Profane Observation

Hey! I wasn't driving!

2010-08-17T08:37:00.007-05:00

So you ask yourself "Who is the dumbass moron who thought up the traffic signal cameras?" Not any one person, I'm sure. I think it was a collective effort by states whose greed far outweigh their sincerity. It is typical of governments everywhere. Somebody got a pat on the back, a hearty handshake, or maybe even a bonus for coming up with a plan to screw YOU. That is your reward for paying their wages and supporting their pensions. Do I sound like a radical yet? Well, maybe, but I'm pretty much a law-abiding citizen though.

The way the traffic signal camera is supposed to work is that it takes a photo of your car and license plate after the light turns red and you have gone through the intersection. This is a spin-off idea from the tollroad system to catch people at the unattended toll booths that blow through without paying. However, some people claim that the camera is snapping them when the light is still yellow. And they get away with this by wearing a ball cap and looking down as they go through the light. This prevents positive identification of the driver. Cases are being tossed by lenient judges, and the towns and cities that spent all the money on these systems are crying in their beer. Some are admitting that it was a mistake altogether and dismantling their cameras.

But don't get your hopes up. That is less than one half of one percent of all the cameras out there, and they just keep putting up more of them. Economically it costs far less to send you a ticket in the mail than it does for a police officer to stand out there and write you one. And you don't get the opportunity to argue with him on the street, not that it would do you any good anyway. But the foopah is being remedied by changing the camera angle so that the traffic signal, clearly showing red, is also in the picture. Profile cameras may also be installed that take your picture from the side. So go ahead and go to court. You are gonna lose....guaranteed!

I agree with those who say they aren't necessary. I mean let's face it, has it really been a problem that made the nightly news? Nope, just a revenue generator like towns that require vehicle tax stickers, dog and cat licenses, permits for garage sales, and charge fees for tree cutting or putting up an awning or a shed. And then there are fines for silly assed things like letting your grass grow too long, shoveling snow into the street, putting your garbage can out too early, and a multitude of other stupid crap. They are just revenue kickers to keep the coffers filled.

How about a REAL traffic problem like tailgaters. I was recently in Ohio, probably the tailgater capital of the U.S. I always obey the speed limit in Ohio after one time I was stopped by a state trooper for going 3 MPH over the limit on U.S. 30. This trooper went down into the median grass and tore ruts in it just to catch me doing 3 miles an hour more than I should have. I was able to convince "her" that I had my cruise control on and was unaware that I was speeding. The odd thing was that she looked at my wife and said "Is that true, ma'am?" That kinda pissed me off. Anyhow, I don't speed in Ohio.

But getting back to tailgaters. Now, I can understand how people can get in a hurry, with their own agendas, and when they see a plate from a different state they figure you don't know where you are or what you are doing. (What they don't know is that I'm originally from Ohio, and I know exactly where I am and what I'm doing.) These idiots crawl right up your ass, so close you can't see their front license plate in your mirror. In a lot of states that is a traffic ticket. I was in Ohio for 4 days, and in those 4 days I was tailgated 22 times. I counted them. Out of those 22 tailgaters, 16 of them were talking on their GD cell phones, 18 of 22 were women. Holy crap! Twelve of these women had children in the car, and 9 of them were in car seats.

There seems to be a fading line in the education processes in this country, especially when it comes to driving skills. I actually knew and had it out with a driver education instructor who was teaching his students to drive with their left foot on the brake pedal. For those of you who are oblivious, driving with your left foot on the brake not only wears your brakes out quicker, but your brake lites are always on. The guy behind you has no idea when you are stopping. If you drive this way, you are an idot! I asked him how in the hell he ever got that job. Turns out he was a gym teacher who couldn't find a gym teaching job. Schools apparently don't care who they get for a driving instructor as long as they are brave enough to weather the psycholgy that goes with it.

So, anyways, traffic laws are born both out of necessity and convenience. A lot of them are unnecessary, but very convenient as a far as revenue collection goes. I do believe that habitual traffic law breakers should have their licenses taken away because they have already proven their inability to comply with corrective measures. However, I don't believe in traffic cameras because they invade your privacy. Inside the closed doors of your vehicle, it's a private world. Well, for the most part anyway. Happy motoring!

