graveyard shift working alone at a regional tower. Another was sleeping at a busy Florida site and another at the Atlanta airport. Atlanta is the busiest airport in the world.

I'm a shift worker and I can sympathize to some degree with the air traffic controllers. I've worked shift work for most of my career. I've worked the straight night shift and I've worked alternating weeks between night and day shifts. I've worked 8 and 12 hour graveyard shifts. The worst shifts to work are 12 hour night shift and the alternating day/night shift. Mix in overtime with regular shifts and it can make for a tired worker.

Given the safety critical nature of air traffic controller's job, regulations should be in place to make sure they are properly rested. First off, limit them to 8 hour shifts unless emergency or shortage. In such a shortage or emergency, no more that a 12 hours shift should be allowed. Another suggestion is to stagger some of the shifts. Overlapping shift, especially at night, keeps rested workers coming in through out the day and night. A minimum of two controllers on shift at night. Also a cap on hours or consecutive days/nights worked should be in place. If there is a shortage, hire more controllers and use military or national guards as a stop gap measure.

One controversial idea is to let controllers nap on the job. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood declared that,"On my watch, controllers will not be paid to take naps." While a nice grandstand, there is merit to allow them to nap. A 20 or 30 minute nap can do miracles especially if the worker is over worked. Public safety is paramount not political considerations of policy. Other countries allow paid naps. I see no reason not to consider the idea.

One last thought. Considering the scrutiny air traffic controllers are under, why was one watching a movie on the job?

9/11 Terrorists To Be Tried by Military Tribunals After All

2011-04-04T22:13:00.000-05:00

First enemy terrorist were be tried by a U.S military tribunal. Then they weren't. I lost count of the back and forth.

Then President Obama announced that some suspect were to be tried in civilian court. The backlash forced Obama to back off the plan. Congress threatened not provide the funds for the trials. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg stated that security for the trials would be to expensive for the city to pay.

Today Attorney General Eric Holder announced that certain suspects will be tried by military tribunal.

Of course the spin masters are out. Rep. Lamar Smith from Texas states:

"unfortunate that it took the Obama administration more than two years to figure out what the majority of Americans already know: that 9/11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not a common criminal, he's a war criminal."

I find that quote laughable. Republican President George Bush had longer to bring the suspects to trial. Instead of taking action, he punted and let the incoming president decide.

Congress painted Obama into a corner with restriction against trying terrorists in civilian courts. Obama really was left with no options.

With the trials moving forward, a few things need see how they play out. First is how open the courts will be. Maybe not right away during proceedings but sometime after the trial to release evidence on why the verdicts were guilty. We already know the evidence standard is lower than civilian courts and hearsay probably allowed. It will be interesting to see what evidence produces a verdict. Will the tribunal convict on flimsy evidence? Will they instead take this as a solemn duty and see that justice is done?

What the tribunal must do is avoid all appearances of victor's justice. That is railroading a suspect with a show trial and the verdict a forgone conclusion. Some people already question the legitimacy of the courts.

Obama had planned to seek the death penalty in a civilian trial. In a civilian court, all evidence would be public. Should the defendants be sentenced to death at least there is public evidence to support the cause. In closed secret tribunals, the very legality comes into question. The death penalty should only be imposed for the most serious and strongest cases.

Anything less that a solemn and diligent court will only enforce public opinion that they are show trials.

Corruption Watch - Richard Nutt Pleads Guilty

2011-02-08T08:59:00.004-06:00

Former Harris county deputy Richard Nutt pleaded guilty in federal court on extortion charges.

According to the article, Nutt faces up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

I'm all for throwing the book and locking him away for 20 years. As a law enforcement officer, the public trusts him to uphold and enforce the law. Nutt betrayed the public trust. With his crime as a public servant, punishment should be severe.

Do I hold public servants to a higher standard? Absolutely. Corruption is lethal to society. Police and elected official's power derives from society. When they abuse that power, it destroys the basic foundation of our society.

Look at country's with corrupt government. They sap resources for personal gain. Resources that rightfully belong to the people. The people and society must benefit from those resources. By allowing companies and entrepreneurs to conduct business and allow markets to rule, society benefits. In corrupt governments, nepotism and cronyism horde the profits.

In Nutt's case, he not only broke the law but cooperated with the criminal element he is supposed to stop.

Corruption Watch - Richard Nutt Part 3

2011-01-30T21:23:00.002-06:00

One thing I failed to mention in the Richard Nutt case is that Judge Kevin Fine reduced Nutt's bail. The bail was dropped from $200,000 to $20,000 while his co-defendants remained jailed with no bond.

The judge faced heat for reducing the fine without a hearing. Prosecutors were upset. I looked for a follow up if any ethics charges had been leveled but found none.

A copy of the criminal complaint is posted online.

Corruption Watch - Richard Nutt Part 2

2011-01-17T00:35:00.005-06:00

In my inaugural entry of Corruption Watch, I outlined the pending case against former Harris County deputy Richard Nutt and his drug rip sting.

Prosecutors obtained an indictment in federal court against Nutt and four other people on cocaine possession and distribution charges.

Nutt is currently free on $50000 bond but must remained confined to his residence. The defense filed a motion seeking to allow Nutt leave his house with a monitoring device and have a set curfew. Nutt wishes to seek employment. The prosecution and pre-trial supervisory do not object to the motion. It's now up to the judge to rule.

There has also been some controversy about Judge Kevin Fine reducing bail for the former deputy. If nothing else, it was a breach of courtroom ethics by not having all parties present.

Corruption Watch - The Drug Rip

2010-12-16T23:10:00.007-06:00

Update 12-17-2010 - Information on the State of Texas vs. Richard Nutt in available online. For the record, Nutt's SPN is 02535111. For updates enter the SPN at the Harris County District Clerk Office search page.

Recently two cases of police accused of allegedly working with drug dealers for protection surfaced in Houston. While I believe most law enforcement officers are honest, I also believe power corrupts and sometimes even an honest person will throw away his good name in pursuit of seemingly easy gain.

This topic is also of concern and interest to me due to the on going violence, corruption and drug cartel wars in Mexico. For people believing that their influence and reach isn't strong in the United States, they are delusional. Drugs and money are powerful influences and the corruption that is caught may only be the tip of the iceberg.

In the case, Harris County Deputy Richard Nutt stands accuse of helping out drug dealers in a scam called a "Drug Rip." A drug rip is a simple scam. The dealer sells to a buyer. The crooked cop pulls the buyer over on a traffic stop and confiscates the drugs. The cop returns the drugs to the dealer and gets paid. The drug dealer gets to keep the money and the drugs. It's a nice deal cause is the dealer really going to go to the cops to report his stolen stash?

To top things off, according to the linked article in the Houston Chronicle, Nutt pulled down over $94,000 in salary. I know deputies don't earn that much so it had to be through overtime and extra jobs. When you earn that much and it's dependent on extra work, it is easy to get in over your head financially. Since the money is dependent on extra work, if the work dries up the bills loom big. He may have used the drug money as a way to make up in case the extra work goes away. Or the temptation of easy money was just to good to pass up.

Whatever the case, I'm sure we'll find out more in the future.

Nothing To Fear - Part 3

2010-12-15T00:20:00.003-06:00

One of the battle cries on the Great Immigration Debate is "if you're here legally then you have nothing to worry about."

Nothing can be further from the truth.

I can trace my family back to North Carolina in the 1790s. I can trace my family to pre-Civil War Texas. My forefathers were founders of Karnes County, TX. I have documented proof through birth certificates, marriage and U.S. Census records. There is no doubt about my ancestors. I am 100% USA citizen through "jus sanguinis" and "jus soli."

Thus I have established my citizenship through every means possible but naturalization and obviously I don't need naturalization.

So what do I have to worry about? For starters, through marriage, blood and God knows what else, I have Spanish surname and I'm dark skinned.

Anti-immigrants, under the guise of immigration reform, want give law enforcement officers the ability to check the immigration status of people if they have sufficient reason to suspect a person may be in the country illegally.

So who makes the call on when to make an immigration check? What is the criteria for delving deeper into a routine traffic stop turn into an immigration check?

Through my rights as a citizenship, I have certain obligations. I vote. I serve on juries. I registered for the draft. I pay taxes. In return for those obligations I ask only for a few rights; basically those rights I'm afforded under the Constitution of these United States.

So to answer the question, if I'm here legally what do I have to fear? For starters, if peace officers are empowered to check my legal status, do I have to constantly tense up every time I drive and a police pulls up next to me? Is a dark skinned man driving a nice car suspicious? What if it's a nice neighborhood? What if I'm driving around my own nice neighborhood in my nice car? Do I really want to constantly look over my shoulder for the overzealous cop?

To those on the inside looking out, it appears a clear cut situation: legal or illegal. It's not so simple. I'm happy with my skin, my country and my heritage. My loyalties to the United States are unquestioned. I know no other homeland. I trace my family back six generations to this great land. All I ask is that my right to live free without question or fear in my own homeland be respected.

GOP & Obama Tax Cut

2010-12-08T14:38:00.002-06:00

Like most people, I don't like paying taxes. In fact I don't know anyone who likes paying taxes. Taxes are a fact of life and won't ever go away.

Recently President Obama and the GOP leadership agreed to extend the Bush regime's tax cuts, extend unemployment benefits for 13 more months for 7 million people and cut 2% off the Social Security payroll tax.

I agree with extending the Bush tax cuts to all levels of income. Included on that cut are dividends taxed at reduced rate instead of ordinary income. I like the lower dividend tax rate for many reasons. First, retirees fund part of their retirement income with dividend paying stocks. Others use dividends payouts to build their nest egg for retirement. The lower tax rate encourages people to invest and save for the future. It also encourages companies to reward investors with cash versus stock buy backs. Money goes directly into the accounts of shareholders or reinvested. The capital gains tax also falls under this category of tax cuts that I like.

I disagree with the continuous unemployment extensions. By constantly extending the payments, the government creates a dependency and gives the unemployed no motivation to find jobs. One of Obama's battle cries is that small business are the engine behind the growth of the economy. He backs this talk up with trying to create incentives for small business to hire.

However, the unemployment extensions kill a major source of small business ideas. Who goes into business for him or herself? Usually those that either struggle financially. They get creative and look for innovative ways to make a living. With the government hand outs, that innovation and motivation is eliminated.

Another problem unemployment creates is that jobs out there aren't getting filled. Many people turn down jobs because they would earn less than unemployment pay. Shortening the length of payments again gives people a reason to take jobs versus taking a free ride.

I have no problems with short term unemployment but like the 25 year old son who won't move out, enough is enough. The U.S. government shouldn't carry the unemployed forever.

Lopping off two percent from Social Security taxes for a one year period is another bad idea. While it sounds nice in theory, it benefits higher wager earners more than lower earners. The article "High-income Households To Benefit More..." explains what I'm referring to. We all know Social Security will eventually be insolvent. Already the funds paid out exceed the incoming funds. Slashing off two percent only adds to an ballooning deficit.

Finally, who is going to pay for the tax cuts. The government doles out unemployment, cuts Social Security taxes and does nothing to offset the spending. Eventually the bill will come due. My generation and the next might not get the full brunt of it but someone will and that won't be pretty. Asks the Greeks and the Irish.

Wikileaks, Assange, National Security

2010-12-03T00:01:00.004-06:00

I'm a staunch support of First Amendment rights. I'm against any government interference or censorship of writers, musicians, artist or any other artist endeavor. Blogs, journalism and academic writings also warrant First Amendment protections.

I'm also a supporter of whistle blowers in private industry or public service. I feel just as strongly about investigative journalism. The fourth estate is an essential pillar of a free and open democracy.

So where does Wikileaks fit into my beliefs of First Amendment rights?

It's delicate balancing act but there are somethings that must remain classified, state secrets and privileged information with in a government. State secrets are a fact of life in any government. Military and national security secrets are vital to a government's survival.

So when should the press, an organization or individual publish or reveal government classified information? I believe that only when government corruption, waste or gross ineffectiveness exist then the public has a right to know.

Julian Assange and Wikileaks rightfully published information that the public needed to know. Wikileaks in the past published government and private industry documents that revealed corruption. Abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan were exposed. Other organizations also exposed abuse in both military theaters. The Abu Ghraib abuses stand as an example of such abuse.

So where does Assange and Wikileaks cross the line? When the show no discretion in releasing documents. Sometimes they release documents for the sake of releasing them with no care of the dangers posed to individuals or with regard to state secrets. Just because a document is in government files doesn't mean the public has a right to know.

From what I can tell, Wikileaks operates under a policy of shear volume dumps without vetting or redacting damaging information. Instead of studying the information, Wikileaks throws everything out there without analysis or conclusions. In the past, there has been solid reasons why someone released information. Watergate and the Pentagon Papers were genuine cases of government lies and corruption. In some cases, Wikileaks makes no such case. They just merely put the documents out there because it is a government document and therefore the public must know.

On the other hand, some of the reaction by the press has been overboard. Many are reacting with shock that the U.S. wrote up psychological profiles on world leaders. There isn't a government in the world that doesn't do that or assemble some kind of dossier on a foreign leader. In all likelihood, most governments not only have profiles on world leaders but also on minsters, generals and other civic and military leaders. The outrage is overblown.

If nothing else, Wikileaks stirred the pot. Right or wrong, the information is now out there. At some point, if not now, Wikileaks will expose something they have no right to.

I wonder, if they obtained nuclear, military or national security secrets, would they publish them?

ATT Wireless War - Resolution and Victory

2010-10-02T22:57:00.003-05:00

Finally the unending war against AT&T Wireless ended.

The whole time I was having problems I was a pain the ass. I constantly called to report problems on my phone. Towards the end I kept telling whoever I talked to I want all these problems documented. I give them credit, they did.

I gave up and switched to Verizon in September. When I got my final bill from AT&T I decided to contest the early termination fee. What did I have to lose? The worst they could say is no.

I didn't know who to call though. A customer service rep told me only a manager could waive the fee. I already beat my head calling customer service and dealing with them.

The best I could come up with was to call AT&T corporate headquarters in Dallas. I got the switchboard operator and explained my situation. She transferred me to the Office of the President. A lady answered the phone and again I explained everything. She said she'd look into my account. I asked her if she would go back and look at my problems for the last several months and take that into account. She said yes and I should get a reply within 48 hours.

Two hours later at while at the store, my cell phone rang and I didn't recognize the number. Normally I don't answer but I did. It was the lady from AT&T. She told me she looked at my account and saw my problems went back to January of this year. She decided to waive the termination fee.

It was a complete capitulation by AT&T. I finally received a satisfactory resolution to a nightmare of a situation. The service by AT&T reach a point of complete unacceptable levels. Initially it was dropped calls and no service from a piece of garbage Lv-Vu phone. Customer service reps were baffled that I had a strong signal and still had problems. A new phone improved call reception but everything else went downhill. It reached an apex when I missed countless text messages, several voicemails and internet access. No matter what the technical department tried nothing worked. It even reached a point after the gave me a new SIM card and then a new phone that they told me there wasn't anything more they could do for me.

My recommendation to anyone who is considering AT&T is to avoid them at all costs. Their service, not just based on my experience but coworkers and friends too, is unreliable and customer service is nice but support for phones is garbage. That it took a call to headquarters to finally resolve my case is pretty pathetic.

Quick Takes on California Prop 8, Ground Zero Mosque

2010-08-17T01:07:00.002-05:00

Prop 8 and Same Sex Marriages
In general I'm against same sex marriage. It really serves no purpose. Why a same sex couple should be given same the same rights as a heterosexual couple doesn't register. Since time immemorial marriage consists of the union of a man and a woman. Why change now?

I'm not passing judgment on homosexuals or any kind of sexual being. The only sexual being I abhor is a sexual predator whether the predator is a rapist or pedophile. What consenting adults do in the privacy is their business.

In fact I think homosexuals should enjoy all freedoms conferred on all citizens. They should be allowed to live, work and associate where ever and with whoever they want. They should be afforded equal protection in all aspects of life.

So why do I draw the line at marriage? It's hard to explain but I believe very few things are intrinsic to human nature or survival. The partnership between man and woman is one of those few built in survival instincts man has. Biologically, historically and socially homosexuality serves no purpose. I'm not against same sex pairings. That's an individual choice but I see no reason why it should be given equal status as the marriage of a man and a woman.

Ground Zero Mosque
Since I'm weighing in on controversial subjects I might as well chime in on the Ground Zero Mosque.

As a Libertarian I have one position on the matter. The proposed mosque is on private property and they can do whatever they want with it.

Still I have to question the reason why Muslims chose such a controversial site for a mosque. The powers that made the decision had to know that the project would raise the ire of the American public. The majority of American Muslims stand with America in the war against radical Islamists. Muslims in America are left alone for the most part. So why provoke the public with choosing a site so close to an American tragedy? Aside from a few nut jobs, Americans accept Muslims in our community. Why endanger that support or tolerance? Whatever the reasoning behind the choice, there is no wisdom in it.

Effort To Preserve Texas State Records

2010-08-11T22:28:00.004-05:00

In today's edition of the Houston Chronicle, I found an article about attempting to preserve old historical records of Texas. A Historical Court Records Task Force to survey the condition of various state district and county courts. The main purpose was to see what records still survive, what condition they are in and how they are being preserved.

The results were startling. While a lot of records were destroyed, stolen or lost, thousands still survive. The conditions of existing records vary from good to poor to disintegrating or eaten by rats.

The Task Force plans a more detailed survey. They will also look at ways to secure and preserve the state history.

I think it's amazing task and great job if they can pull it off. So many characters formed Texas...Judge Roy Bean, Sam Houston, Davey Crocket and Stephen F. Austin to name just a few. An amazing library can be digitized of all document they can find and then store them for save keeping.

On a personal note for me, record gathering and keeping helped my own family research immeasurably. Using census I traced one branch of the family back to South Carolina after the Revolutionary War. I followed a path they blazed from South Carolina to Mississippi before finally settling in Texas.

Although it had a personal reason for me, such records document the events and stories of the Great State of Texas. Private funds and grants need to come in to help pay to preserve and scan all the documents possible and provide for secure storage. All other options don't qualify for ideas or debate.

Naomi Campbell's Soul-less Existence

2010-08-08T23:49:00.003-05:00

The self absorbed, self centered, don't give a fuck attitude of some people boggles the mind. Some people have no regard for loss of life, mutilation and atrocities inflicted. The only thing that matters is the world revolving around them.

I'm talking about Naomi Campbell who is perhaps one of the ugliest so called "super models" ever to walk the earth. I'm not even talking about her physical appearance. I refer to the dark cold spot that resides where most people have hearts.

Campbell was forced to testify against her will in the trial of Liberian Charles Taylor who stands accused of crimes against humanity. Taylor allegedly trafficked in blood diamonds and proceeds were used to fund war in Sierra Leone.

Thousands were killed, displaced, raped, mutilated and separated from families in the war.

Campbell's cold empty place in her chest showed during her testimony. To quote her directly according to the Houston Chronicle article:

I was made to be here. So obviously, I’m just, like, wanting to get this
over with and get on with my life,” Campbell said. “This is a big
inconvenience for me.

A big inconvenience for her? Just wants to get on with her life? Talk about self centered and thinking the world is only about yourself.

If it's a big inconvenience for her I wonder what it is for all the people displaced, hurt or killed on the war? She think there was a picnic going on in Sierra Leone? Poor thing just wants to get on with her life. Unfortunately there are many dead in Sierra Leone who can't say the same. Maybe someone should drag Campbell kicking and screaming to the war sites. Force her to visit with mutilated victims. See the children harmed and made orphans.

Someone should show Naomi Campbell the real world. The glamor ritzy life in only lived by the relatively few. I don't begrudge success. In fact I celebrate success. What I hate is the self centered egotistical idiots like Campbell. I really believe she thinks the whole deal is trivial. No Campbell, this isn't a trivial exercise. People died. Sorry your little life had to be shattered to try and help achieve justice.

AT&T Wireless Saga Part 2

2010-08-06T15:58:00.002-05:00

Everything went smooth for a few months. Then I noticed I'd go a couple of days without a text message. I'd send my friends a test text asking for a reply. I'd never get one. I'd call AT&T and the usual power down, remove sim card and battery and put it back together routine. It would work for a while and then start over again. I'd call again and they'd do what little troubleshooting they could do over the phone. It was a cat and mouse game. Then the routine got old.

The whole problem reached an apex two weekends ago when I was in San Antonio. I wasn't getting text messages, phone calls or voicemails. I had to call AT&T three times and still I had lingering problems. One customer service rep tried to tell me it was because I wasn't in my home area. I call bullshit on that. They have all these commercials about nationwide coverage and they can't get me a message or call 200 miles away from my home? One of the reps was nice enough to credit my account $25. Another rep was just a dumbass. He could never quiet understand my problem. The third said to go into a store when I get back to Houston and they will replace my sim card.

I'm pissed off all weekend because I have friends I want to see and can't make plans cause I can't communicate with them.

The real pisser happened after I got home. Someone left me a voicemail on Saturday and it didn't show up in my voicemail inbox until Tuesday. I was extremely pissed off at that moment. I called AT&T immediately and told them what happened. Again they offered to replace the sim card.

I finally got the sim card replaced this week. I again went out of town. Between work and out of town I didn't have time to change it until two nights ago.

I got into the habit of calling AT&T every time something went wrong. I wanted to leave a phone record of all my complaints. At the very least, if they didn't document my exact problem someone could see I've repeatedly called. I told one rep that I didn't think the sim card replacement would work.

And the result with the new card? The same garbage. More missed text messages, text messages received in duplicate and sent in triplicate. One buddy told me to quit texting because everything was coming across three times.

I've about had it. AT&T has offered to replace the phone. As far as I'm concerned it's a last grasp hail mary. If this doesn't work I'm going to cancel my account whether or not I have to pay the disconnect fee.

Yesterday again I had trouble with text messages. I have seven verified messages sent by others that I didn't receive. So I called in today to once again make it know I was having issues. I asked the rep at what point does this become an exercise in futility? When does it become a point where I can cancel my contract without penalty? His reply was under the terms of contract I have to pay a penalty. I replied with a simple fact. I don't pay for my service my phone gets disconnected but if I don't get service I can't cancel my contract. Again he repeated his claim of contract terms don't allow it. I reminded him that their are two parties to a contract. I pay for services provided by AT&T and if I don't get the services then AT&T isn't living up to their end of the contract. I could tell I was frustrating him with simple logic. Finally he told me that if the new phone fails to talk to a manager and they have the power to waive the fee. I asked is it impossible to get a manager to do and he said it was pretty close to impossible. He said it would take an extreme case to get the fee waived.

Finally I asked the rep to please document the fact that I'm having problems again with the text messaging. He obliged and read back to me all that he wrote. I thanked him since I overwhelmed him with logic.

Tomorrow I'm going to try and get the new phone. Like the sim card replacement, I don't think a new phone will work either. This problem has happened over the course of two different phone models. I seriously doubt a third will be any different.

AT&T's service, for whatever reason, has turned into total garbage for me. The customer service was horrible with the LG-Vu until I threatened to cancel. This time around customer service has been more understanding and better but still equally worthless. If the third phone doesn't work I'll cancel service whether I have to pay early termination or not.

AT&T Wirless Saga Part 1

2010-08-06T15:51:00.002-05:00

I've been with AT&T wireless since 1999. Until the last year or so I haven't had any long term problems with them. Until the last year or so.

To make a long story short. I had the LG-Vu because I added an old girlfriend to my account. It would be cheaper to be on the same account for both of us. The phone was in her budget and we each got $50 gift cards. Almost immediately she had problems with the phone. Mainly the screen would turn green. She replaced the phone three times and all three gave her the same problem. I cut her phone off for nonpayment of her half, no explanation to where she was and also using up ungodly amounts of minutes and pushing the limit. I didn't care about paying the early
termination fee. I just wanted her off my account and gone.

Around January of this year I start having my problems. Like her phone, the screen occasionally turned green or the touch screen keyboard would get all out of whack. Then I started having problems with text messaging. I wouldn't get any of texts from friends. Then calls started dropping off. I had to stand in a certain spot in my apartment to make or receive calls. Then I started having to go out on the deck to hear anything.

If I lived in the boondocks or middle of no where I might not have a big problem with it. But I don't. I live right in the middle of Houston. Literally. I'm between downtown and the museum district. AT&T customer service once admitted that I shouldn't be having the problem because the signal was so strong in my area.

I called AT&T for troubleshooting. AT&T's suggestion is to every problem is turn the phone off, take out the battery and sim card, wait 30 seconds and put it back together. Every time I called it was the same routine. Going into the store to complain did no good. They wouldn't offer any solutions. A waste of time.

I was due an upgrade. Or so I thought. My online account said I was due an upgrade so I figured I'd go in the store and choose my new phone. LG-Vu is a cheap piece of garbage anyway. I can afford better. Much better. I go into the store and they tell I don't have an upgrade. Why not? Because when I took my ex-female friend off the account that affected when I could upgrade. I tried and tried but they wouldn't budge from their stance. The said wait until May. Ok fine.

Unfortunately the dropped calls got worse and more texts were missed. I complained some more but they wouldn't do anything. Finally I decided to just suck it up and try to get a new phone again. I complained in person about how bad the service was. I want a new phone. Sure, at full cost plus a $50 upgrade fee. No thanks. I went to another store. I again explained the situation. Sure no problem said the salesman. He took me over to a low end phone. I said no thanks. I want to get rid of this garbage phone and you want to sell me another garbage phone. Oh and by the
way, he added the small detail that it would cost me $75 upgrade fee plus the full price of the phone. My exact words were,"That's bullshit." And I walked out the door.

I had it. I got online and looked up Verizon. I decided right then and there to cancel my AT&T line and move on. When I called customer service I told them to disconnect. I don't care about the early termination fee. Did that change their tune or what. She upgraded me to a $300 phone for $29. No I didn't leave off a zero...that's twenty nine dollars. I agreed to the new phone and it worked fine for a while.

Until the last few months....to be continued.

BP, Democrats, Obama and Big Oil

2010-07-18T16:38:00.001-05:00

BP, Democrats, Obama and Big Oil

The worst part of the leak might finally be over. If things go according to plan, BP will know if the latest fix is successful.

President Obama’s rating have taken a hit since the crisis started. For what reason, I’m not sure. What do people expect him to do? He can’t stop the leak. He can’t clean up the oil. He can’t make BP working any faster. Some people think federal government intervention is the answer to everything.

What Obama and the Democrats have done is unnerving. The blanket moratorium on deep water drilling is typical knee jerk reaction of the government. The ban covered all existing deep wells and allows no new well permits.

Instead of looking for causes into the current leak, Obama decide to unilaterally punish all companies doing work in the Gulf of Mexico without rhyme or reason. The blame and investigation should focus only on BP and the site where the explosion occurred. BP’s track record for disasters is well documented. The whole industry is punished for the acts of a company that in the past has acted with disregard for safety, rules and regulations.

The moratorium also affects the livelihood of those that work in the industry, support the industry and hurts an already battered local economy. A wide unjustified moratorium is unnecessary.

The other disturbing act by the President is basically ignoring the recent court ruling that overturned the drilling ban. Instead of honoring the court ruling, Obama and his staff went back to the drawing board to craft a new ban. Instead of honoring and respecting the court ruling, the Democrats decided to try a new ban that suits their purposes. It is a very chilling snub of the American rule of law. The courts serve as a check on the executive powers and Obama won’t respect that check.

There is no other way around it. Until a new energy source is found for mass use, the world needs to keep drilling and using oil. It is the lifeblood of the world economy. The root cause of the BP leak needs to be investigated. If BP is guilty by all means punish them with fines. Sometimes tragic but genuine accidents happen. Burdening the industry and stifling an economy due to one incident at one site doesn’t justify overreaching bans and regulations. Find the root cause, look for a solution if possible and then implement it industry wide if it is practical.

The scope of the leak is tragic. BP must make good on lost money, wages and livelihoods it caused. If BP is guilty of neglect they should pay. Until the real causes of the incident are found, government should back off and not shoot from the hip on regulations, blame or punishing the industry.

Thoughts and Link Dump

2010-07-11T18:15:00.003-05:00

I'm still working the Great Immigration Debate. I'm working on border security ideas and reform. Reform is a necessary step for many reasons but no one will touch it. No matter where a politician stands it is a political third rail.

In the mean time a I a link dump and thoughts I have about the stories linked.

In the MSNBC.com story, Lawmaker: Demagogues setting tone of GOP, defeated Republican incumbent Bob Inglis laments the state of politics. He hits on the fact that politicians pander to much to poisonous elements and that the pandering threatens the long term viability of the party. He also mentions that there is to much fearmongering among politcals.

He was defeated in part because he didn't want to engage in Barack Obama bashing. He is correct in siting that the shouting and screaming accomplishes nothing. Instead of governing and solving problems, the issues mount up and elected officials look to make the next sound bite and preen for the cameras.

Voters are frustrated that both parties have seemingly been hijacked by the extremes. There is really no such thing as a conservative Democrat or a moderate Republican. There are still some Blue Dog Dems from the South but they are a dying breed. More and more candidates are voted down by their own party because they aren't "liberal" or "conservative" enough.

Unfortunately politicians want the power and privilege of office. The only way to achieve that is to pander to the wings. The middle of the road voters are put off. One of the reasons Obama was elected is because he wasn't a Bush or Republican. This midterm cycle, Republicans might regain the House of Representatives mainly as backlash against Obama. It's a vicious cycle and appears to worsen each election.

Well, I have more links to comment on but will get that done in the next few days.

The Great Immigration Debate: Anchor Baby Myth

2010-06-18T20:36:00.005-05:00

The Propaganda
Propaganda inciting fear is a powerful weapon to mold public sentiment. Radical Muslims use fear and portray Israel and the United States as evil entities out to destroy Islam. It's a very effective tool. Propaganda also creates a distraction a government to disillusion the population so they won't see the squalor they live in. North Korea is the prime example. The Dear Leader,Kim Jong-il, and his regime blame the ills on the West. Kim and his repressive regime bares responsibility for the isolation but he created a myth and deflects his shortcomings with visions of American and South Korean troops at the border ready to invade.

One of the rallying points for the anti-immigration reform advocates perpetuates the myth of the so called "anchor babies." They claim people cross into the United States in order to have children. By U.S. law, anyone born on American soil is automatically a citizen. To hear the anti-immigration advocates tell it, people are crawling over the border at all points just to have babies. Once they have the children, they claim the families cannot be deported due to the citizenship of the children. Thus the illegal immigrants have created an "anchor" in the United States.

The Facts
Fact number one that isn't told is that having a child that is an American citizen doesn't stop deportation proceedings. A family with minor children citizens can all, including the children, be deported. There is nothing anchoring the family to the U.S.

The second fact relates to immigrating to the United States for the parents. As a minor, the child cannot sponsor family members for residency or citizenship. Just as any other American child, they cannot sign a legally binding document. So there is no way they can petition for citizenship for their parents.

Once the child has become an adult citizen there are still barriers to parental citizenship. Since the parents are in the U.S. illegally, they cannot apply for a green card or start the citizenship process. The literally have to leave the country and apply at a U.S. consulate. If the consulate determines that the parents has been in the United States for more than a year a ten year ban from the U.S. kicks in.

Even if the parents pass all the legal sniff tests, financial barriers still prevent them from becoming U.S. citizens. Just having an adult child over 21 does not allow parents to immigrate free and clear. Their adult offspring must prove they can support the family financially. The minimum income requirement in 2009 was almost $23,000 per year.

The Possible Legal Fallacy
I'm not a lawyer. So this section is me just trying to use logic to follow an argument made against anchor babies.

I link to a a post on a Sean Hannity message board. Whether Hannity is affiliated with the board or not is of no consequence. What's important is the argument is posted there and the link : Glenn Beck’s immigrant guest unknowingly perpetuates progressive’s anchor baby myth. One other interesting note about the post, I'm not sure the original source of the argument. I found it on many websites and the webmasters/authors are passing it off as their own analysis.

The argument begins with a quote from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I highlighted the line in the amendment that is the linchpin to the argument. They claim that babies born in the United States gain automatic citizenship because they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.

I find fault in the jurisdiction argument. Part of the definition of legal jurisdiction states that a person falls under the laws of the governing entity. I don't care who you are, where you are and what you are doing, but unless you have diplomatic immunity you are subject to laws of the country you are in. If illegal immigrants didn't fall under the jurisdiction of the United States then how are they illegal? If a tourist commits murder are they not subject to the jurisdiction of America law enforcement and the criminal justice system?

When a person enters a foreign country they fall under jurisdiction of that country's laws. To me it's not a valid argument. Short of a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision, I don't see this path to citizenship changing.

Conclusion
Like I said in my intro to The Great Immigration Debate, I want to look at both sides of the issues and try to formulate a pragmatic solution. That solution will require compromise and will not satisfy everyone involved.

Today I delved into the anchor baby question not to counter the argument entirely but to try and understand the points made in it. In my research, I found the anchor baby argument to be propaganda and a myth. The fact is babies aren't a path to citizenship and when they get older it isn't a very efficient path to citizenship.

What it boils down to is the anchor baby myth is a propaganda tool to instill fear in the United States and a play to achieve political aims.

Source: The Anchor Baby Myth from Scott and Associates, Attorneys at Law

No More BFF?

2010-06-18T03:40:00.004-05:00

Those geniuses of social engineering are at it again. Today I introduce you to a New York Times article entitled "A Best Friend? You Must Be Kidding." The article starts off with the idea that some think having a best friend at a young age is outdated or romantically over thought of. Basically the advocates of more friendships feel that having one best friend is a detriment to a child's upbringing.

Quoting directly from the article:

But increasingly, some educators and other professionals who work with children are asking a question that might surprise their parents: Should a child really have a best friend?

“Parents sometimes say Johnny needs that one special friend,” she continued. “We say he doesn’t need a best friend.”

The writer for the story correctly points out this concept is a "manifestation" of how educators, parents and other adults want to micromanage all aspects of a kid's life.

What the new theorist want if for kids to have clusters of friend and not just one close best friend. They argue further than having one friend can lead to cliques, exclusivity and bullying.

Even schools are getting in on the act. If they see two kids gravitating to each other they might intervene and encourage them to sit with someone else at lunch or play on different sports teams at PE.

Reflecting back on my school years, I did have a best friend growing up in the neighborhood. We separated as best friends due to age difference. I was one year older so I started middle school a year before him. By the end of the school year I had a new clique of friends. I still hung out with my best friend from neighborhood. By high school we had formed very different groups of friends. We didn't have a fight or a fallen out. We both grew up and found bigger groups of friends with similar interest. In high school, his peers were partying skirt chasers and of course typical teen stuff too. My clan was more homebodies that watch movies, went to football games and did outdoors stuff like fishing and camping. We had girlfriends but weren't the skirt chasers my old friend's group was.

So yes there were two cliques but we remained good friends all through school.

Even in my group of high school buddies there was a dynamic to the group. As a whole we were all friends, hung out, had lunch together and did a lot as a group. Within that group there were smaller groups of two, three or four friends that hung out more than with others in the group. I had my best friend Mike. We hung out most the time but there would be times where he hung out with other guys in the group and I would too.

Guess what, helicopter parents with play dates, and child experts that want social engineer kids friends, there is no need to. We had plenty of cliques, groups within the cliques and so forth with no major problems. That's call learning to socialize and make friends.

Helicopter parents and child social engineers don't want children to feel rejection, or reduce the feeling of rejection if they have a larger group of friends but no one best friend. I think it's a bad idea. That special best friend bond helps a child develop some useful adulthood tool like how to form strong individual bonds. It gives a foundation to build on when they group up and have more chances to form individual bonds. Sure kids will get rejected or hurt but why wait until adulthood to feel it when you can learn it as a child and not be blindsided by new feelings.

Instead, children need to develop these skills for use in later life. When they get in the real world rejection will come in job interviews, date, romantic interests and bad friends. If you don't expose them to it now and learn how to cope, you are holding back a maturing process.

The Great Immigration Debate

2010-06-06T17:58:00.003-05:00

I've been quiet on the topic for several reasons. First, the immigration subject riles to many emotions in people. Just what to call illegal immigrants gets blood boiling. Some opt for the politically correct "undocumented workers" over the more correct illegal immigrants. The issue is also very complex. People for and against immigration paint the issue in black and white. The "I'm right, you're wrong" syndrome that stifles open debate applies to immigration too. I doubt a real working solution will ever come about due the closed minded people on both sides.

A pragmatic solution that incorporates illegal aliens already here while securing the border is fundamental. Despite what extremist think, those illegals here will not be rounded up and deported. The cost of a round up operation runs into the billions of dollars. You might as well scratch a round up off the board. On the other hand, a tightly secured border is essential. Border security must tighten up and make any crossing attempt extremely difficult to manage.

After spending a while thinking about it, I will examine the situation and look at both sides. I will even offer some ideas of tenable solution. I will not please everyone and will definitely enrage both sides if anyone actually reads my posts. But I am willing to take a shot at this.

It's not easy but I've spent some time on it and hope that eventually a permanent solution, the right one at that, will eventually come to fruition.