Later

OMG

2010-08-10T08:54:00.005-05:00

OH.....MY.....GOD!! And I say God with the intent that it suggests there actually "is" a God. What has happened to the world? It's up for grabs, that's for sure! What is it that our government is trying to do to us? The high unemployment rate, the f..king health care disaster that is ALREADY NOT WORKING, the soaring crime rate, and the business community going to hell in a handbasket. And how about our national debt extending to our children's grandchildren's children, and beyond?

If there is a great world destroying meteor, now would be a good time for it to come. I have not written for a while because of all the bullshit the world is going through the last few months. I thought I would give it some time to stabilize, but guess what....! Anybody want to buy a boat, a car, a house? Will you come to my pitiful garage sale? Well, I'm not desperate enough to start selling all my belongings, but a lot of folks are, and they are doing it. So what happens whe the money runs out? It's anybody's guess.

I'm pretty sure the outcome of the mid-term elections in the United States are going to be anti-democrat. Maybe not so much republican, but definately anti-dem. This is America and we are going to go with whatever works best for us. I pretty much think we have already decided we don't want to accept the "European model" the president keeps blathering about. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that model benefits only its creators and maintainers. I forsee a lot of accusing and investigations into vote tampering in the coming election process. When the dems start losing, they will almost assuredly blame the republicans. To bad they don't have guts to look in the mirror to find out who the bad guys really are. Now I sound like a staunch republican. But I really am for whoever gives me the best deal.

After working for the last 45 years, I want to relax and enjoy my retirement. But, it would seem I am not going to be allowed to do that, along with a multitude of other people in my age bracket (55-65). I will now have to work until I die just to survive! After paying for health insurance policies, we will have to join the cat food eating club to exist. I may be exaggerating a bit, but it supports my point, which is that from now on, if you are not creative with money, and find ways to hide it, the government will surely take it from you. Then you die.

So, as I go to work, thinking about how I had to add another five year postponment to my retirement plans, I am not whistling happy tunes any more. I see working doom, no longer on top, but rather just another number in the humbling, dirt eating world of subservience to last to yet another later date to the peace that I and so many others deserve. Unless, of couse, I win the lottery. Well, we all need an ultimate goal, right? I ain't holdin' my breath on that one.

Later

What the F**K!

2009-11-05T05:22:00.005-06:00

I know I have been away for a while. But with everything that's going on in the world and the country these days, it's really hard to focus on one topic for singular discussion (destruction). So, I reckon I will just have to attack group ideals rather than particular interests. It is just so overwhelming the flurry of political bullshit that's being shoved down our throats every day.

When the president in his campaign for that office declared he was out to change things, I don't think the general public was listening very closely. I was very pissed and livid about how the voters dismissed and overlooked the true intention of the regime's goals. If you look at the fact that the senate and the house carry a vast majority of seats, how can you not realize that any decisions made by this administration are going to anything but lop-sided. I'm not defending the Bush administration, because they made their share of unpopular decisions, but I am saying that the current governing body is going down a very dark path indeed. When government starts telling their people that they are going to severely restrict and control aspects of their lives "for their own good", you are stepping very close to fascism and national socialism. They cannot expect a democracy to sit back and allow this to just happen without a fight. People are not willing to just pull down their pants ans stick their asses in the air.

I believe the following things:

1) I believe the government is going to make everyone in this country pay dearly for less freedom than we already have. This so-called national health care bill is a travesty. At 2,000 pages, no one has read it all the way through. I don't believe anyone ever will. It will annihilate the Hippocratic oath by denying doctor-patient confidentiality, and it cuts medicare and medicaid benefits by billions of dollars. They are adding more to this "bill" every day. And the more they add, the more our senior citizens are completely screwed! It's like seniors are being punished for everything the politicians are actually responsible for perpetrating.

2) I believe this administration will sabotage the American free enterprise system, and we will all die a horrible financial death. You can't simply print more money without a backup reserve. By regulating private business, big or small, governmet cuts its own throat. Free enterprise is what keeps your economy afloat, not beaurocracy. Profits make jobs, not government regulations.

3) I believe this middle east bullshit needs to end with decisive victory. We must win this. If we don't we will be vulnerable to attack forever. You can't treat this like Viet Nam, period! By building the USS New York, we have defied those who would otherwise think we weren't serious about our freedom. The New York is a symbol of democracy and our right to defend ourselves. But the current regime is showing its blind side to our enemies. This must not be allowed to happen.