U.N. Investigator Thinks U.S. Drones Might Be Illegal

2010-06-03T09:26:00.003-05:00

So a U.N. expert claims that U.S. use of drones to take out Al Qaida might be illegal? I have an answer for him. I don't care what he thinks.

The U.N. investigator, Philip Alston, claims that the CIA use might not fall under the rules of war and to many civilians are killed in the attacks.

In case Mr. Alston hasn't notices this isn't a conventional war. Terrorists don't wear uniforms. They hide among civilians. They don't attack military targets. They kill innocent civilians and hide like the cowards that they are. They don't have the balls to come out into the open. When they are discovered, a fast and efficient method is used to kill them. These terrorists are plotting and planning to kill. They want nothing else than to kill and impose their twisted sense of religion on people. There is nothing conventional about them. Unconventional enemies call for unconventional tactics.

Alston further states that CIA personnel may face extradition to the countries where the drone attacks occur. My counter to that is a state has to be willing to extradite a citizen to another country for trial. The U.S. government simply isn't going to send any CIA agent overseas to stand trial for actions that the government sanctions. I'm not sure if the concept of sovereign immunity applies in this case. No matter the U.S. would have to agree to any extradition. As an example, England asked for extradition for the suspect in the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Russia refused and case closed.

Also the implications within the intelligence community would be devastating. Who would want to work for a government that is going turn over its own agents that followed their marching orders? The Nuremberg trials rendered the "I was just following orders" defense invalid. But let's face it, Nuremberg was victor's justice. The winners of the war decided the rules of trial. The same concept applies somewhat here. The U.S. is obviously a powerful nation and as such is using its might to defend itself and make up the rules on how to do it. When was the last
time Israel turned over a Mossad agent for trial? How many times did the Soviets turn over a KGB agent for trial? The British? Never happened and never will.

So thanks for playing Mr. Alston but your report, the U.N. or anyone else
won't alter way the U.S. is defending itself and wiping enemies off the
face of the earth.

Stringing Through Multi-universes

2010-04-12T20:10:00.008-05:00

I'm no scientist. I do hold a B.S. in Mechanical Technology - Manufacturing Systems. It's kind of misleading. The majority of my course work was in mechanical engineering. I switched because it allowed me to graduate faster. I needed to get done with school and start earning a living.

My educational background has: physics III, calculus III, differential and partial differential equations and several mechanical engineering classes like statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, mechanical design, hydrodynamics and basic electronics.

I point out my educational background as a basis to my views in science.

Now to my real topic.

Physics breaks down into two theories: Newtonian or classical and quantum. Newtonian physics deals with molecules all the way up to large bodies in the cosmos. Common equations like force = mass * acceleration and measurements like pressure all fall under Newtonian physics. At the subatomic level, Newtonian physics breaks down and quantum physics takes over.

A big quest for physicist and science in general is to establish a theory that ties the two together.

One theory that tries is called M-theory. M-theory supposes that there are eleven dimensions. Four dimensions are the ones we can measure. Length, width, height and time. The other seven constantly oscillate. You cannot see, touch, feel or hear these new dimensions.

Then there is the theory of the multi-universes. This theory posits that several universes exist and each has its own unique set of laws of physics. Only those that can stabilize, like our own, can continue to exist. This Darwinian approach states that other universes that cannot stabilize fail to succeed.

I'll never forget what a physics professor at the University of Houston once told the class. He said physics is full of fudge factors. For example, everyone knows Einstein's equation of E=mc². E equals energy, m equals mass and c equals a constant. He explained that such constants usually mean scientists can't really figure out the bridge that ties the equation together neatly so they need to find a number that does it.

I'm not sure how right or wrong my professor was. When I see things science resorting to string theory and multiple universes I believe they may be fudge factors. Scientists are married to the idea of a one theory meets applies to all and might be grasping at straws. Instead of examining and modifying existing theories, they look for ways to wrap them up neatly in one package. Scientifically there might not be a way to test these theories. If scientists can't see other dimensions how do we know they really do exists. The same thing applies to multiple universes. How can alternate universes be observed in order to put the theory to test?

The multiple universe theory reminds of the DC Comics multiverses.

Fortunately there are scientists exploring alternate theories. Some are viewed as heretics while others are gaining support or at least getting some to question current practices.

Science is a constant quest for knowledge. Instead of trying to come up with more dimensions and universes, scientists need to examine what is in front of us and explore the visible and observable. I think one day a brilliant physicist, mathematician, philosopher or someone will make a drastic break through that will turn current ideas upside down.

Stringing

2010-04-12T20:10:00.003-05:00

Stringing

2010-04-12T20:10:00.001-05:00

Unkle Monkee's Product Reviews

2010-03-21T23:03:00.004-05:00

A new Unkle Monkee feature - product reviews. I don't often buy stuff but when I do I'd like to offer my take on how good, bad or horrible it is.

I have three products to review today.

The first is the Diamond TVW USB650. The USB650 is a tuner for watching a TV signal through you computer. I ended up returning the product. Why? The software that came with it appears not set up for Windows 7. I couldn't get the software to ever get a signal on my desktop. I did on the laptop which runs on Vista. I uninstalled the software and tried again. This time it hung up and would never reinstall. I tried several times but the process never completed. I went to Diamond's website to look for solutions or driver updated for Windows 7. None were available. An online form to register and ask for technical assistance is available. I registered my product and sent them an email about my issue. That was a week ago. I never heard back from them. I really had no choice but to return the tuner.

The second product is InvisibleShield protector for my cell phone. My opinion is that it's complete garbage. First the package appears deceptive to me. I thought I was buying a protective case and I read the packaging over several times before buying. When I get home and open it, I discover that InvisibleShield is nothing but peal away stickers to cover my phone. I have no idea how many stickers it had but it was several for various parts of my phone. I thought I might as well give it a try. The first part was just for the display face. I carefully tried to put the sticker on. It stuck immediately and bubbled up. I tried to peal it back and smooth it out. To late. It stayed bubbled and then it stuck to itself when I tried again. I returned the remaining stickers to Best Buy. Stay away from InvisibleShield.

Finally, a positive review on the Wisecomm 2.4 GHz Wireless Security Camera. I have no clue why I bought it except that it seemed like a good idea at the time. I initially bought it to hook it up to the computer via the USB650. Since the 650 was a drastic failure, I hooked it up to the TV. It works fine. Just plug it into the TV, set what channel you want it on and you can be a voyeur. For whatever reason you want it for, I give it Unkle Monkee's Official Seal of a Banana.

Home Grown Terrorists

2010-03-10T22:54:00.003-06:00

Many worry about the issue of home grown terrorists in the United States. The Jihad Jane brings the issue to the forefront again.

The media and others jump and holler that domestic terrorism will infect the nation or poses the greatest threat to American soil.

While they are right to some degree, I can't help but remind them that homegrown terrorism runs deep in the fabric of American society. The threat from Islamic terrorists may be newest threat but certainly not the first.

The attacks of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols still sear my brain. Up to the Sept. 11th attacks, those two perpetrated the largest terrorist attack on American soil.

Ted Kaczinski aka the Unabomber also comes to mind. He carried out 18 attacks from 1978 to 1994 that took three lives and injured several people.

Before there were other were domestic terrorism groups like the Ku Klux Klan. They only intimidates, lynched and burned crosses and houses of blacks.

To a smaller degree the Symbionese Liberation Army qualifies as a domestic terrorist group.

Up in the woods and hills there are many Neo-Nazis or anti-government types running camps to dislodge the U.S. Government.

My point is that there will still be homegrown terrorist talent and we must be vigilant against it. Yes, Al-Qaida and radical Muslims want to attack the United States. We must continue to monitor those groups. However, remember that domestic attacks by the homegrown people aren't limited to Islamofacists. If you the historical data on U.S. soil attacks, Al-Qaida pulled of the largest more complex operation but there are still some homegrown plots brewing. Historically those attacks have been by American's own and haven't been religious based.

Customer Service Is Dead

2010-02-18T13:34:00.003-06:00

I know customer service has been dead for a long time. Business small and large view the customer as a source of income and not a resource. They just want you in the door, make a sale and out the door. Most businesses do little encourage customers to return or spread word of mouth.

Years ago I worked for a chain restaurant as a waiter. Back then the philosophy was treat the customer well. They want repeat business and the customer to enjoy the dining experience. On top of that, they knew word of mouth could not only help but hurt business too. I can't remember the exact numbers but they did surveys and found that bad word of mouth is a multiple times worth of damage versus good word of mouth. In other words, don't piss the customer off because not only do you lose repeat business but chances are he will tell his friends and they won't come either. Smart thinking in my book. Not sure it really worked that way but it was a good assumption to work under.

So why my sudden focus on customer service? Simple. Two days and three bad experiences and another one a week ago.

AT&T Wireless Headaches
We all know about the Stalinesque tactics of cell phone companies. Iron clad two year contracts with high early termination fees or Mafia like fees to change the a clause and it will cost a two year extension.

The phone I have is an LG-Vu. I wasn't in my right mind when I bought it. I was helping out a friend by putting her on my account and it was a phone they offered. It's total garbage.

I went in December to remover her from the account and see my upgrade options. AT&T happily removed her from the account for $120 and blew me off on the upgrade. The customer service dork said I can't upgrade until March or there about.

The phone is garbage. I live in the middle of Houston. A few miles from downtown. I get full bars on my signal indicator. I have a hard time sending texts or talking on the phone. I have to stand outside on my patio or in a certain corner to get service.

I figure they could do something for me. I went to one store. He took one look at my account and offered me an iPhone for full price. I said no thanks, told him never mind and walked out the door. I went to a second store. The rep there offered me any phone I wanted for full price plus a $75 upgrade fee. I told him that was bullshit and walked out.

I call customer service and she just wants to trouble shoot my phone. I hung up. I called back and she told me to look online because there are deals there that are better than the store or phone. I looked. Nothing.

I decided enough was enough. I'm changing phone services. I looked up another service and decided to change. I call AT&T one more time to inquire about the early termination fee. The service rep asked me if she couldn't resolve my problem would I terminate. I said I don't know I'm just weighing my options. I explained to her what all happened.

This is what she did. In a heartbeat she sold me a $350 phone for $29...that's twenty nine dollars. And she didn't charge me an upgrade fee either. Just a two year extension of my current contract. Hell she even threw in free shipping for good measure. My grand total for an upgrade was $29 plus taxes and two hours of hitting my head against the wall.

I stayed with AT&T not because I'm happy with the service. I'm not. I stayed because someone finally pulled their ears and their head popped out of the companies ass long enough to make me a deal and used some actual customer service to keep me.

I have more complaints but maybe next time...I'll just say I hate the whole store concept of Ikea.

It Was Good By Us But Not By Them

2010-02-17T01:38:00.003-06:00

No matter which way you cut it, the War on Terrorism is also a political game.

For those with short memory, under President George W. Bush, the goal was to hunt down and kill or capture terrorists. Bush took on the "you're either for us or against us." A simplistic black and white look at the world. So no one shed any tears when missiles and attack drones started taking out terrorists. Nor when soldiers on the ground killed insurgents and fighters bombed hold outs.

Now that a different administration is in power from a different party, all of a sudden killing terrorist might not be such a good idea. Funny thing is it's the party that's out of power that is making the claim. Some backers of Bush and Republicans are claiming killing terrorists is a bad idea.

They point out that intelligence and information may be gained by capturing and interrogating terrorists.

I concede that point. What I don't concede is the way they cry about it. It was never much of a policy toward the end of the Bush Regime to capture terrorists. The main goal is to get them before they get us. Now that it's President Barack Obama's turn and he's killing terrorists, they change their tune.

The article "U.S. emphasizes targeted killings over captures"gives an idea of what I'm talking about.

Haitian Judge May Release Americans

2010-02-11T00:24:00.002-06:00

I really just don't have any sympathy for the ten Americans who tried to take children across the Haitian Dominican Republic border. The claim to be doing a humanitarian deed by taking orphans over the border to the school the American missionaries have in the Dominican.

All kinds of red flags are raised in this case. First and foremost, the children didn't have the proper travel documents or passports. You know it, I know it, the American missionary workers more than likely know it. It's simple. You can't cross borders without proper documentation. So why are you taking orphans over the border without papers? To put up for adoption? Sell? Probably not but you just don't take kids over international borders without permission.

Then it turns out some of the kids have parents. It's another red flag. The missionaries stated originally the children were orphans going to an orphanage. Then it came out about living parents. The parents gave permission to take the kids because they believed the kids had a better chance with someone else. So why did the missionaries state the kids were orphans in the first place? It's already bad enough they had no passports for the children but then they lied and said they were orphans.

Maybe the was nothing nefarious going on and they were that stupid or arrogant to think they could just come and get away with it. I think they are charged with legitimate crimes. Although word is the judge is considering dropping charges at this time.

Why Is This Still A Concern?

2010-02-06T15:34:00.005-06:00

We all know the story of September 11, 2001. The U.S. and allies have since embarked on a War on Terrorism. The goal is to disrupt, destroy, kill or capture terrorists that threaten the U.S. and allies.

Along the way there have been many controversies. The waterboarding, secret CIA prisons, torture claims and Guantanamo prison battle.

My question though is why are we still debating the trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The U.S. Department of Justice initially announced the trials would take place in New York. Now the good residents and politicians of New York have backlashed against the idea. NY Senator Charles Schumer contends that none of the proposed sites in New York are acceptable.

Another site considered in Virginia district court. The esteemed Senator Jim Webb is backing a bill that would cut funding for any civilian trial for the defendants.

All those issues aren't what blow my mind. What blows my mind is why are we having this debate in the first place? First, under President George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama, nothing has been done. The Cowboy W vowed to bring terrorist to justice. Languishing in a remote prison isn't justice. The Windbag Obama campaigned on bringing the defendants to trial and closing Guantanamo prison. A year in and nothing yet on both issues.

My question is why after several years, two presidents and Congressional elections nothing has changed? No trials, no sentences and no justice. There has been no movement to try the individuals in military tribunal or civilian court. At this point I really don't care where they are tried. It shouldn't take this many years to figure out how to try them.

Congress has twice written laws on how military tribunals can be used. One was overturned by the Supreme Court and the other hasn't been tested. Either way at least they tried to lay down the ground rules for a trial and some rule of law. It wouldn't be a sham or show trial.

I understand why Obama wants to try them in civilian court. He wants to show the world the U.S. has nothing to hide and that our system is transparent. I'm not against it either. The U.S. courts can handle the trial.

Most troubling to me is comments attributed to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that

terror trials as a 'distraction' from the administration's domestic agenda, especially health care.

I have a problem with that because it means Emanuel doesn't think bringing the defendants to trial is a priority. He thinks all the President's efforts should be devoted elsewhere. I think such a statement, if he did say it, is highly insulting to the people who died on 9/11, to the people working behind the scenes to stop terror and to the military and civilians on the ground fighting this war. It demeans their sacrifice and effort to keep our country safe. Emanuel's precious domestic agenda shouldn't override the war effort or the trials.

These trials need to start and soon. The families of 9/11 victims need the closure. The nation needs to see the war is paying off. The troops and civilians on the frontlines need this too for their efforts. Both political parties need to quit the grandstanding and bring these criminal cowards to justice.

The Drug Cartels Infiltrate

2009-12-22T20:59:00.004-06:00

Amazingly the United States public and most politicians still appear clueless about the war going on south of the U.S. border.

There seems to be a feeling that the violence and corruption will not spill over into the U.S. Unfortunately they are deeply mistaken. National Geographic Explorer recently did a show on the problems of Mexico’s failed drug war and how it affects the U.S.

It is widely accepted fact that corruption permeates through the Mexican government at all levels. To believe that it can’t happen here is simply ignorant. The money at stake is high. Already there have been cases of police and sheriffs prosecuted for aiding drug shipments across South Texas.

MSNBC.com reports that the Mexican drug cartels are stepping up efforts to recruit and infiltrate U.S. customs and border law enforcement agencies.

The case of Luis F. Alarid highlights a battle within the war. Alarid on the surface appeared on the straight path and headed on career in law enforcement. He served in the military, in the Army and Marines, did two tours in Iraq and returned home to pursue his dreams of law enforcement. An investigation into his activities revealed within in months of becoming a border agent, he earned $200,000 for waving trucks through with drugs and illegal immigrants. Alarid received seven years in federal prison.

The article states a few more cases. In one, another agent received 15 years for her crimes. A friend with connections to the cartels enticed her to turncoat while she was still in the academy. A former customs inspector received 20 years for her crimes.

In all cases, the convicted agents knew or were related to drug smugglers. With the need for increased numbers after September 11th, 2001, not every recruit could be scrutinized closely. Even if they had, who was going to disqualify Luis Alarid? He had a clean criminal and military service record. No matter how tight requirements tighten up, someone will always slip through or corrupted. There is no easy solution.

The sentences for all three agents strike me as light given the degree of the crimes. Corruption, breaches of security, betrayal of public trust and allowing illegal drugs and immigrants into the country should carry heavier sentences. In Texas, a corrupt public servant convicted of first degree felony can face 2-99 years or life imprisonment. With the threat of drugs and national security, I see know reason the laws aren’t toughened up and heavier sentences handed out. Drug lords pay large amounts of ransom for cooperation so it should be fitting that the U.S. extract a heavy sum too for breaking the public trust and allowing criminals to breach our borders.

Chaos doesn’t rule the border completely but politicians and the general public need to wake up and take action soon. Once the system breaks down completely then it will take many more years, if ever, to fix it.

Military, CIA and Blackwater used in Some Ops

2009-12-17T23:35:00.003-06:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34372364/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

The New York Times reports that Blackwater Worldwide security forces worked side by side with the CIA on some raids and special operations in Iraq. They also allege that Blackwater security helped transport detainees to the CIA's secret prison program. The article states that originally Blackwater personnel were hired to provide security to CIA agents and their bases.

Sources from former Blackwater and CIA operatives confirm that Blackwater forces did more that provide security.

Back when the war started in Afghanistan, I commented to a friend about the outsourcing of the war to the Northern Alliance. I had made an analogy to the Romans hiring mercenary armies toward the end of the Empire. Rome no longer used citizen soldiers for its army. My friend corrected me in my analysis. He said it was an interesting point but off the mark. Instead he believed it was a different scenario. The U.S. was aiding a local army fight its rebellion against a ruling regime. The U.S. wasn't really outsourcing the war but only aiding an ally. It just so happened that the ally's goals served the U.S.'s purpose. The U.S. ousted the Taliban with aid from the Northern Alliance. No mercenary army was hired. The Northern Alliance had a vested interest in ousting the Taliban.

After that point of view, I agreed with him for the most part. Still something bothered me about what I viewed as outsourcing.

On the surface, I don't see a problem with using a contractor for security. The CIA doesn't have a force to protect them in the field and the military is stretched around the world. I also don't see a problem using third parties for prisoner security and transportation.

According the Times article, former Blackwater employees said that "their involvement in the operations became so routine that the lines supposedly dividing the Central Intelligence Agency, the military and Blackwater became blurred."

The line blurring is what bothers me. Military, CIA and Special Ops forces
are trained specifically for the tasks at hand. Involving third party contractors into operations opens a whole can of worms. First of all, who do the contractors answer to? The military, CIA or corporate headquarters? How much influence do they have in planning missions? Sources are quoted saying that since Blackwater was involved with security they became involved in planning routes.

Another controversial point has been who are under whose legal system do they fall under? U.S, law or Iraqi or Afghan law? The military falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The CIA falls under U.S. laws for the most part. Third parties are civilian contractors. They aren't afforded the same legal protections that military and other government officials are. Even CIA agents don't fall under complete U.S. protection. If they are caught as spies in another country, that country can legal prosecute them and punish them. Similarly armed third party security aren't afforded rights under the Geneva Convention. Technically they could
be held and prosecuted as mercenaries. Mercenaries are generally prohibited by the Geneva Convention.

On the other hand, it is not so cut and dry as some critics would like.

After 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government had to act quick. In an instant the U.S. fight against terrorism changed. The intelligence community needed to expand rapidly. Translators, analysts and other technical experts were needed. It's not like the U.S. government had a stockpile of Pashtun speakers on staff. So while a plan was put in place to recruit for intelligence agencies for the long term, many slots needed to be field immediately. Thus came in the third party contractors.

The other part is we aren't on the ground with CIA and Special Ops. Who knows how bad the security situation is? Maybe occasionally it is permissible to use contractors to help in a mission. I prefer that they weren't but sometimes a situation may dictate that they are needed that way. Honestly we just don't know nor should we know everything that happens in the field.

The bottom line is that lives are at stake both on the frontlines and maybe here at home. Used wisely, third party contractors can be an asset. Steps must be taken though that the U.S. agencies and military don't become to dependant on them. If not careful, then maybe we are hiring mercenaries to fight our wars and starting to slip into a Roman like decline.

Prison Escapee Caught, Mom Turns in Murder Suspect Son

2009-12-07T23:56:00.004-06:00

The Escapee and the Gun
On December 1, 2009, convict Arcade Joseph Comeaux, Jr. escaped from a prison van while in transport from one prison unit to another one. He allegedly pulled a gun on the two officers transporting. He then stripped the officers and took the clothes for his disguise and weapons for his use.

Officials suspect a prison guard may have sneaked the gun into the prison for Comeaux.

He was finally caught by some workers at a flange factory.

Comeaux fooled prison officials he was wheelchair bound for ten years. Yet he was able to walk off during his escape.

One trouble spot seems to recur with in the Texas Correctional Department. Some prison guards supply contraband to inmates. Last year there was a scandal about cell phones smuggled into death row. In light of the cell phone smuggling, cries are starting to call for a shake up.

Both cases of smuggling are serious issues. Inmates are put in prison to not only punish but to protect society. When the jailers and guards are bringing contraband, the lives the public are a danger. One cell phone was used to threaten a family of a state Senator. Not only the inmates are responsible but so are the ones who facilitate life and smuggle items in for prisoners.

The only way to help remedy the situation is to come on down hard on those that receive the contraband but also on those that facilitate the smuggling harshly. When a prison guard takes the position he becomes a public servant of trust. The guard is entrusted to keep those on the inside locked up but also charged to keep the inmates influence outside to a minimum. Governments should just fire the guards but prosecute to the maximum the law allows. If for nothing else but betraying the public trust.

Scrupulous Mom
Over the week, a Galena Park teacher was stabbed, beaten and mutilated to death.

The amazing thing is the mother of the alleged suspect heard he was involved and called the police.

From the Houston Chronicle article linked above:

Vega, a Mexican citizen, is believed to be in Mexico, said a source close to the investigation who asked not to be identified. Vega called his mother from Mexico and told her what he had done, and his mother then called police, the source said.

Good for Mom. She made a choice and decision over the nature of her son's alleged behavior. Maybe empathizing with the murdered teach and his family she called him in. I'm sure it's not an easy thing to do at all but she had the moral strength and judgment to do it. Congrats, Mom!

Highway Thievery?

2009-11-30T23:21:00.003-06:00

We all know bank and financial service companies nickel and dime us to death. High interest rate, unreasonable fees, cutting credit lines for even people who pay on time and late fees despite the payment late on another card.

Basically banks look to make the most amount of money with the least amount of effort.

Take my case for instance. I went to the dentist Monday morning. I paid $280 for the visit. Then the receptionist noticed I had a credit due to insurance payments. She asks me if I want to apply the $280 to future visits or refund to my debit card. Of course I decided for the refund.

I get home to check my balance. Sure enough the amount online showed the bank happily subtracted the amount from my checking account. They weren't so quick to refund my money. I called Chase and asked why they deducted but didn't refund. The customer service rep kindly told me that they didn't refund accounts right away. It took 3-5 business days for the credit to appear.

At first I left it at that. Then I started thinking about it. Basically the bank uses my money for free. The money never changed hands. It was refunded less than an hour from when it was deducted. The bank never paid it out. They have free access to my money to earn interest and what other evil things banks to do make money.

I'm a free market capitalist. I have no problem with banks, business and individuals making money. I only have one requirement and that is they make money honestly. Things like trade secrets and company information that's proprietary is fair to keep secret. A business is entitled to keep anything they discover or invent confidential.

What Chase has done to me is at best unethical and at worst criminal. You might think that $280 is no big deal or that it is. To me it's not the amount but how they handle it. The money is rightfully mine. The bank has no right to use it and not credit my account right away. That money is still with the bank. It's money I can't use to pay a bill, buy a book or rent a movie. It's money I can't invest or save. It's free money for the bank to use for 3-5 days. At least they could return some interest to me.

In the grand scheme of things, what is $280. For some people it's a huge amount. For others it's pocket change. But the money belongs to them and not the bank. Think also of how many times in a day, week, month and year a bank does this practice. My guess is that it amounts to millions of dollars if not billions that they are using dishonestly to make money.

Of course I sent off an email to Chase customer service. I was assured the bank would reply in one business day. It's been more than one business day. Not only are they dishonest in using my money but also lie on their website about how long they take to reply.

This is just a small fraction of practices the banks can use to earn dishonest profits.

Yale University 0, Terrorists 1

2009-09-10T12:23:00.002-05:00

Yale University Press decided not to reprint the cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in an upcoming book.

Now for the absurd part. The book is about the cartoons and the ensuing violence they allegedly caused.

"The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Jytte Klausen explores the fallout that took place after the cartoons were published by a Danish newspaper.

The university honchos decided not to run the cartoons out of fear that violence and death would follow publication. Frankly it's a cowardly stance to take. The cartoons were published in 2005. Everyone who wanted to see them has already seen them. I'm almost positive that those who were insulted have burned and killed all they plan on doing. Events that happened in 2005 are dictating what is published today. The idiots and zealots who were enraged will riot over something else if the pictures aren't publish. If Yale withholds the cartoons, the fanatics will just wait for the next perceived insult to carry out their crazy acts of violence.

A university should be a place for free exchange of information. Hiding the cartoons stops that free flow. It also stifles debate on whether or not the cartoons are insulting.

In this case, the terrorists have won. Yale is a private institution and may choose what to publish. First Amendment rights and censorship laws don't apply to Yale. However Yale is allowing the past acts of terrorists to control what they publish. As a nation we should stand up to these threats and live our lives despite the
terrorists. We should show that yes we may be vigilant against attack but we will not allow terrorist acts to undermine our core values as a culture and nation.

Yale instead took the low road and decided that a group of terrorist may or may not carry out violence. In fear, Yale decided that the prospect of violence outweighed the American values of free speech and free flow of information. Yale allowed past terrorist acts to dictate policy.

Thank you Yale. Fear and intimidation won while Yale cratered.

Pay Compensation Restrictions, Cash for Clunkers, Health Care Reform

2009-07-31T15:09:00.003-05:00

Are the power mad Democrats over reaching? Don't get me wrong, President George W. Bush helped create the mess. The Dems are just adding fuel to the fire.

The federal government shouldn't have bailed out financial institutions to begin with. They made bad business decisions and took on dumb risks. They got exactly what they paid for. A mess. But Uncle Sam's deep pockets lent them the money to stay afloat. High risk, bad decisions were still rewarded.

Don't get me wrong. I think there must be some government regulation of banks, business and capital. The beauty of free market capitalism though is that good decisions and business ideas are rewarded. If someone creates a service or product others are willing to pay for then they are rewarded with sales and profit. If they come up with something folks don't want then the business fails. It's almost that simple.

Government regulation now is trying to go to far. The Democrats want to limit Wall Street pay and bonuses. I think this is just a bad idea. According to the article:

The legislation's ban on risky compensation would apply to any firm with more than $1 billion in assets, including bank holding companies, broker-dealers, credit unions, investment advisers and mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The problem becomes who in government gets to decide what's risky and what's not? Also the $1 billion number is more than likely an arbitrary number the picked because it sounds so big. There is no economic theory to suggest limiting risk by companies over $1 billion in assets would improve or prevent the current mess. There really is no rhyme or reason for the House's bill.

I'm not even sure why there is a Cash for Clunkers program funded by the federal government. The program is supposed to help subsidize cars purchases for those who purchase a new car with significantly higher mileage. The House has approved $2 billion more for the program. Then again with a $1 trillion deficit what's another $2 billion among friends?

Finally, this health care overhaul needs to slow down drastically. In my idealistic youth I believed everyone should have access to health care. I still do but we have to figure out a way to pay for it. Sensibly. President Barack Obama and the Congress wanted to have a bill signed into law before the summer Congressional recess. Reportedly the bill was over 1,000 pages. Can anyone honestly say they've read it, understand it and know the true cost of it? Absolutely not. It's probably a hodgepodge of ideas piled on top of one another. Every legislator more than likely put in his request for favorite ideas and programs. I truly doubt a bill so hastily put together will improve the health care system or lower costs. Something this mammoth needs a good study by experts in the field and in economics and not a bunch of Congressional aides piece mealing a bill into law.

Paris Palin, Senate Super Majority, Hope for Obama

2009-07-05T20:55:00.004-05:00

Alaskan governor and former Vice-Presidential candidate Paris Palin announced her resignation effective at the end of the month. (Note: I credit FoxSports.com's Jason Whitlock for the Paris Palin moniker). All I can say is don't let the door hit your cougar wannabe ass on the way out.

That Palin was on the presidential ticket still amazes me. She has the intelligence of a box of rocks (my apologies to the rocks).

My opinion of her was pretty much shaped by the Tina Fey faux interviews. I saw the Fey bit before the actual Katie Couric interviews. The first thing that stuck out was how much Fey resembled Palin. I laughed, of course, and thought man that was a bit overboard. Then I saw the real interviews. Wow. Fey was dead on. She didn't go overboard at all. She mimicked Palin to the bone.

My opinion went from being amused to appalled. I started thinking do I really think Palin should be the literal one heart beat away from the presidency. It's not being morbid. It's being realistic. Her ticket mate isn't exactly a spring chicken. This is the first election that a VP candidate influenced my vote. For the record, I voted for Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party.

Palin didn't announce the reasons she resigned. Some speculate it's her political swan song. Others think it's a precursor to a presidential run in 2012.

My assumption, based on the wind direction, is that Paris Palin is gearing up for a behind the scenes presidential run. She's going to spend time working the power brokers and money people. She doesn't have to work the GOP right wing to hard. They are firmly in her back pocket. It's the moderates and independents she must win over. My guess is she'll keep herself in the public eye. It's easy to criticize when you don't have any say in the game. She'll be able to run her mouth at the Democrats and President Barack Obama. What she won't do is leave a voting record behind for others to scrutinize.

As the 2012 election cycle gears up, my guess is she re-evaluate her chances based on polls, the party power brokers and the money bags. Unless she has a strong hand, she won't run. Failing at that, she'll fade to the Alaskan wilderness and return to putting lipstick on bull dogs or pitbulls or whatever it is they do back there.

Super Majority

Al Franken will finally take his seat in the Senate. His arrival gives the Democrats the 60 votes they need to shut down any Republican filibuster. What scares me is the potential for damage the Donkey party has to inflict before 2010. My hope is the moderates and conservative state Democrats can keep things in line.

Nothing scares me more than when one party has so much control. The GOP seems to be reeling with scandal and disunity. The Democrats seem drunk with the new found power. Remember it wasn't to long ago during the Bill Clinton administration and Newt Gingrich's revolution that the Democrats were being written off. Fortunes can change quickly for the parties. If the economy is still in the doldrums, health care reform tanks and terrorism or one of the wars goes bad, I can see the public turning the Dems out. If the nation is suffering still then historically the ruling
party is on the outs.

Hopes for Obama

Only time will tell. I'm no Obama supporter but I hope he does well enough. I hope he brings the war in Afghanistan close to an end. I hope he finds Osama Bin Laden. I hope there is some way to flip the tables on North Korea and Iran. I definitely hope he turns the economy around.

There are things I hope he doesn't do either. I hope he doesn't run wild with tax hikes. Tax hikes are the bane of a free market. The more capital at work the better the economy. Free markets definitely spend money more efficient than the government. Taxes are a necessary evil but they should be kept to a minimum.

I hope the Dems can find a reasonable way to reform health care. If not they should leave it alone until someone smarter can do it. I think it's better to leave a bad system, and I don't believe it's bad, in place than let the government come in and make it worse.

Update Frequency

I usually have plenty of topics to weigh in on. The problem is finding the time to write. I used to do a lot of my writing at work. I don't have as much time anymore due to a transfer. I hope to update at least once a week on one of the websites blogs. Right now is just a slow time in sports. Football season is my big time for writing the sports blog and the Houston Texans Bull Site. I really haven't made any financial moves so I haven't updated the Monkee Portfolio. I found a few things I want to put up on the main web page.

That's all for now,
Unkle Monkee

What Do You Mean I Can't Like Up in Here?

2009-06-08T21:04:00.003-05:00

I've really had a lot to say lately but I just haven't written it.

I'll start with a book I read last week called Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children by David Harsanyi. The subject had been something I'd been discussing with some coworkers. What Harsanyi writes is not much of an eye opener as to what is going on. What is eye opening is the lengths people are going to in order to try and achieve the hive mentality.

The smoking bans, pet protectors, moral puritans and tree huggers all have their little niche they want to protect. The only means they believe in using is the government at all levels. City ordinances, state and federal laws as well as suing to achieve the goals are all weapons in the arsenal. These people don't believe humans have the ability to use reason and morals. Instead they try to regulate it.

The teetotalers believe the end justify the means. They've used flawed logic, questionable tactics to down right lies and junk science to bolster their claims.

Up In Smoke
Take the smoking issue. Yes smoking is annoying and I prefer not to be around people smoking. The fact remains that if a business owner wants to let customers smoke that is his choice. If I wish to eat there in spite of the smoking, I have made a choice. If I choose not to eat there because of the smoke, I have made a choice. The bottom line is the business owner made a choice and I made a choice. We have choices. If people don't want to be around the smokers they can take their business else where. If enough people choose non-smoking environments then the smoking establishments will eventually go out of business. It's called free market capitalism and human free will.

The smoking banners instead rail against any kind of smoking. They make claims it's a drag on the health care system, second hand smoke is cancer causing and they are only protecting us from our harmful habits. I'm not going to even address the health care issue. Our system is being dragged down by more than just smokers. Second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer or illness. The smoking banners have resorted to junk science and screaming headlines to dupe the public and politicians into believing the health risks of second hand smoke. Finally, since we can't be left to our own devices, they must take away our ability to make choices and ban us from making the choice to smoke.

Blow Me
Then there is the ultimate in Nanny State ideas. New Mexico state Ken Martinez introduced a bill requiring all vehicles to be equipped with alcohol interlock devices. All cars. Not just cars of offenders or repeat offenders. He wanted everyone who drove a car bought in New Mexico to have to blow into an alcohol detection device in order to start the car.

It may sound like a good idea but it isn't. On the very basic level, it presumes everyone is guilty and must prove his innocents every time he starts his car. It is also a gross intrusion and burden on those who don't drink and those who do drink but don't drive. Martinez likens it to seat belt laws and insurance requirements. Of course I believe seat belt law are invasive too. Insurance laws I agree with. At least they are protecting people from my stupidity.

The book illustrates point after point of the absurdity of the laws and regulations. It also makes the case of how these ideas chip away at our basic freedoms and civil liberties.

The author does point out that he isn't for anarchy. Government regulations and laws are necessary to protect property, rights and secure the country from threats. Obviously crimes like murder, drunk driving, cruelty to animals and such should be illegal. Some crimes, like prostitution and drugs, have come over time such an affront to humanity over the centuries that he has no problem keeping those illegal.

I think it's a great read. You will find that you don't agree with everything in the book but it's good to see how are civil liberties are slowly being chipped away by those who think the general public is to stupid to make choices.

Hurricane Preperations

2009-05-24T21:33:00.002-05:00

After Hurricane Rita hit, I vowed I wouldn't leave Houston unless a Cat 4 or 5 is barreling up the Houston Ship Channel. Even then I'm not so sure I'd leave.

Rita evacuations were a disaster. Houston issued a general evacuation with no real plan in place. I got lucky. I was released from work a day earlier than most people. It still took me six hours to drive to San Antonio. That's because I know the back ways. Had I waited another day the drive was closer to twenty hours. It was so bad people were running out of gas on the road. Others were still on the highways with the hurricane only a few hours to land fall. It was an absolute mess.

When Ike came rolling through I stayed put. Some what. I rented a five star hotel in the Galleria area and rode the storm out there. This time I'll ride it out at my luxurious Midtown Houston apartment. This building is sturdy. I can't even drive nails into the wall to hang stuff.

Instead I'm stocking up on hurricane supplies. I'm building an inventory of water. I have a couple of cases of bottled water. I need to buy at least a few gallons of bottle stuff. I have plenty of canned goods.

I'm also adding MREs to the inventory. I have four left over from Ike and just ordered another case from Ebay. I might buy one more case before the summer hits. In the event of a power outage I have plenty of propane to cook any perishables first. I will eat those first and if ice is available from the PODs after the storm, I can use that to try and make it last a little longer. If nothing else I can use the propane to boil water if my supplies run out. At the very worst, I'll be eating cans of corn and green beans heated on my gas stove.

As for gasoline, I need to figure something out. I have a ten gallon can. Maybe get one more and have them in stand by. Rotate them frequently and keep fresh gas in them. I need to look up how long gas can last in a can. Hate to put some bad stuff in my car or truck.