I am so dazed and confused about the government right now, it's hard to think about any one issue that stands out over other issues. The price of gasoline isn't even a real problem anymore. I heard it said on a news talk show by a conservative that the incumbant will push issues relentlessly until the public is so tired of hearing about it that they will just accept it rather than oppose it or otherwise deal with it. My God! I hope the citizens of this nation have not lost their will to fight against policies that are so obviously wrong, and will literally kill them in the end, one way or another. Do you get it? Well...do you?!

I realize there are staunch democrats and republicans in this country; always have been, and always will be. But this isn't about what party you belong to any more. You can't just blindly go to the polls nowadays complacently trusting in whatever party you belong to. It's a hell of a lot deeper than the Nixon-Kennedy pro-politic of the sixties. You have to look at what you are voting for and not who. It's like a football game. Right now one side has the ball and they are running away with it. The opposition absolutley must stop them, or the other side will surely win the game. You just think about that. It's your life and your freedom that is at stake here. You shouldn't laugh it off. It really is serious.

Later

Even keel

2009-08-08T06:05:00.003-05:00

Is the economy coming back up? Who knows. The "experts" say either yes or no depending on who you listen to. The NYSE and the NASDAQ have a positive outlook for a Bullish market. But then, they almost always do, don't they? More conservative opinions lie with low level spending on a personal level, but economists indicate that people are beginning to venture out and start spending again. It's a slow process, but eventually the economic strain will lessen and the money will start flowing more readily. It always does. And this is a relatively short recession to boot compared to those we have experienced in the past.

The really big problem we have now is how to recover the national debt. Ranging in the trillions, recovery will not be seen in my lifetime, and I'm 59. What will be next? More debt in the Godzillions? I have nothing but pity for our children who will be burdened with the full brunt of this economic disaster. Excuse me, but I don't believe that you can save an economy by spending more money than you don't even have in the first place. We are tapped out, and we are relying on the international community to bail us out. Why would they do that? We can't even get countries like Japan, a world economic leader, to pay us back for our contribution to their economic recovery after WWII. Communist China (and I use the term 'communist' loosley) is more capitalist than we are. But do you think we could get any money from them? Not likely.

There are a few countries in the world who are patiently waiting for the United States to economically implode. Among these are the Communist nations of China and North Korea. Russia also is waiting in the wings, and is slowly rebuilding its formidable military, for what reason is anybody's guess. Hardliners in Russia would like to recover and re-institute the USSR and become the super-power they once were. The ability of the U.S. to prevent that has weakened considerably, and I fear that soon we will no longer be on top of the hill. Those of you who say that will never happen need only look to history. Every nation that aspires to control it all has failed, the longest running being the Roman empire.

The prospect of world domination by authority other than the U.S. leaves our military leaders in a continuous DEFCON3 stance, poised to react to anything and everything. Stabilization of the world economy is the key to relieving the tension and relaxing to DEFCON1 mentality. With a little skill and a lot of luck, our freinds on Wall Street and the Euromarket will be able to stabilize the world soon. Of course, nothing will ever stop the middle east BS, except 'you know what'. If that happens, we have a whole new set of problems. Later.

My kingdom for a smooth road

2009-07-03T07:45:00.005-05:00

I am back from a Colorado vacation that consisted of going to Mt. Rushmore in the Black Hills of South Dakota, then to the Crazy Horse monument, on to the the Devil's Tower in Wyoming and ending up just a little north of Denver where we visited relatives for few days. All in all it was a pretty good trip except for the dreaded road construction. Even though, road work out west usually means you can still drive 55-65 mph through the construction zones without getting nailed for speeding. And I really didn't appreciate that until I came back through Illinois.

Just what in hell is their problem anyway? I have never been able to figure out why Illinois' roads are so friggin' horrible. I have a theory. Illinois uses road work to stem the unemployment rate. I believe they wait until a road is so mangled, and people complain about it so badly that they have no choice but to fix it. Well, hey, a road crew needs a lot of people to get the work done, not to mention countless truck drivers and other contracted support services. That's my theory. The ironic thing is the residents get taxed for it, and they also get inconvenienced for it.

Yeah, ok, this happens in every state. It just seems that in Illinois it's more of a hassle. For instance, the construction zone speed limit on an interstate highway way out in bum**** Egypt somewhere (not Chicago) is 45 mph when it could be 55 or 60. Anyway, the speed limit is 45, so why am I doing 35 in a long line of traffic?! No one knows the answer. Most would say without hesitation that it is trucks. Not so. I just drove a little over 3,000 miles with maybe 250 miles of construction zones and the trucks were definatley in a bigger hurry than me. So it ain't trucks folks.

I have another theory. People in Illinois can't drive worth a damn! They panic when they see a police car. If you ain't speedin', you don't gotta slow down just because there's a cop sittin' there. That tells me a couple of different things; you are not paying attention, you're afraid of cops, you don't have a driver's license or car insurance, in which case you deserve the damn ticket anyhow. It's quite comical actually. The road crew has to leave at least 8 ft of lane width for a single lane, yet people driving cars like a Toyota Carolla or a Ford Focus feel the need to apply their brakes and slow down yet another 5 or 10 mph. Why? Who the hell knows. I know plenty of truck drivers who can drive a tractor-trailer rig though a single contruction lane without slowing one bit. I know 'cuz I used to be one of them. However, I do give people pulling campers a wide berth because they don't pull that thing everyday.

I have driven all over this country, and I can honestly tell you that Illinois has the worst roads in any state I have ever been in. There has to be a reason for it. I have yet another theory. Illinois dumps salt on the roads in winter. Salt is very bad for asphalt, especially cheap asphalt. You know the state is going to contract to the lowest bidder. I wonder if their contract stipulates the grade quality of the materials to be used. Hey, c'mon, Illinois has had a crooked Secretary of State and a crooked governor all within the last ten years. I'm not accusing anyone of any thing, just throwing brain stimulants on the table. Ahem...getting back to asphalt. as a comparison, Wisconsin next door there doesn't use salt and I find the roads in that state to be in rather good shape. A lot of other states don't use salt either, and their roads are also decent.

So why, then, does Illinois keep using salt? Contracts with big salt producers perhaps? I know a certain major brand name salt company has a huge warehouse in Chicago, but I can't factually say whether or not there is any contractual relation with Illinois state controllers to buy salt exclusively from them. But it does make one ponder the possibility. Are Illinois residents paying to keep companies in business when the products or services they provide aren't necessary? (Excuse me, are you pissed off yet?) Every state does that, but this one area is sooooo obvious, isn't it?

Anyway, despite the high cost of fuel these days, I still enjoy driving on a road trip. I just try to stay out of Illinois as much as possible. Later.

Texas Holdum...

2009-06-12T01:57:00.004-05:00

Holy Crap! I was just watching CNN and they were doing a story on one county in Texas that is profiting big time on the state's seizure laws, and apparently has been for quite a while. The sheriff's deputies in Kimball County patrol the highways and bi ways with more in mind than just enforcing traffic laws. Kimball County seizes property and cash assets from violators and "criminals" in the millions annually. The profits are distributed among the local justice facilities for training purposes. The former district attorney for Kimball County (I forgot his name) takes annual vacations to Hawaii on the county's seizure assets dime which also pays for his family and gives him extra spending cash. The former district attorney told a CNN reporter that is all in accordance with Texas law and is as legal as the day is long. He says he isn't doing anything wrong.

And if that wasn't bad enough, this happens in more states than just Texas. Reports have been filtering in from all over the country about cars and personal property seized by law enforcement never to be returned the owners. Cars are sold or are detailed and repainted and set up for police use, or they are auctioned off along with personal property, all of which the owner will never recover. The controversy is not so much about the lawful seizure of automobiles and property in criminal investigations that clearly prove intent of a crime, but rather the fact that laws are so vaguely written as to allow seizures of a questionable nature based solely on suspicion that crime may have been committed. CNN shows a video of two sheriff's deputies wrestling a man to the ground after stopping him for driving in the passing lane too long. They seized and towed his vehicle. But in this case he was vindicated by the video in which the courts believed the deputies were too aggressive.