I hope others are starting to take the storms more serious to. I was fortunate the last one. This year I'll be prepared. Only thing I ask God is to keep the building off my head.

A Deal with the Devils, A Rebellion Defeated

2009-05-19T22:05:00.006-05:00

A Deal with the Devils
Pakistan is paying a heavy price for the deals they've made with militant extremists and the Taliban. In exchange for "peace" and holding off further advances, Pakistan allowed militants to impose Sharia law. The deal has failed miserably.

The militants are showing the world exactly why the only way they can be dealt with is through force. The extremists are terrorists who don't keep their word. They are vile, disgusting lowlifes who pervert Islam to justify their brutal means. They respect no rule of law and wish to impose their sick ways on all.

The weak civilian government of Pakistan sought to keep the wolves at bay. Now the wolves are at the gate; they are in the Swat Valley and trying to advance further than the deal called for. Now the military is trying to root them out and civilians are caught in the cross fire. Hundreds of thousands of people are refugees in their own country.

The vile dogs want to put those who oppose them to the sword in the name of Allah. The only way to deal with them is to purge them from this world by doing us and them a favor. Send them to Allah and let them discover if Paradise awaits.

A Rebellion Defeated
The Sri Lanka government finally defeated the Tamil Tigers rebellion.

For years the LTTE fought for a homeland for the ethnic Tamil minority of Sri Lanka. They carved up a chunk of territory and ruled as a de facto government. They had their own legal system, banking system, civilian police force and courts in addition to their military and political wings.

In the last several months, the Sri Lankan military routed the LTTE armed forces and dislodged them from their territory. They completed a military victory by annihilating the the LTTE rebels and killing the leadership of the movement.

Sadly there is nothing noble on either side of the finished war. While the Tamils claimed to be discriminated and marginalized by the ruling ethnic Sinhalise government. LTTE used conventional war and terrorism tactics in their attempt to achieve independence. They attacked civilian as well as military targets. Assassinations of political leaders were also used.

The government forces were accused many times of abusing Tamil civilians. Human rights violations of were also a common charge. The government seemed to pull out all the stops to put an end of the rebellion.

In the end the Sri Lankan government was victorious. It puts an end to the fighting but the cost was heavy. 80,000 people are listed as dead due to the conflict. Who really knows the true number. Many more probably will remain uncounted.

The best outcome, besides the fighting ending, would be those that died didn't do so in vain. Hopefully those who lived and survived can sit down and figure out a way to ensure the peace and that the minority Tamils are no longer marginalized.

Capt. Richard Phillips' Rescue & Sharpshooter

2009-04-18T16:04:00.001-05:00

We all know that the Somali pirates are out of control. Several navies are patrolling the area off the Horn of Africa. They haven’t deterred the attacks. Instead the pirates adapted tactics. They are using bigger ships to carry skiffs out to sea and then using the skiffs to attack the ships. The tactic allows them to make raids further out to sea and away from the heavy patrol areas.

When the pirates tried to seize the ship the Maersk Alabama, the captain of the ship, Richard Phillips, surrendered himself in order to secure the safety of his crew. The crew also fought back and captured one of the pirates. In exchange for the captured pirate and safety of the crew, Phillips gave himself to the pirates.

What followed was a high seas standoff. The pirates were surrounded and monitored by the U.S. Navy.

The onsite commander ordered nave sharpshooters to take out three of the pirates on the skiff when one raised an AK-47 to Phillips’ back. The fourth pirate was onboard a ship negotiating. Just like that, three dead pirates. The fourth was arrested and Phillips was rescued. Incredible!

President Barack Obama left standing orders that the navy should use force if Phillips’ life was in danger. When that AK-47 was pointed at Phillips the commander issued the order to shoot.

I fully applaud the actions of all involved, from the President to the commander to the sharpshooters and to Phillips.

Phillips exchanged himself and potentially his life when he agreed to become the pirate’s hostage. He put himself before others. On ships and navies, the captain is responsible for the ship. And that means responsible for everything. Someone else’s mistake can cost a captain his career. Phillips took that responsibility to the highest level. He was willing to put himself in danger so that the ones under his command could leave safely.

One thing I think most people fail to appreciate is what an incredible shot the sharpshooters made. Making a kill shot is no easy feat on land. A shooter must take a ton of factors before the shot. In addition to factoring in the usual shot checklist, the navy sharpshooters have to account for one more item. They must account for the roll of the sea. Their ship is rolling with the waves and so was the lifeboat the pirates were on. That is a lot of side to side and up and down motion to consider. To make one shot like that is incredible. That three sharpshooters were able to do it and not hurt Phillips is beyond my comprehension. On top of it, they had to all do shoot near simultaneously to prevent a pirate from hurting Phillips. It was an incredible feat. My hat off to them.

The Big Muddle

2009-04-01T21:38:00.002-05:00

Note: Once again I'm late in posting something I wrote. Between packing, working, moving, working, unpacking and assembling furniture, I've had very little time to write or update my website lately.

The following article from the Motley Fool pretty much sums up how I feel about the federal government dipping its nose into my business: Bring Back Our Free Markets.

As I’ve gotten older (and coincidentally earned more), I’ve become more fiscally conservative. My social views are completely independent of my fiscal views. The thing the two have in common is that less government is a good thing. Government’s job is to ensure defense of the people, ensure rights are protected and to provide infrastructure. These come in the form of the military, the courts and public roads and utilities. After that the free markets forces rule.

That’s not to say I’m completely against government regulation. Some regulation is required but within reasonable limits. One area that was somewhat deregulated with disastrous results was allowing banks to leverage themselves and get in over their heads. I think regulation is such areas keep a check on the human nature of greed. Just because I believe in free markets doesn’t mean I believe that people who run business should run wonton over their customers and clients.

In the current bailout plan, the government is delaying the inevitable. GM and Citigroup should be allowed to fail and reorganize under bankruptcy laws. It will be one giant suppository for the economy but it will eventually lead to a better system. There is no sense in propping up failing businesses. GM has been a black hole for years and throwing money down that black hole will not help. Time to let the patient die.

How will this all shake out is still a big question. Despite all the gloom and doom the American economy will emerge from this mess.

No one knows the answer to the $64,000 question: When will the economy bottom out and start rising? The answers, according to self appointed experts and the lot, run all over the place. The predictions run from the end of the year to decades. My guess? Some where in between. In other words, I don’t know and neither does anyone else. We just keep on, to use John Mauldin’s term, muddling through.

Speaking of Mauldin, the article Reality Bites by Michael Lewitt comes via Mauldin’s “Outside the Box” newsletter. It paints a bleak picture. In my opinion, it probably is the most realistic scenario playing out. Then again, what do I know?

All I know is I will continue to invest my money in what I believe are companies that are wrongly undervalued and that will rebound in the long term. My time horizon for my personal portfolio is nil. I’m not counting on it for my retirement. It’s something I do with a little bit of my income. I hope to earn money on my investments but I won’t be devastated if I lose it.

That’s it for now. I’d like to update my blog more often but I’m balls to the wall at work and trying to move. It’s a bitch. I can start moving on March 21st but I don’t have to be out of my current place until the end of the month. I’ve started packing now so the end of the month won’t sneak up on me. Now if I can just get away from work long enough.

Baby Grace Trial, Curious Case of a Former Porn Star

2009-02-02T13:38:00.009-06:00

Baby Grace Trial
Rarely does a story rock me to my foundations. One such case was the rapes and murders of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña.

The other story that has shocked me just as hard has been the Baby Grace trials in session in Galveston, TX.

During the trial, detailed descriptions emerged of the beating and abuse the little girl went through on her final day on earth.

I'll never comprehend how someone can abuse a defenseless child. Even worse is that his little girl's own mother subjected her to this abuse. The mother, Kimberly Dawn Trenor, stayed home from work on the request of her husband, Royce Clyde Zeigler, in order to discipline Riley Ann Sawyers aka Baby Grace.

What happened wasn't just abuse. They systematically inflicted pain on the little girl. The beatings started with a thin belt and progressed to a thicker belt in order to inflict more pain. Her head was held under water at one point every time she screamed. They threw her three times on the floor and one resulted in a loud crack. Riley even resorted to telling her mother "I love you" in hopes that the beatings would stop.

When they passed the point of no return they gave her a Tylenol. When she couldn't swallow it they knew they were in trouble. I have to just wonder what was going through their minds. They beat her to near death and think a Tylenol would help.

The details I read in the article were mind numbing and horrible. Like one of my coworkers said, it was probably one of the hardest things he ever read. Another one said she almost started crying. That's cause we were just reading the accounts. In court I'm sure more detail was giving. The jurors were reportedly in tears during testimony. I'm not sure I could sit through listening to something like that.

I think all crimes against children are the worst thing possible. The criminals are the lowest of the low. I like to think that most people have hope of some kind of redemption. Not in this case though. Like the Eartman and Peña murders, I think Riley's mother and stepfather are beyond redemption. Even if they weren't, the crimes are so horrendous that they shouldn't be given a second chance.

Curious Case of an Ex-Porn Star
I debated revealing her identity. She's out there and makes no bones about being a former porn star. I've even exchanged a few emails (which will remain private) with her. In the end though I decided not to reveal her name. She has a website and posts things about her life, her past and where she hopes to head. I found her site accidentally and figured if someone else does that's fine but I'm not going to direct traffic toward her just because she's out there and talking about it.

Miss Ex-Porn star states that she was in the porn industry not for money or fame. She was looking for love. She came from a broken home and didn't know what love was. The only way she could relate to love was through sex and the only sex she knew about was porn.

She then had a revelation if you will. She found God and realized that she didn't have to sell herself for love. She left the porn business and moved on with her life. For that I applaud her. If she wasn't happy and felt used and abused by doing sex films, then she needed to get out. If God and religion helped her get then she did what was right for her. In finding faith, she found a source of strength greater than herself and used it to her advantage.

Now if you read my blast of Kurt Warner and his religion, you are probably wondering why I'm praising Miss Ex-Porn star for her religion?

Big difference between the two. Warner is an athlete on top of the world. He's a multimillionaire with a husband (I swear Brenda Warner is really a man) and seven kids. He's happy. I really don't mind his religion and thanking God for his success but wearing it on his sleeve and praising God at every turn just comes off as smug and arrogant. Plus he uses the wrong forums for it. Miss Ex-Porn star uses it as a source of strength. She used that new found strength to get out of job and business that had started to disgust her. She was not happy. She couldn't get out on her own. She found a way. On her website, which IS an appropriate forum to discuss religion, she tells all and she gives credit to God for digging her out of her situation. Warner just flaunts it on network TV.

So why the Curious Case of an Ex-Porn Star? Simple. She really doesn't hide anything about herself on her website.

She says she's found the love of her life. I also applaud him. How many men would go for a woman with her past and love her for what she is now and not what she was? Not many. The curious part is she's lost her job, found a new one and then never got paid for it. She barely got through December with food and rent. She's struggling to meet rent in January. Yet Mr. Boyfriend is off during the holidays with his family while she struggles alone.

While I did applaud him for claiming to love her, I do wonder how true that is. If my woman were struggling and I claimed to lover, she wouldn't be struggling to make rent or buy food. I know they both profess to be Christians and most churches don't like the idea of the unmarried living together. That said, if it's a matter of survival, you live together. If he genuinely loved her, he'd marry her to meet the requirement of the church. Then they could live together and survive.

Ultimately it's their business how they handle things. However, if they put it out there for everyone to see then they are open to the second guessing and questions.

Israeli Invasion of Gaza

2009-01-06T14:54:00.001-06:00

Military action is something that never should be taken lightly. It is the last resort when all other means of achieving a political objective have failed. Most wars aren't necessary. Somebody once said war isn't necessary or justifiable. I think it is when defending one's own country against hostile actions.

Hamas militants continue to fire rockets targeting Israeli civilian targets. The rockets are able to reach deeper into Israel than ever before. The missiles are landing 25 miles from Tel Aviv. Sooner or later Tel Aviv maybe hit.

Israel has every right to defend itself and citizens from such attacks.

Civilians shouldn't live in fear of random attacks. Israel is right to take military action in defending itself and try to incapacitate the rocket launchers.

However Gaza is already a poor faltering state. Hamas controls the territory and has stated that the destruction of Israel is a political objective. Hamas, however, doesn't have the military or economic means to destroy Israel. Part of the rhetoric serves to united the Gazans and keep their minds off the current economic state. It serves Hamas well to have an enemy they can point to. They blame Israel for all Gaza's problems.

Not that Israel is completely innocent in the current mess. Israel's settlements helped paint them as occupiers and therefore an enemy. Israel maintains a blockade of goods that continues to cripple the Gaza and other Palestinian economies.

What is created is a vicious cycle. Israel blockades, Hamas attacks, Israel blockades and retaliates, Hamas hits back again and so on. There is no end to this cycle.

Israel is trying to put an end to it. They are sending troops into Gaza to dismantle the ability to launch rockets into Israel. How much force is necessary though? Should Israel continue to destroy Hamas infrastructure or is the ground invasion justifiable? Israel should take every means needed to incapacitate the ability to launch rockets. They should obviously avoid civilian casualties when they can. Sadly civilians will suffer in this action whether through direct action or by destruction of infrastructure. Hamas is entrenched in Gaza and they have to be rooted out. Civilians will bare the brunt of the action.

The mess on the ground built up over the years though will continue to fester. No matter what Israel achieves militarily the situation will not change. Hamas and other terrorists will continue to find ways to attack Israel. Somehow, some way a new state and strong economy must be built up in the Palestinian territories. How though is beyond my scope or abilities.

Texas Education Board Member Whackadoo Cynthia Dunbar

2008-12-09T16:24:00.003-06:00

First and foremost, I have nothing against religion. I think religion and spirituality are part of the basis of human existence. The human existence is the mental, physical and spiritual. I also believe in an individual's right to choose his religion and belief system. The government has no right to regulate, promote or hinder any religious or spiritual belief system or church. The right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Despite such a basic clause there are people out there who wish to either ram religion down our throats via government or install a form of Christianity as the religion, de facto or de jure, of the United States. They argue that the Founding Fathers intended that the United States to be a Christian nation.

One such person, based on the linked Houston Chronicle article, is Texas State Board of Education member Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond. To quote further from the article:

In her book, One Nation Under God, Dunbar argues that the country's founding fathers created "an emphatically Christian government" and believed that government should be guided by a "biblical litmus test."

Dunbar endorses a belief system requiring "any person desiring to govern have a sincere knowledge and appreciation for the Word of God in order to rightly govern."

I don't know where she gets her information for her book. If the Founding Fathers wanted to create a "Christian government" they would have done so and enshrined it in the Constitution. They didn't. They believed in a person's freedoms, liberties and the right to choose. The second sentence really displays her lack of understanding of the foundations of the nation. She wants it to be a requirement that a person be versed in the "Word of God" to be able to govern. Never mind that Article VI of the Constitution explicitly forbids any religious test to qualify a person to hold or run for office. I guess is she had her way she'd just disregard those articles and amendments that she doesn't agree with.

The one thing that also makes me laugh is that she home schooled her kids. Which is fine by me. Home school and raise them the way you see fit. As long as there is no abuse, I think parents have the right to decide how to raise their children. No, the funny part is not only did she home school them, she wants to tell others how to educate their children. She now advocates changing the education system (which she claims is unconstitutional) to fit how the world should function based on her belief of God and the Bible.

No thanks Dunbar. Go back to home schooling your kids, go to your church and pray your little heart out. I'll make my own choices when it comes to religion and if I do or don't believe in a God. Stay out of my government with your religion and I'll stay out of your religion.

Somali Piracy, Do Nothing Navies

2008-11-25T20:59:00.004-06:00

Piracy is running rampant in the off the coast of Somalia. Warships from NATO, Russia, India and the United States patrol the waters. Despite the naval presence, the Somali pirates continue to take ships and crew hostage. And no end is in sight.

Remember after Sept. 11, 2001 when President George W. Bush stated that he would fight terrorist at all corners of the world? Remember when he said they would face American justice?

My question becomes why isn't the United States and other countries fighting the terrorists that are now coming out to sea? The world is basically sitting back and allowing the pirates to operate freely on the shipping lanes. Very few attacks have been repelled. French commandos raided on ship and freed the hostages. An Indian ship sank a pirate "mothership." What's the point of putting all that money, firepower and navies into the region if nothing is going to been done to fight the pirates.

The lack of action does nothing be embolden the pirates. All it takes in one ship and ransom pay off and they are set for life. The risks seem to be worth it because it appears that hardly any action is taken against the pirates.

That the world's governments can sit back and allow these wanton acts occur is completely unacceptable. There is no coordination between the navies. There is no concerted effort being made by anyone to repel pirate attacks. The navies aren't being proactive in combating piracy.

The world community needs to come together and create an action plan. Something that coordinates the navies and looks to repel the attacks. This isn't just one country's problem. It's a world wide problem. Lives, money and commerce are threatened. The pirates don't care what flag a ship flies or who is on board. If they can attack and hold a ship for ransom they will.

NATO has already gone on record as saying they won't enforce a blockade. For once, I think this would be an appropriate time for the United States to act unilaterally. Blockade the coast of Somalia. No ships in or out. Unless it's humanitarian aid don't let the ships in. No ship should be allowed out. Warn them once to turn around and then blow them out of the water. Besides blasting ships out of the water, the United States could start blasting suspected pirate strongholds. I even propose blowing up the new expensive houses that the pirates are building for themselves. Anything that will make life more difficult on them. Take the fight to them.

Right now a Saudi oil tanker sits still in pirate hands. It is holding an estimated $100 million in crude oil. I don't care who you are, that is not chump change. Eventually someone is going to get angry enough and take action. Why not make it a coordinated effort among several countries. If they can't end it at least make it extremely risky and expensive to venture out to open sea.

Rosie O'fat Coming to NBC

2008-11-23T19:45:00.003-06:00

Somebody just sneak up behind me and put one through the back of my skull. I'm sitting here reading articles online while watching Sunday night football on NBC. Much to my horror I see a commercial for Rosie Live. Who the hell was the genius who came up with this idea? Screw him. Who was the freaking NBC executive that green lighted the idea? They should both be shot.

Rosie is nothing but a loud mouth, talentless piece of garbage who you down if you don't agree with her. She accuses Tom Selleck of being an NRA spokesman. He said he only did an ad. She doesn't let him explain his stance. It is possible to be part of an organization and not agree with it completely. Just like there are conservatives in the Democratic Party and liberals in the GOP, the NRA has people on both sides of the aisle in gun control. O'fat doesn't let him explain this and keeeps interrupting him. It's obvious Selleck gets frustrated with her.

She took a lot of heat after people pointed out that how could she be against Selleck and his gun stance when she herself did ads for KMart. Sensing that she couldn't have it both ways she parted ways with KMart.

Anyway, I digress. She's just talentless and the only ones defend her are the lemmings that follow her every word. Kinda like Harpo's legions.

So please O'fat. Just go away and be a lesbian and raise your kids.

Featured Artist and Book Reviews

2008-11-16T17:53:00.005-06:00

This place isn't just for political or current events. It's my place for writing whatever comes to mind. Today I've got a featured artist.
Sister Rosetta Tharpe
I've been watching Ken Burn's series on the jazz and Martin Scorsese's series on blues. Watching the series have turned me on to some incredible artists. They are not lost to time obviously. I think they are vastly under appreciated. I'm pretty sure artists and students of music are very familiar with most the names mentioned in the documentaries. I wasn't until I watched them and it exposed me to a list of artists that I look forward to acquiring the music of and listening to.

One such artist is Sister Rosetta Tharpe. Like many blues and jazz artist, Tharpe learned and started performing in gospel music. When she was still young, she'd play gospel at church and blues and jazz at home. Eventually she started to record music and give live performances. She was able to meld gospel, jazz and blues into her own style and showmanship. Some in the gospel world were appalled by her ventures into the secular. Regardless, many performers have sited Tharpe as an influence including Elvis Presley, Isaac Hayes, Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard.

Just watch her performances and it's easy to see the influence she's had on musicians of all types through the years.

"Up Above My Head" is my personal favorite:

Two other great ones:

Book Reviews
I've just finished reading two books off my Amazon reading list.

The first is Bringing Down the House by Ben Mezrich. It is the story of a group of MIT students who are trained to count cards and beat casinos in the game of blackjack. The students are trained and then a group of investors stake them to seed money. They then embark as teams in casinos working their trade. They take on different disguises, names and alternate lives in order to keep casinos from stopping. Card counting isn't illegal but casinos can ban clients if they discover they are doing it and then threaten them with arrest for trespass if they are caught again.

Overall the book is a fast and easy read. The book details how the lead character was recruited, his training and then the adventures once he started counting cards. The book describes some hairy situations they got into and their escapes. Overall, I enjoyed the book but the whole time I was reading I felt something was lacking. I'm not sure what. It was mostly based on fact. I don't think anything was embellished. Some how I came away feeling like I was left hanging even though the book ends with a conclusion. I do recommend the book though. It's especially a good read for a flight or travel.

The second book I just read was Paul of Dune by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson. The book is a telling of the story of Paul Atriedes in the few years after he defeated the Padishah Emperor Shaddam Corrino and wrested control of the Dune universe. It also delves into Paul's life growing up on Caladan as son of Duke Leto Atriedes.

Paul is a troubled soul. He is gifted with prescience and he can see both the destruction of the human race and the path he can take to save humanity. He knows to save humanity he must turn into a tyrant and it goes against all that his father taught him. As he consolidates his new empire, Paul also deals with the conspiracies and court intrigues against him.

As with the other post-Frank Herbert Dune books, I enjoyed Paul of Dune. Herbert and Anderson capture vividly the new tasks facing Paul Atriedes. They also weave the story that tells of the conspiracies against Paul. They richly describe some of the battles Paul's fanatical Fremen jihadists run off to fight in Paul's name. They also pry more into Paul's mind and reveal the burden he feels as Emperor of the Known Universe. He knows people love him. He also knows people hate him. The authors do a good job of putting many stories and elements in a tale the bridges the gap in Frank Herbert's original Dune. They enrich an already wonderful universe that Herbert created.

First Online Presidency?

2008-11-10T15:06:00.003-06:00

President-elect Barack Obama used technology and the internet as a big part of his campaign. Supports could keep track of the campaign via his website. Obama announced his vice presidential candidate via text messages for those who signed up to his website. Obama greatly outnumbered rival John McCain in myspace.com and Facebook friends. So it comes as no surprise as the Obama presidency may become the first online presidency.

A website has already been created called Change.gov Office of the President-elect. The website contains the obligatory newsroom and blogs. Also it includes a section for Americans to share their stories as well as what they want for the administration to focus on. It asks for input on policies, legislation and expectations for the new president. There is even a section to apply for noncareer government jobs with the administration.

The CNN.com article also states that Obama will have a five day comment period for pending nonemergency legislation. It will be interesting to see how this evolves and how Obama uses the internet and technology to lead the United States for at least the next four years. It will more than likely change the face of how future presidents interact with the American people.

President-elect Barack Obama

2008-11-05T18:08:00.002-06:00

Congratulations to Barack Obama for winning the Presidency of the United States. Obviously it is a historic moment in the history of the nation. I'll be honest, I never thought I'd see a black man as president this soon. I truly believed one would be elected in my lifetime but just not yet. So hats off not only to Obama but to most the American people for voting color blind and voting for the man.

Obama and the Democrats have been handed control of the White House and Congress for the next two years. Much has changed in the last eight years since the last Democratic administration. When Bill Clinton left office the economy was stronger and the federal government had a surplus. After eight years of George Bush, the economy is in shambles and the deficit is monstrous. The new administration and Congress have a monumental task ahead. They must try to bring the economy back to stability, look for ways to hold back government spending and restore consumer confidence.

Just as important as the economy is the continued prosecution of the War on Terror. First and foremost is cleaning up the mess in Iraq. If nothing else, the Iraqi blunder will stand forever as Bush's legacy. It falls on Obama to prudently pull scale back the military presence and refocus the war in Afghanistan.

Obama and the Democrats ran on a message of change and against the Republicans in office and tied them to President George Bush's administration. The American people listened and voted for change. Now Obama and Congress must deliver. They were handed power unchecked. If they don't succeed and make some kind of visible progress on the economy, the voters most likely won't hesitate for change once again. A new Congress could come in two years from now in Republican hands.

I wish and pray for nothing but the best for the new President. Not only for my good but the good and strength of our wonderful Republic.

One final thought and it's probably not a popular one. In fact I haven't seen it addressed anywhere. Much is made about Obama bringing out the black vote. I applaud everyone who votes. Especially those that don't or wouldn't have voted unless Obama ran.

What I haven't seen discussed is the reasons why many (not all, obviously) blacks voted for Obama. Did they simply vote for Obama just because he was black? Did they look at the issues and stances of both candidates and make a decision? Or was the color of Obama's skin the sole basis for voting for him? I understand the historical reasons of his election but I find it apalling that someone would vote for the man only because he's of one's race. I find it just as offending as someone voting against the man based on his skin color.

Unfortunately no one has the courage to undertake a study on both issues: how many voted for Obama cause he's black and how many voted against him because he's black. I would be very interested in seeing the numbers. I think it would be very telling about our society and how long we still have to go in race relations and understanding.

Official Presidential Endorsement

2008-10-20T18:59:00.003-05:00

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Taking my lead from newspaper editorial boards across our great land, the time has come for my official presidential endorsement. While I do not wish to tell my fellow Americans how to vote, I do wish to express my opinion on the candidates and reveal who I'm going to vote for.

First I need to look at the candidates and what they stand for. It's hard sifting through the lies and propaganda unleashed by both party machines. Amazingly there have been no "swift boat" like ads like the ones that help sink John Kerry's presidential bid.

So one has to look at public record, stated opinions by the candidates, consider debate answers and sometimes go with a gut feel or instinct on who the better candidate is.

First the falsehoods out there. John McCain and his operatives contend that Barrack Obama will raise taxes on the middle class. Simply that is not true. Obama is on record saying he will reduce taxes for the middle class. McCain also charges that Obama will lead us to socialism and socialize health care. I see nothing on Obama's platform that looks to make us a social European-style democracy. Besides, if it were done, he and the Congressmen that did it would likely get voted out of office at the next election cycle. Obama has stated nothing to the fact that he will socialize health care. He's stated that he will help make it affordable for uninsured Americans. McCain also likes to style himself as a Washington maverick. Voting nearly 90% of the time along party lines isn't a maverick. Joe Lieberman, as much as I don't care for his politics, is more of a maverick than McCain.

Further, I look at McCain's VP candidate AND factor in his age. While not trying to be morbid, age is definitely a consideration I have to look at. Were McCain not able to finish out his term would I feel comfortable with Sarah Palin? And the answer to that is not "no" but a resounding "Hell NO!" Palin is scary. Her lack of understanding of issues or failure to educate herself about them is unfathomable. Her interviews with Katie Couric were appalling. Merely stating party mantras and showing no knowledge of issues is not my idea of a candidate for VP who would be a heart beat away from the presidency.

So then I have to look at Barrack Obama. What do I know about Obama? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. All I know are the propaganda that the Republican machine has put out. The Democrats have failed to effectively get Obama's message to the people out. They haven't directly challenged McCain's falsehoods nor have they countered with any specifics of the lies. The strategy they take is to pin McCain to President George Bush's failed policies. While it's a good plan, I need more substance than just saying McCain is four more years of Bush. I want to know what will be done differently. Change is a pretty message but it doesn't mean changing is
any better than what we currently have. Obama is getting by on his speaking skills and charisma. I view Obama as a smooth talking wind bag. All talk, no substance.

So it makes me think what do I want in a candidate? The first thing I think of is the government's duty to protect the citizens. Next I think about protecting the civil liberties of the citizens. I also think about how huge the federal deficit is. Taking in all the social and political ideas that are dear to me, what is my ideal candidate? I'd like a government that doesn't try to legislate morals, allow maximum freedom of choice in personal issues, the rolling back of some of the nanny state laws, a reduction in the size of government and in the deficit.

I don't see either party fitting the bill. Republicans want to tell me to believe in God, the family is a the foundation of America and that I'm not smart enough to make some personal choices. Democrats also think I'm not smart enough to make some personal choices, want me to pay for the mistakes of others and in some cases just flat out pay for others.

So in my search and debate for how I want to vote for, I'm turning to a third party. I full heartedly endorse Libertarian Bob Barr for president. I agree with many of the planks of the Libertarian Party platform. I believe a smaller government is necessary, an individual's rights are paramount as long as they cause harm to no one or infringe on another's freedoms, abortion is a personal choice, what consenting adults and what lifestyle they chose is also a personal choice, the right to self defense and bear arms and many other party beliefs.

While I support many of the party beliefs, there are some that I don't believe. The Party calls for the elimination of the IRS and federal taxes, the legalization of all drugs and the end of U.S. support for the U.N. and economic aid to other countries. While I believe taxes can be reduced, the IRS and taxes are necessary for government to function and to pay down the insane national debt. The legalization of recreational drugs is not a solution to the current drug problem. Finally, U.S. support is sometimes needed in order to prevent some nations from falling to those who wish to harm the United States and our citizens.

While I don't believe Bob Barr is the best candidate that the Libertarian Party can put forward, I do believe that the Libertarian Party is the closest to my personal and political beliefs. Further I cannot in good conscience vote for either Barrack Obama or John McCain. So when I go into the voting booth this election, I will be voting for the Libertarian Party ticket.

Thoughts on the Current Economic Crisis

2008-10-10T20:56:00.010-05:00

A global economic meltdown is obviously underway. Sell orders are inundating stock exchanges around the world as people panic sell. Russia, Indonesia and Austria suspended trading to help keep the sell off in check. Of course, no one knows when a turnaround will commence.

I was adamant in my opposition to the U.S. bailout plan. I saw no reason to take bad mortgages and loans off the books of the banks and financial institutions that practiced irresponsible lending and borrowing tactics. I don't want to be on the hook for all these bad decisions.

On the other hand, a few analysts that I respect, John Mauldin in particular, say the government intervention is necessary. They make a case that no government intervention is probably the worse thing. One of his newsletters mentioned the Japan crisis as an example of what happens with no intervention. Japan's markets and real estate never quiet recovered in the last decade. The newsletter points out five steps the government should take to help alleviate the crisis. Mauldin states that no matter which course of action it's going to be expensive. Since no action is far worse and far more expensive than government intervention, it's time we bite the bullet and accept it. To read more go to Mauldin's Outside the Box: Banking Crisis Around the World.

Despite my objections and protests, Congress didn't listen to me and they passed a bailout bill. So the bill passed and I have to accept the fact. Now I can only hope that the government takes prudent and smart action to turn this around. I'm not to confident that will happen. There are some extremely smart and intelligent people who will be overseeing the bailout but I worry that silly rules and bureaucratic mandates will weigh the measures down. I pray that Congress and the President let those they assign to bail us out let them do their jobs.

As I write this I just got a news flash email that the Dow has dropped below 8,000 to open the day. Fear and panic have taken over the market. Me personally I have no reason to sell any of my holdings. The only thing I sold was a portion of my Buffalo Wild Wings (BWLD) on recommendation from an investing newsletter I subscribe to. In fact, I plan on looking for companies that have been wrongly sold off and had their stock pummeled. Now is the right time to buy stocks that have been beaten down for no reason. There are many companies out there that will still turn a profit and provide goods and services people need just for day to day living. I haven't done any valuations yet but a stock that comes to mind is Johnson & Johnson. I'm going to have to read the newsletters and message boards I subscribe to in order to get a feel for what's out there and follow any recommendations that I feel comfortable with.

Another company that I'm looking at is Berkshire Hathaway (BRK-B). Warren Buffett, arguably the greatest investor of all time, isn't selling. He is buying. When Buffett buys, more than likely it's a good buy. He's getting a sweet deal in putting money into Goldman Sachs (GS). For $5 billion Berkshire gets a 10% dividend on the preferred shares it bought along with the option to buy more stock at $115 per share regardless of the actual price of the shares. So Berkshire makes money at anytime the share price goes above the strike price and they decide to buy. For example, if the shares go up to $150, Buffett can then buy them still for $115 and, at least on paper, make a profit of $35 per share. Not to shabby. Of course, the likes of me can't get a deal like that but by investing in Berkshire I can get a piece of the action.

Bailout Vote Fails House!

2008-09-29T20:37:00.002-05:00

And now for some brilliant political commentary:

I feel so strongly against the bailout that I've written my Congressman Ted Poe and the two Texas U.S. Senators and told them not to vote for the proposal. That the proposal will do nothing but reward Wall Street fat cats for failed greedy policies and put the expense of those mistakes on the taxpayer's accounts.

I even told Ted Poe that based on his vote against the bailout that I'm voting for him this fall. I've expressed the same sentiment to Senator John Cornyn that if he does vote for the proposal I will not vote for him come this fall. I didn't let him know that I don't plan on voting for him this fall anyway.

Major props to the Congressmen and women who voted against the proposal.

More on Goverment Intervention in the Financial Crisis

2008-09-22T22:16:00.004-05:00

I definitely don't claim to be a financial genius or know exactly how economics works. However by reading knowledgeable writers and looking at numbers I can sometimes figure out how things may turn out.

I figured that the housing bubble would eventually burst, values would fall some and then stabilize. I had no clue about the fall out of the subprime market. It's just amazing how greedy and incredibly stupid lenders were now that the numbers are coming to light.

From this email from John Mauldin's weekly e-letter, it only gets uglier. Besides the subprime lending practices, there was a practice called Alt-A mortgages. These were mortgages made for borrowers who either couldn't document their income or for some reason chose not to. How bad are these mortgages? To quote Mauldin's e-letter directly:

"Around 3 million US borrowers have Alt-A mortgages totaling $1 trillion, compared with $855 billion of subprime loans outstanding. $400 billion of that was sold in 2006. Almost 16% of securitized Alt-A loans issued since January 2006 are at least 60 days late."

It's mind boggling. Bankers and lenders were willing to loan out $1 trillion without any clue of the borrower's income or if the loan could ever be repaid. I just don't understand the thinking. How do you gamble a major portion of your business without having any clue if the client will ever be able to pay for the product?

This reminds me of a story. My best friend's brother asked me if he could borrow my credit card. He'd give me a security deposit if I allowed him to use it. I said no right off the bat. I would be crazy to lend anyone my credit card but even nuttier for lending it to my friend's brother. He had a low paying job, a history of quitting jobs abruptly and I suspect a drug habit. This is definitely not someone to lend money to and ever expect to see it back. I view the lending practices of the financial institutions along the same lines. They lent money to my best friend's brother and now he's unable to repay. They didn't bother checking his job history or his current income. They just said,"Sure, how much do you need? Okay, sign here and you are good to go."

The worse part is that the government is stepping in and starting to save some of the bad loans and bad businesses. Now we the taxpayer are on the hook for these bad practices.

I hate for anyone to lose their house or job but on the other hand I don't want to be on hook for their bad decisions. Some lied about income, some chose not to disclose income and some were never asked about their income. They got in way over their heads and now can't get out of debt. I'm sorry but I nor should any taxpayer be expected to bail them out.

The same applies to the lenders. The didn't enquire about income nor did they stick to previous criteria for creating mortgages. They just went with the flow and sign off on just about anyone who walked into the door. Now they will likely never see the money they lent out and now again us taxpayers are on the hook for some of these decisions.

I honestly think that the whole thing should be allowed to collapse and wash out all the bad decisions. Will the economy suffer? You damned right it will but that's the nature of the capital markets. Will the economy collapse? No. The American economy is strong enough to withstand such a shock to the system. The economy is diversified enough to pass through this eventually. Enough damage will be done though to make financial institutions think twice about ever doing these bad practices again.

As a free market capitalist, I hate any type of government intervention in the markets. I definitely don't like the government putting taxpayer money on the line to bail out bad decisions. Unfortunately I think Congress will need to enact laws and regulations limiting or defining how financial institutions make their mortgage decisions. They also need to put some teeth behind such legislation. Making corporate executives criminally liable for encourage or ignoring such practices might go a long way in ever creating another fiasco such as the one we face today.

Financial Bail Out

2008-09-19T10:42:00.003-05:00

Unbelievable. The government is bailing out banks and financial institutions that made bad business decisions and bad lending practices. For all those bad practices, we the taxpayers are put on the hook for it.

Lehman Brothers and Merill Lynch fell and AIG needed an $85 billion government bail out to keep from going under.

What would happen if all the bad banks would go under? Probably the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression. I honestly doubt it. Our economy is much more diverse and stronger than back then. Sure the economy wild be shaken to its foundations but we'd survive. Plus all the deadwood banks and mortgages would be washed out of the system.

Instead, Uncle Sam extends a hand and puts the taxpayer to foot the bill. Now all those bad business practices will payoff. Banks that made bad decisions will survive. They will probably do it again in the future. Why? Cause Uncle Sam will get them out of trouble again.

So what should be the solution? I'm not sure except for one thing. Such actions should be criminalized. If a bank knowingly takes certain actions and makes certain decisions that pad the books that undermine the financial integrity of the institution then those actions should be subject to criminal prosecution.

I'll give an example. I work in the petrochemical industry. We have contracts with the government to supply jet fuel to the U.S. military. If someone falsifies data or neglects to fulfill parts of the contract, that person is criminally liable for those actions. Furthermore, if management becomes aware of a problem and neglects to take action, those in management become criminally liable.