If a person does get his property back he is subject to paying the storage fees for the property or the owner of the impound lot will place a lien on it and file for a lost or a junk title (in the case of a vehicle). This includes cars, trucks, boats, campers, motorcycles, utility trailers, and other recreational, personal or commercial vehicles. The process can sometimes take months or years for property to be released. In either event, one Texas senator is out to revise the seizure laws in his state and make them more specific. I am wondering if this one story is enough to wake up other states to this problem (and I hesitate to use the word 'problem') and revise their laws as well. I think seizing the assets of a drug dealer who flashes his money and property around is just fine. But I don't think law enforcement should be able to seize someones property and rip it apart based solely on suspicion alone, you know, because he looks funny or acts suspiciously.

Personally, I think laws like that should be regulated on a federal level, everybody treated the same. But federal law allows for state's rights so that will never happen. This is yet more the reason people should pay attention when they travel. Drivers from out of state are bigger targets than they think. Later.

Are you qualified?

2009-06-09T04:33:00.003-05:00

Man, have you looked at the job market lately? It's the same old stupid story. You either have to damn near be a professional tradesman, have a college degree, or end up with the shit jobs, or no job. What ever happened to practical application? My personal opinion is that unless you are a nuclear physicist, a doctor or a lawyer, college degrees are just words on fancy paper. And many employers know this already. Yet a college degree is a prerequisite for many positions in the job market today. I have to laugh at that. I know a few college graduates that can't add 2+2, let alone hold a job. And what these employers want to pay college graduates is downright pitiful. I know car salesmen that make three times as much without breaking a sweat.

Before I go any further, let me say I do have a job. It's an office job and I have had it for eighteen years without a college degree. So I'm not bitchin' for myself, but rather all those of you who are struggling to find work. I just read a survey on line that suggests employers are only hiring 10 or 10+ rated prospects, but at the same time 44% of employers can't fill positions in their companies. That's kind of "counter-productive" don't you think? Seems to me that employers should test other waters instead if constantly casting into the same ol' fishin' hole. Not everyone with skills has a college degree. Not everyone can afford to go to college to get a sheepskin to back up their skill.

Back in the olden days, employers used to send talented employees with valued potential to training classes or sometimes would even foot the bill toward further education for employees that showed evidence of being assets to the company. This doesn't happen much anymore because people tend to change jobs out of greed as opposed to being loyal to one employer. I see this all the time. The company sends you to school to sharpen your skills or acquire new ones. Now with the new qualifications you apply to a different company because they offer more money or better benefits. I'm not saying your not entitled to improve your situation, but buy doing that you just screwed the guy who gave you the skill and education. Employers used to make people sign binding contracts in these situations, but found out the hard way that collecting on a breach of contract is more costly than just training other person. I'm sure contracts are still quite prevalent in white collar jobs, but for us blue collar types you have to be qualified from the git-go.

I think it is a real waste to let talented and skilled people go jobless. There is no excuse for it other than greed. Everybody wants more money, more benefits, and more something for nothing. Unions account for a lot of labor problems relating to cost. On the other hand, unions keep employers from becoming slave masters giving the least for the most. But this being a capitalist country, greed will be our constant companion. Those who have money do whatever it takes to keep it or get more of it. Those who struggle to survive are constantly trying to get more to make a better life for themselves. It's a proven fact that when the economy falters crime goes on the rise. Some people feel the only solution to their financial dilemma is to deprive others of their finances. When the economy gets better crime goes down.

Our economic situation now is based on two trains of thought; the former president screwed it up with an unnecessary and very costly war, and the current president is mishandling the situation and making it worse than it was. I watch the economists on CNN and Fox News every day. They argue and throw their opinions around, but no one has come up with a viable solution. I don't think there is one at this point. I wish I had the answer to unemployment. It would make for a much happier and more productive and profitable life for the country. But we have been through this before and made it. All we can do is wait and see. In the meantime, good luck with your job hunting. Later.

And the winner is....

2009-06-08T04:11:00.002-05:00

Not me, that's for damn sure. Seems unfair doesn't it? You go through all the hassle of licking stamps and putting them all in the right places and then you make sure you mail it on time by the deadline. Yep, those damned mail order contests. You know what I'm talking about. You get all caught up in it based on the philosophy "if you don't enter, you can't win", then when you don't you call them names and comment about the legitimacy of the company. Some people even threaten to sue. You can't go crazy with it. You have to know when to stop. I actually know people who continually enter these contests and complain constantly about how they are rigged and the winners are all pre-chosen, etc.