Ah ha, you say, but that's because you are dealing with the federal government. Well, I say, banks are no different. They too are regulated by the federal government. Regardless, the government can enact laws banning certain practices and make those who break the law personally liable. In my example, not only are violators personally liable but the company is also subject to criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits by the feds.

I'd like nothing more that to have the government's hands off our financial markets. I'd like even further if banks, financial institutions and the people who run them not get greedy and not practice horrible decisions to achieve profitability. However, we don't live in a fantasy world and those ideal conditions won't ever exist. Instead, I prefer the government enact laws and regulations to curb these practices and not put the burden of the mistakes on the taxpayer.

Ike Passes & Aftermath

2008-09-16T13:56:00.002-05:00

Riding Out the Storm
Power went out shortly after my last post. At about 4:30 a.m. I was officially in the full force of the storm.

Located on the 14th floor of Hotel Dietrich, I rode out the storm. Initially I wasn't to worried. The wind was howling and rattling the windows. The rain was swirling and coming down in sheets. I really wasn't rattled until the building shook. A gust of wind hit hard and I wasn't sure if I felt the building move or if it was my over active imagination. A few more gusts shook the windows and the building definitely shook. That rattled my nerves. From there on out it was trying to sleep while hoping for the best.

The hotel bistro was closed so they had buffets set up for guests. I slept through breakfast but made the lunch buffet. I should taken the clue when after I asked about dinner buffet I was told that lunch was the only meal they could prepare. Sure enough about an hour later the hotel announced that there was no water or power. The generator was running on low so all guests had to leave by 5:00 p.m.

I had a couple of places to go. Or so I thought. I first called a friend but he didn't answer. I called another friend be she didn't answer. I left my room at 4:00 p.m. thinking that someone would call me back soon. Nothing. I finally got a hold of the first friend. He was stuck at work and couldn't come get me. He told me to call his nephew to come and pick me up. No luck. I ended up having to call his sister. She and her husband picked me up a little bit after 6:00 p.m.

There was no power at their house. No surprise since 96% or more of the area was without power. I ended up staying two nights before I returned home. We had moved my car there Friday night to get it away from the flood zone that is my parking lot. It almost got taken out by a tree.

Before I came home we stopped at Kroger to get some canned goods and ice. There was an ambulance passing out some MREs so I picked up five and my friend's nephew picked up four for me.

There was no power when I got home. We had opened up the freezer to put the bags of ice in there. Bad idea. Everything had started to rot and stank to high heaven. After my friend's left I took a nice cold show, lit up the oil lamps and found my battery powered lantern. I started cleaning out the fridge by lantern light. Right as I took the last load out of the fridge the lights powered on. I was relieved but worried that they might not stay on. Thank God they are still functioning.

So aside from losing about two to three weeks of food and a tree almost smashing my car up, I came out of the storm unscathed. To top it off my supervisor just called and said I don't have to report to work this week. I go back in Monday morning.

Aaah, time to tackle some of the those projects I had time to do during my sabbatical.

Hope everything turns out well for all those affected by the storm.

Have a good one,
Unkle Monkee

Ike Hits Galleria Full Force

2008-09-13T03:29:00.002-05:00

I am definitely getting full force winds now. The rain is coming down in sheets and the wind is pounding the windows. I can't see outside except for the few lighted areas left.

It's a little unnerving to hear the windows rattle and shake with the wind. I had intended to keep the two heavy shades and drapes open. The hotel memo recommended closing them. I'm not sure what protection they provide if any. I decided to close them just in case.

Well I think that's it from me tonight. I'm getting sleepy and no point staying up any longer.

Goodnight

Power Outages Through Out Metro Area

2008-09-13T02:08:00.003-05:00

Over one million customers now without electric service and the worst part of the storm hasn't hit Houston yet. The news showed footage of transformers blowing out. It looked like a street level fireworks show. It also explains the odd colored lightning I saw earlier. Turns out that the odd colors were the transformer blowouts.

The rain is really coming down now and the winds are picking up. It's a little harder to judge how hard the wind is blowing since the street lights are and I can't see which directions the rain is blowing.

Local emergency services are still functioning. Unfortunately there is an ambulance in front of the hotel on the other side of the Loop. I also saw two cop cars with lights going west on Westhiemer.

The massive freeway light outside my window has just come back on. The rain is definitely coming down harder now. The light pole is swaying around in the wind.

A massive gust of wind just made my hotel windows make a loud rattle. There it goes again. This time I felt it as it hit the building. My area is getting tropical storm winds with the hurricane force winds coming within the next two hours or so.

The heaviest part of the rain just might miss where I'm at. It's hard to tell by the weather map. According to the latest projection of the spiral, the Galleria area might just get the tail end of the heaviest part of the latest storm spiral. Still a lot of rain though.

Downtown sensors are reporting over 69 mph gusts, Hobby Airport is reporting 83 mph gusts and Intercontinental is reporting over 60 mph gusts. Sensors in Galveston aren't reporting anymore. The Galveston tides are all over ten feet.

I just took my meds so I may be done for the night.

Making Landfall

2008-09-13T01:46:00.002-05:00

The storm has made landfall in Galveston. The reporters are outside and making observations as the eye passes over.

Where I'm at the wind is starting to gust. The rain is swirling and the wind is whipping the rain occasionally against my window.

For the first time I look outside and don't see any cars on the road. Only car I saw is the security car driving around in the Galleria parking lot. I just saw a tank truck drive by. He's headed the south down the loop. I presume by that direction he's headed south to be ready to unload fuel.

The storm should be out of the metro area by my estimate at around 7 or 8 a.m. Not that I know what I'm talking about. Looking at the weather report, where I'm at still hasn't got hit with the worst. However the wind is picking up and the rain has gone from blowing diagonal to horizontal.

I don't know how much longer I'm going to be up. I may sleep through the eye and just read the reports in the morning.

The news just showed Clear Lake and it's taking a beating. Nothing like what is going on here in the Galleria. But that part of the storm is headed this way. Laporte is reporting 90 mph gusts. Nice. Just depends where next spiral is when it passes through my area.

I may post one more before I zonk out.

Quick Update

2008-09-13T00:54:00.003-05:00

The reason rain isn't so bad yet is cause the first band that passed us wasn't that strong but the next one should be stronger. The worse part of it might miss where I'm at. It just depends on where the band is and how the storm has rotated as it passes my area.

One Hour to Landfall

2008-09-13T00:52:00.001-05:00

725,000 customers without power now according to Floyd LeBlanc of CenterPoint Energy on local channel 11. He said that 750,000 was the power outage total for Hurricane Rita. They are expecting over 1 million in this storm.

The power surges and outages have stopped here at my hotel.

The rain has started coming down. Still it's not as strong as anticipated. The eye is about only an hour from Galveston. The rain is coming down in sheets and blowing diagonally.

The streets are empty now. I see an occasional car go by but now it's mostly emergency vehicles. The cop that was in the Zone D'erotica parking lot left. He was out there for at least six hours. Either that or they put a car there just for looks.

From my room it's pretty hard to judge how hard the wind really is blowing. I was expecting blinding rain and a heavy down pour. Instead it's a steady rain and lots of wind but not bad. I've been in thunderstorms that were a lot worse. I thought about going downstairs and looking outside see if I can get a better feel for the storm but I've decided to stay put.

A Galveston official was on TV saying that calls are calling in for rescue. The answer is no. They were told to leave because the entire island was going to be under water. There is no way they can get to them. People just are to freaking stupid and stubborn. They are the first to cry to when the you know what hits the fan.

I'm probably going to stay up for a few more hours and see how things progress. I don't think it's going to get any worse than lots of wind and rain. Of course, there is still the danger of tornadoes.

I'll probably post one more before I go to sleep.

One hour to go

2008-09-12T22:55:00.001-05:00

According to the news it will be another hour before the area I'm at will start to get rain. They cut away to Baytown and it's getting hit hard. The reporter was at a hotel right down the street from where I live. I know where I'm at will get hit just as hard but I just feel better where I'm at. At the very least there are people around and if we have to hunker down in the ballroom it won't be lonely. I can't imagine sitting through this in my apartment alone. I wonder if power is out.

I unplugged everything at home to prevent any power surges from burning up.

The count down continues. Galleria area gets hit in 45 minutes. It's two minutes until 11:00 p.m.

Ike's Getting Closer

2008-09-12T21:41:00.000-05:00

It's starting to lightning. Still no rain. Odd since Galveston is already getting pounded. The news showed the reporting just getting pelted.

Looking out my window I see exactly six cars driving around. When was the last time Westheimer was that empty? I see plenty of cops driving around. One has been sitting in the same spot in the Zone D'erotica parking lot. I thought maybe someone was riding the storm out there since a car was in the lot for hours. I saw a tow trucking hauling it off and the cop has been parked there ever since.

CVS was going to stay open through the store. The only ones they were going to close were the ones in the evacuated areas. I guess they changed their minds since the one across the street is closed.

In some weird twisted way this is exciting. I know how dangerous the storm is and how much damage it's going to cause but I'm getting some kind of cheap thrill sitting through it.

Just in: 315,000 homes without electricity according to CenterPoint Energy.

I expect the hotel power will go out soon. We keep getting brief outages. A memo was passed out saying if power goes out they have emergency power but it will be minimal power. Rooms will be in the dark and the air conditioning will be out. Power will only light the hallways and operate one elevator. They are also setting up one of the meeting rooms as a "shelter in place" in case people have problems with their rooms.

If power is still on later I'll post more.

2008-09-12T21:02:00.000-05:00

I just had dinner in one of the hotel ballrooms. Sat with three couples. The elderly couple that sat with us was from Baytown. Just my luck I come into Houston and I meet people from Baytown. The man was telling us about his previous hurricane experiences. We told us the worse one was in the 1930s back before they used to name storms. The next was Carla in 1961. It was nice to meet a World War II veteran. He served in the navy during the war.

Even though the storm hasn't hit places are already starting to lose power. The Houston Chronicle is reporting up to 160,000 homes are out of electricity. My hotel had a brief outage.

These are my last pictures for the night. It looks more like someone nuked Katy but it's the sunset. Amazing since it's been cloudy all day.

I like Ike

2008-09-12T18:36:00.000-05:00

No, I really don't like Ike. He screwed up my weekend plans. It was all football weekend starting with Houston Cougars vs. Air Force and then Houston Texans vs. Baltimore Ravens. The college game moved to Dallas and the Texans game will be played Monday evening. I hope to still go to the Texans game if I don't have to report back to work.

As far as the weather, it is getting cloudy and the wind has definitely kicked up. I was just outside and I can feel the wind but looking out my window I don't see the tree swaying. Strange. I'm also surprised it still hasn't rained. Landfall is less than eight hours out.

People I can tell are getting restless already. I went downstairs and the lobby was full. People were just sitting around talking and reading. The bar was full. They closed the hotel restaurant but they will be serving a buffet from 7-9 p.m. Good. I have supplies to get me through the weekend but you can't beat a good solid hot meal.

The latest pictures from my window:

Blogging Hurrican Ike

2008-09-12T13:15:00.000-05:00

Hello all out there. I'm here holed up in the luxurious Hotel Detriech.

Right now is the calm before the storm. The first clouds are coming in right on time like predicted. I'll give the weathermen credit for getting it right.

Things are pretty quiet now that folks have either evacuated or holed in. Of course there are several idiots that are going to try and ride out the storm surge predicted at up to 20 feet.

These pictures are the view from my hotel room. They were taken about 12:30 p.m. Be safe and I'll post more later.

Good-bye Amy Winehouse

2008-09-03T15:10:00.000-05:00

Sometimes is just best to let someone go down the path of destruction they've chosen. I'm all for giving second, third and fourth chances. As long as a person is making a genuine effort to turn things around I have no problem helping him out. When that person repeatedly continues to behave in a self destructive way and each episode is worse than the last, it is time to let go. In my opinion Amy Winehouse has reached that point. It's not really the amount of times she's drugged up and overdose that would turn me away from her if she were a friend or relative. It's actual amount of drugs and the increasing amount that she's allegedly taking. The latest news reports indicate that Winehouse went on a 36 hour marijuana binge.

Reports state that as a result of her latest binge she may have brain damage. Allegedly she's had two overdoses in the last year. Judging from the reports it appears that her problems are only getting worse and her attempts fail.

I know each case is different but the effort just doesn't seem to be there. Winehouse doesn't appear to be making any effort to try and rehab and stay sober. Of course, if the reports are true that she's brain damaged then it may be too late regardless of her efforts. She just might not be in her right mind to make the decisions to stay clean anymore. No matter what effort she puts in the capacity to think straight and make rational decisions may be gone.

What's a friend or relative do? It must be hard and heart breaking to see someone so close and that is loved to destroy herself like this. Evidently her father has put in a herculean effort to help her but so far all for naught. I have to wonder if there will be a point where raises his hands and gives up. I sincerely doubt it. The only way I see him giving up is if she is beyond reach mentally. I think she'd have to reach a near vegetative state for him to give up. And judging from reports, she just may be there now or very close.

It's sad to see someone with such talent waste away. I personally don't like her music.

I ask myself what would I do if I had a friend or relative in her shoes? I think at this point I'd have to let them go down their chosen path. If repeated efforts fail miserably and the amounts of drugs or alcohol are increasing, I'd just have to walk away. It would break my heart to do it but sometimes the effort isn't there or the desire to remain sober lacks. Why put myself through the emotional and physical exertion if the person isn't willing to help herself? All I would do is point them to a hospital or rehab center and go my own way. I would turn my back not out of lack of caring but because I care. If I put in all my time and effort to help someone and they can't put in the effort it would eventually take a toll on me. It would wear me down. It would make no sense for me to keep hitting my head against the wall. Also it would bring me down emotionally and I just couldn't bear to watch someone I love destroy themselves. It would be a defense mechanism to walk away. The addiction cuts both ways. It hurts the user and those around them. I just would have to protect myself and my well being by going in a different direction than the addict. It's sad but it's the truth.

The Dark Knight Review

2008-07-19T23:42:00.000-05:00

Me and a friend went see The Dark Knight. I have a mixed review of it. First off, Heath Ledger portrayed the Joker as a homicidal sociopath who has no qualms about killing. The Joker is set on taking control of Gotham's underworld and turning it into chaos. The Batman, Lt. Gordon and Harvey Dent team up to bring out the fall of the Joker. Harvey Dent becomes the Two-Face after an accident at the hands of the Joker and becomes just as homicidal but the flip of a coin decides if a victim lives or dies.

There is plenty of chaos, destruction, death and action to keep the masses happy. The film falls short on a few points. First off, Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker is great. He kills with freely, has the laugh that is traditional to the character and cares not whit for one human being. He's an utter social path. Unfortunately we get no background on the Joker's origin. He just appears and the chaos ensues. We are also left unresolved as to his fate. Ledger's Joker is outstanding and not over the top. However I don't think it's a fantastic Academy Award material. Some reviews write the Ledger's Joker on par with Anthony Hopkins Hannibal Lecter. No way. He's not that good.

Another area the movie fails is in the characterization of Batman. The Bat is dark but not brooding. The Batman in this film is just a vigilante swinging fists and pounding evil doers into submission. The is no character driven exploration of Bruce Wayne/Batman. He's nothing more than playboy by day, super hero by night. Nothing about what makes him tick. Nothing that makes the Joker tick for that matter is revealed. The Harvey Dent/Two-Face character should have been left for another film. The Harvey Dent/Two-face, Batman, Commisioner Gordan story stands as whole story on its own.

Over all it's pretty mindless entertainment. None of the characters are explored. Especially Wayne's brooding quest to fight crime to avenge his parents death. It's central theme to his character that it must be in play some how. Then they screw us on not giving any reason for the Joker's existence. The only theme mentioned by the Joker is when he tells Batman that they need each other to thrive. If there is no Joker there is no Batman. It's a central theme to the Batman comic books.

So go, sit back relax and have a good time watching the latest installment of the Bat man saga.

I got it right

2008-07-03T18:52:00.000-05:00

I called my shot about the how the Supreme Court would rule on the Washington D.C. hand gun ban. Of course I got the judgement right but I have no idea about their logic yet. I haven't read the opinion and will try to over the weekend.

Is it me or is it a disturbing trend that the number of rulings that are 5-4? It's obvious the Court has become an ideological battleground. Ideally the Court should be comprised of the most noble, wisest and fairest judges in the land. They should base their decisions on the facts of the case and not their political leanings. Instead the President nominates someone who he and his party believe will tow the company line. If the other party hold the Senate majority, a compromise must be found. Actually that's probably a good thing but chances are the candidate will still lean to the political side of the President.

In any case, I'm glad they upheld the right to bear arms. In reading the D.C. ordinance, it was just ridiculous. I believe in reasonable controls on guns. For example, who really needs to own an assault rifle or grenade launcher? I think it's reasonable for people to own guns for protection as well as hunting rifles. An outright ban did nothing to bring the D.C. crime rate down.

So buy up those guns and enjoy your right to bear arms!

I'm Calling My Shot

2008-06-20T22:12:00.000-05:00

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I'm not sure when the Supreme Court ruling on the Washington D.C. hand gun ban is suppose to come down. However, I'm calling my shot now.

The Supreme Court will rule the ban unconstitutional. At least that's my landmark decision. Screw what everybody else says. I'm right, everybody else is wrong.

In reality this is one thing I've turned over and over in my mind. I've read legal opinions, articles and just about anything I could read on both sides of the issue. Does the Second Amendment apply only to a militia or to private citizens? After reading I still came to the same conclusion. Nobody really knows.

Some claim the intent of the original writers was to have state militias. Others make the argument that the arms should stay in the hands of the citizens to guarantee against the tyranny of government.

I think in this case, the Court should come down in favor of the people. I think the key phrase is "the rights of the people." The rights of the people should supersede all other rights. The law of Washington D.C. infringes on those rights.

Instead of outright bans the laws should be written to say who cannot own a gun. The target of laws should be on who lost the right to own and bear arms. Felons, mental patients, violent offenders should not be allowed to own guns. The Washington D.C. ban just eliminates the right for all in it's jurisdiction. The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be...deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." In this case a blanket is thrown over everyone and the liberty stated in the Fourth Amendment is taken away. If a person breaks a law, is tried and convicted of breaking the law and the law punishes that person by taking away the right to own a gun then due process is served. Otherwise the outright ban is taking away the liberty to own guns from all citizens. Due process is entirely bypassed.

I have no legal training. I maybe entirely wrong on my understanding of due process and how it applies to this case. This is just something I've tried to come to an understanding about and make my own conclusion by following logic.

The decision of the Court is anticipated to be historic. It could have far reaching implications on laws that limit or ban guns. Or the Court could punt and make a narrow ruling with out effecting other standing laws.

HIllarly Clinton Done, Natural Disasters, Misbehaving Mom

2008-06-13T15:57:00.000-05:00

The Monkee Cage has been quiet lately. Not much has caught my attention to write about.

Hillary Clinton finally stepped out of the presidential race. I was pulling for her to win the nomination over Barak Obama. I think she brings more to the table than Obama. Albeit that experience comes via her husband and the people that served under his presidency. However Obama is running his campaign as he's the candidate of change. Democratic voters have spoken and cast the parties lot with Obama. My hope now is that Clinton supporters get behind Obama and put him in the White House. I'm still not sold on him completely but I think he's a better alternative than John McCain. In the future I'm have to study McCain's positions versus those of Obama. I'll post more blogs as the race progresses.

Midwest storms

What is going on with the midwest? I've lost track of how many tornadoes have ripped through the region. I don't think there is a state in the interior that doesn't border the Atlantic that hasn't been spared a storm or tornado.

Then the horrible news comes two nights ago that a tornado hit a Boy Scout camp and killed four of the scouts in Iowa. Then as the news settles in a "500 year flood" hits the state.

From the Midwest tornadoes to the China earthquakes to the Myanmar cyclones, it appears that the number of natural disasters is unusually high. According to a Fox New article there is nothing out of the ordinary. All these disasters are in line with previous years.

The article sites a metric used to measure criteria to disasters:
"EM-DAT, the OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, tracks natural disasters in which either 10 or more people were killed, 100 or more people were affected, a State of Emergency was declared, or there was a call for international assistance."

Since 1960 there has been an uprise in the number of natural disasters measured by the above criteria. However the increase has been attributed to better reporting and monitoring methods.

I can some what buy into the argument. Science and technology has increased exponentially since the 1960s. The rise of the internet and other forms of communication also contribute to the perceived increase in disasters. We no longer have to wait for the nightly news or the newspaper the next day to find out what's going on in the world. One click of an internet browser to any news site provides near instantaneous information. Camera phones and wireless internet options have turned almost anyone on the scene as a reporter.

Most people think economic factors when the term globalization is mentioned. The same concept can be applied to news and communication. When disaster strikes Japan we get the news faster and with more sources. People on the ground are adding to the flow of information streaming in.

Teen Sex Romp

In the what were they thinking category, two women stand accused of throwing a sex party. Sex romps are nice but when the involve 14 to 16 year old boys. The Smoking Gun reports, that Angela Honeycutt assaulted teen boys at the home of Lynne Long. Honeycutt is 28 and Long is 45. The party was held at Longs house. Long allegedly approved of Honeycutt's behavior. Honeycutt allegedly stripped and danced for the boys while talking dirty with them. The charges also allege that Honeycutt engaged with sex in the shower with a 15 year old and had sexual contact with a 14 year old. Furthermore, Long is alleged to have encouraged the boys to listen in on the bedroom door where Honeycutt was engage another boy in sex.

I just have to wonder what's going on through these women's minds. What on earth were two women doing having sex with kids. How can a mother, Long's son was the host of the party, encourage sex for her kid's friends. We all know teen boys are walking hormones but that they are not mature enough to handle being assaulted by older women. The may be horny kids but mentally they can't handle what's going on. I know men are thinking "yeah if the was me I wouldn't say a thing." I seriously doubt when any of us was 14 we could handle having sex with an older woman. What's worse is the mother of one of the boys condones the behavior in her house. She intentionally wanted a woman to come into her house be a sex show for her son and his friends. There's no other word to describe this behavior other than twisted.

Something isn't clicking quiet right in these women's heads. If they want young men there are plenty of 18 plus year old guys who would jump their bones. I'm all for two consenting adults having sex all they want. What they do in the privacy of their own home is there business. Kids is another story though. People need to show some common sense and responsibility in what they do.

Pakistani makes deal with militants, Nepal politics and Hillary stand down

2008-05-28T16:30:00.000-05:00

Head line from an AP release:
Pakistan: New Peace Deal with Militants

When was the last time a militant group lived up to their end of a deal? All the Pakistani government did was give the militants free reign to do what ever they want without interference. The article states the the government wants to end extremism. All the Pakistani government is doing is promising not to attack the militants. The militants are now free to focus their hatred else where. No doubt they will turn their attacks across the border into Afghanistan.

These deals do nothing but get the Pakistani forces off the back of the militants and vice versa. Pakistan has pretty much seceded control of the tribal areas. In these areas, Pakistan exerts no control. The Taliban, Al-Qaida and other Muslim militant tribal groups run the show. Pakistan also forbids the U.S. to hunt terrorists in these regions. Many speculate Osama bin Laden is hiding the Pakistani tribal lands.

Nepalese Evict King

Nepal's national assembly will evict King Gyanendra after they declare Nepal a republic. After the declaration he will have 15 days to move out of the imperial palace. The ruling family has been in place for over two hundred years. In the recent past, the King stayed out of politics. However after King Gyanendra ascended to the throne he took full control. The royal family was massacred in a shooting at the palace.

Nepal has been unstable for years. Maoists rebels fought an insurgency with the goal of creating a communist state. The King was forced to relinquish absolute control after widespread protests two years ago. The Maoists agreed to cease fighting during a peace process that allowed for elections.

The Maoists hold the most seats in the assembly but are having trouble forming a government. Now that they are in power I wonder how they will handle it? Will they continue to allow elections that put them in power? Or will they try to take absolute control and turn Nepal into a socialist state?

Give it Hillary

Will Hilary Clinton please stand down? The time has come for her to step aside and allow the Democratic Party focus on winning the White House. She's put up a good fight but odds are long that she will win the nomination. Obama Barak leads in the delegate count and more of the so called super delegates are moving into his camp. While the Dems continue to eat their own, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has started to focus campaigning and fund raising for his presidential bid. The Democratic infighting is costing valuable time and money. So come on Hillary, give it up.

Samar Saed Abdullah

2008-05-16T02:42:00.000-05:00

This time last year there were articles and news stories about Samar Saed Abdullah awaiting execution in Iraq. Now that a year has passed, I've been looking for any news of Abdullah's fate.

She's awaiting execution for murdering three relatives. She had a one day trial and she claims her confessions were coerced under torture. Execution day in Iraq is Wednesday. Every Wednesday the condemned are called out of their cells and taken to the gallows. A prisoner never knows in advance if they will go to the gallows that Wednesday.

As for Abdullah, I cannot find any information on her ever since her story broke last year. I find it sad that for one day or week news agencies were reporting on her fate but there has no follow up since. I've scoured the net for information and nothing has come up. I don't know if she's alive or been taken to the gallows.

A website that existed about her case is in gone. The online petition to save her life is gone. Did she go quietly to the gallows? I can't find any information to her fate.

I've contacted Amnesty International for information about her. Hopefully I'll get a response.

What Are You People Thinking?

2008-05-07T22:41:00.000-05:00

I'm cruising myspace.com checking out the models. Hey, I like to look at beautiful, sexy women. I added this model to my friends just for laughs. I think she's nice looking but that's about it. Miss Priss. Now scroll down to "About Me" section and there is an Amazon wish list. It's a list of things Miss Priss wants people to buy for her. She wants her fans to go to Amazon and buy her presents. I'm not hating on her. If she gets fans to buy her stuff then more power to her. I however didn't actually think people would buy things for her. Some of the things she wants are not cheap. She actually has LCD TVs listed. Big expensive TVs.

I thought nothing more of it until today. That's when I saw her blog titled "This is why I love myspace friends..." Evidently fans bought her stuff for her birthday. I didn't see any of the expensive items. Then again I don't know how much the shoes she got go for. Here's what I don't understand. Why would any joe shmoe average myspace user buy her gifts? It makes absolutely no sense. Are they hoping to meet, date or sleep with her? I don't think she's going to track any of these fans down and personally thank them. Why would you buy a complete stranger gifts? She's a complete stranger. Sure she posts items about herself but do we really know anything about her? I'm positive she's a model and a good looking one at that. But we just don't know if all the stuff she writes about herself in her myspace is true. She may be the sweetest person in the world but we just don't know.

I'd actually be scared of any stranger that bought me gifts. The internet is full of weirdos and psychos. I'm going to take a wild guess about fans sending gifts. They aren't normal. They probably don' t have both oars in the water. Something just doesn't click in my mind about this. I imagine a nerdy introvert sitting in front of a computer thinking,"If I send her these things she'll like me." It isn't going to happen freak. She, on the other hand, has nothing to lose. She's not posting personal or contact information where she can be tracked down. She gets some free loot and thinks nothing more of it. It's a nice racket on her part.

I'll keep her on my friend list cause she posts funny shit but I'm not sending her shit.

The other night on Comedy Central's The Root of All Evil the topic was myspace friends. The argument of one debater was that myspace friends demeans the definition of "friend." He argued that they really aren't friends. Can you call them up in the middle of the night? Will they come and bail you out of jail? Will they come pick you up from the airport? Sure Tila Tequila will counsel you through your break up.

In light of this argument, I decided to take inventory of my friends list on myspace.

Real living friends - 4, old high school buddies
Guitars - 1
Cartoon characters - 8
Figments of someone's imagination - 6 (Phil Hendrie characters), 1 (Borat)
Actual people that I know only through myspace and not in person - 3
Actress/model (non porn category) - 7
Porn stars - 3
Schools - 2
Musicians/bands - 3
Business - 1
Comedian - 1
Newspaper columnist - 1

I'm sure I left something or someone off. I was just interested to see how my friends broke down after watching the Comedy Central show.

Judas Priest, Sick Twisted Austrian Man

2008-05-01T01:14:00.000-05:00

The much talked about rumored Judas Priest album is finally coming out. They announced the released date of June 16 in Europe and June 17 for the US. It's a concept album on Nostradamus. It's a double CD since they said they couldn't fit all they wanted onto one disc.

I'm a big Judas Priest fan but somehow I get a sinking feeling about this project. First off Judas Priest has never done a concept album. When a band departs from their sound or tries something different it's usually a recipe for disaster. Second, just how much material can you write about Nostradamus? He is fascinating and the debate rages if his writings really predicted the future or if we are just looking at events and fitting them to vague predictions. Finally, as much as a fan of the group, let's be honest. Their latest releases haven't been up to snuff. I never let "Angel of Retribution" grow on me. The Ripper Owen stuff is okay but not classic Priest. I'll probably break my CD buying moratorium and purchase the CDs. It's been years since I bought a CD but since I'm a fan I will plunk down the cash.

How sick is Josef Fritzl? I can't get my mind around how twisted Fritzl is. He imprisoned his own daughter for 24 years in a windowless cell. He raped her and fathered seven children of hers. Three of the children lived upstairs with their father/grandfather and grandmother. Three of the poor souls lived with the mother and had never seen the light of day. God only knows how messed up those children are. One of the seven died in infancy and Fritzl admitted to burning the body. The children were 19, 18 and 5. Fritzl claimed that his daughter left the other three children with him and ran away. He forced her to write letters that said she ran away and didn't want to be found.

The depth and consequences of this horrible story just boggle my mind. Here is a man, for lack of a better word, that imprisoned his own daughter. He then raped her repeatedly and fathered children with her. The CNN article I linked to described her, Elisabeth, as disturbed. Disturbed is probably the understatement of the decade. Destroyed emotionally, physically and mentally is a more appropriate description. I use the word destroyed because I can't comprehend how it is possible that she will ever recover from this ordeal. There is no way her psyche can be repaired. No amount of counseling and therapy will restore this poor woman to what she was before this demon locked her away. I only imagine she will have nightmares for the rest of her life. She will relive all those horrible days she was locked up forever. Nothing will probably relive her of that experience.

Imagine the children that were locked up with her. They had no interaction with any other humans other than each other. Locked up in a dungeon without knowing what it is to play with other children. They never even saw the light of day. I only can guess about what state they are in. They have to be so stunted emotionally. The 18 and 19 year old probably have severe mental disorders. There may be some hope for the 5 year old. Maybe since he's still young that he can he can rebound from this. I don't think he'll be completely normal but with counseling and therapy he can grow up to function in society. The older ones probably have the mental and emotional make up of young children. I haven't read anything about their state yet. It will be interesting to find out what they are like.

I can't even think of a fitting punishment for Fritzl. Nothing that can be done to him could compare to the pain and suffering he inflicted on his own daughter and children.

3:10 To Yuma

2008-04-27T21:02:00.000-05:00

Great movie until the end. What the hell was that ending. The writer really expected me to believe that a nasty outlaw like Ben Wade all of a sudden wants to go to jail where more than likely they are going to stretch his neck? He gives up just so the hero will look good in the eye's of his kid. I can suspend belief to an extent but that is just asking too much. I could have lived with just about any ending but that one. I wanted Christian Bale's character, Dan Evans, to turn Wade in. I could even live with Evans dying to achieve his goal. I could even live with Evan's kid killing Wade to rescue his dad. I could live with Wade's gang killing Evans to rescue him. I could Wade killing Evans but Wade caught by Evan's kid. I just can't live with the idea that Wade would go freely, kill his own gang and turn himself end. Goes to show a great movie can be ruined by a horribly unbelievable ending.

Searching for a Web Host

2008-04-24T22:42:00.000-05:00

Well I'm looking for a decent host for my website. The free ones from Google and Microsoft suck. I tried the pay one from Microsoft too. That one really sucks. It was very limited in what you could do with it. You were stuck with predefined layouts, backgrounds and colors. I want something simple so I can create a home page and start building from there. I want the ability to create the lay out the way I want it.

So the great web hosting hunt continues.

A correction

2008-04-22T13:37:00.000-05:00

Someone corrected me on how I attack one of VenomfangX's arguments. The edit starts in bold.

Creationism Pseudoscience

2008-04-19T15:49:00.000-05:00

I kind of like the title of my last entry. "Manifesto of the Pervert." I'm not even sure what I meant by that. It just sounded right.

You can see I've made little progress in building my website. Instead I've been watching debates between evolution science and creation "science". For some reason I've been fascinated with the arguing. It's not even a debate. Sadly for the creationists they just can't argue with the evolutionists. Basically creationists argument boils down to "Well God did it" or "Evolution is just a theory" and a bunch of pseudoscience.

VenomFangX is the biggest user of nonsense to support creation.

He's also pretty arrogant and smug with his arguments but completely illogical or wrong. His overall argument is that evolution cannot be explained scientifically so therefore God made everything. Instead he counters that the Bible and God are supported by science. He goes on to "prove" his theory with flawed logic, bad science, flat out errors and nothing that holds up to scientific review.

In one of his videos he makes the claim that he can prove God's existence by looking at the solar system. He opens his argument with the following: the solar system is to perfect to happen by chance i.e. the Big Bang. He further states, and truthfully, that the earth is in perfect spot for life. However his argument breaks down at this point. He states that the earth cannot be in this ideal spot by chance. Therefore God created it and put it there. That's his proof of God. He sadly claims that since evolutionists can't explain it then it's there because God wants it there.

When he does try to use science to counter evolution he falls flat on his face. He starts off with a wrong fact: that earth is the only place in the solar system where water is found. He simply states that how is it that there is only water on earth and no where else on the solar system? Is it just by accident? No, it's not by accident. God put the water on earth. He just chooses to ignore that there is water on the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, the comets are made of ice and that Mars has water too.

To further show he has no clue, just watch the first two minutes of this video.

At the very least, the origins of the Ica Stones is unknown. No one has been able to prove them as genuine. Click on Ica stones for an alternate view of the Ica stones. Basically no one knows their origins and whether they are genuine. The stones simply cannot be used to support a theory.

Once again he torpedoes his own claims in the first two minutes of his presentation.

His proof is a CNN article about a study. He selectively quotes the first sentence of the article and that stands as the proof of his argument. The problem here is that we don't know what the rest of the article says. For all we know the rest of the article can go on to say that the study he quotes is flawed. Or it maybe a legitimate statement but since he doesn't show what the rest of the article is about we cannot see for ourselves. We have to take his word for it. If he is going to use an article to support his claims, he should give us a reference where we can read the article and see the entire context for ourselves. Referencing a source is basic high school research academics.

To continue to show how flawed his logic is I'll use the same quote he uses from CNN. The opening line from the article CNN is "Dinosaurs shared the earth for millions of years with the species that were their ancestors, a new study shows." He claims that the earth is only 6000 years old and that all dinosaurs lived at the same time. However to back up his claim he quotes an article that sinks his own argument. Notice that the quote clearly contradicts his claim that the earth is 6000 years old. He could probably come back and say no he was only using the quote to demonstrate that there is proof that all the dinosaurs lived at the same time and that how long ago they all lived doesn't matter. However, you cannot use one part of a statement to support your theory when one other part clearly contradicts another part of your argument. That is selectively using what fits your argument and ignoring the parts that don't. A logic fallacy.
Edit 4-22-08
I stand corrected in my logic argument in the preceeding paragragh. However VenomFangX is still wrong in his argument. Here's how it was explained to me:
As you describe the argument, the fallacy committed appears to be that of begging the question.

The second proposition doesn't necessarily say anything about all dinosaurs; even if it did, it would still require context and support.

The first proposition is simply a more specific statement of the conclusion, requiring even more proof than the conclusion; thus, it “begs the question.”

It is not a logical contradiction to say that they could have walked the earth for millions of years and walked the earth 6000 years ago. The absurd notion that they walked the earth 6000 years ago is contradicted by other evidence, but not by the "CNN statement".

One person made a response video to VenamfangX's claims. It's short but it complete debunks him.

Finally, this one is my personal favorite. Ray Comfort and former "Growing Pains" star Kirk Cameron use a banana to prove God. Never mind that the banana in this form is a result of man domesticating it for consumption. To give Comfort credit, he owned up to his fallacy of the banana argument.

I'm not anti religion at all. I think people should be free to believe in whatever deity, religion and faith that they want. What concerns me is that some religious people want to teach creationism and intelligent design as science. They firmly believe that their pseudoscience is fact and at least deserves to be taught as an alternate theory to evolution in science classes. If they want to believe in God's creation and that the earth is only 6000 years old and dinosaurs walked the earth with humans, I'm fine with that. Just don't teach it as fact in classrooms.

Manifesto of the Pervert

2008-04-16T01:23:00.000-05:00

Actually I have no manifesto. I've been toying with the idea of starting up another website. I let my original one go dark back in 2002. I just kind of stopped updating and never thought twice about it after a while. So I thought I'd give it ago again.

I'm not sure what type of content I'll have in it. The last one had all kinds of crap that I felt like putting on the web. From sports to politics to anything I found humorous. I think this blog is the jumping off point to my new website.

So over the next few weeks I'll start building my new insignificant presence on the web.