One lady I know has been entering a nationally advertised and well known mail order contest for 20 years and has never won. But her outlook is better than most others I have talked to. The big upset for most contestants is the ordering and paying for merchandise (often for more than you can buy it at your local Walmart store) thinking that somehow that gives them an edge in the contest. Well, if you take the time to read the rules and the entry forms it says right on these documents that placing orders won't improve your chances of winning. Of course the normal reaction to this is that if you don't order merchandise your contest entry goes directly into the shredder.

I can't verify that one way or the other, but these contests are regulated by federal laws that protect the population from fraudulent or deceitful advertising practices. I sound like a commercial don't I? Unlax man, I don't work for any of these contest companies. But I do think that people need to lighten up about it. I mean, come on already! Your chances of winning $1,000,000 are almost 2,000,000 to 1. Stop and think about that. That's two million people. Try to envision that many people standing in line waiting to get paid. Ain't gonna happen. A lot of people enter these contests in desperation thinking they might possibly win a quick fortune and solve all their problems. I say don't quit your day job, dumb ass. Better concentrate more on your job skills.

Do I enter these contests? I sure do. Not very often, but I do it more for a diversion from the mundane than to actually think I could win. I go in with a nonchalant attitude, not caring whether I win or lose. Believe me, this is the only way to do contests and actually enjoy doing them. Doing it any other way will make you crazy. If I win, that's great, but if I lose I don't cry about it. If you order stuff, make sure you have plenty of money to back up your purchases. These companies take a tremendous risk giving instant credit to people they don't know. And don't give me that crap "Well hell, that's their tough luck isn't it?". No it isn't. If you order something, you should pay for it whether you win the contest or not. If you don't then shame on you. That company will track you down and collect their money or prosecute you or both. That's their right under the law. Read the fine print. Nobody ever does.

The bottom line here is that that people need to understand that these contests are exactly that...contests. You enter for a chance to win, but you are competing against millions of other people. If you don't win, don't be a big baby and cry about it. Most people win contests when it's least expected. And yes, they do pay off. You just don't hear about it because you don't pay attention (another huge problem in this country). So if you lose, let it go already! Later.

Jeez...enough already!

2009-06-06T11:53:00.003-05:00

Are you as sick as I am about the price of a gallon of gas? Every day for the last two weeks I have seen the price at the pump increase by 2 to 5 cents. Two weeks ago gas was 40 cents less a gallon than it is today. Instead of slowly enraging us with daily incremental increases, why don't they just come right out and tell us that gas it going to be $4 a gallon by July....again. For the second time in as many years, I have had to cancel a driving vacation trip that I have waited an entire year for because some corporate baboon raised the price of gas again. How many parents have had to tell their children they can't go to Disney World like they were promised because the price of gas went up and now they can't afford to go? How many people plan their vacations carefully just to have their plans blow up in their faces because gas went up again?

The oil companies blame it on "operating costs". Is it my fault one of your tankers sprung a leak and cost a hundred million dollars to clean up? Is it my fault one of your off shore rigs walked a mile and it cost forty million to put it back where it belongs? Is it my fault you tried to cheat the IRS or the securities companies and ended up paying more than you should have? Why should little Jimmy or Sally have to pay for your mistakes? They just want to see Mickey Mouse for chrissake. Because of your bullshit, people are losing their homes, their jobs, their benefits, and don't get me started on those insurance bastards; the other part of the problem, just above the arrogant politicians voting raises for themselves.

And isn't it blatantly ironic that these price increases occur right when it's the most inconvenient for most of the people? I can hear the production and sales VPs now lecturing their marketing staff, "Summertime, man, that's where the money's at! Let's give 'em a false sense of security in the winter, then when summer comes, bam!!, lets nail all those suckers with 4x4s, RVs and boats. We'll by god teach them not to buy that shit! And let those morons buy motorcycles and those little shit box cars that get 60mpg. We'll just raise the price even higher! Don't forget, the sky's the limit on diesel." That's what I envision them doing in their meetings. Do you really think they are looking out for our best interests? Hell no! They are looking out for their own best interests.

If you want my damn money, you need to work for it. I'm not a friggin' charity that you can just dip into whenever you feel like it. Every lower to middle class worker in the country should be screaming this! Once again, we are allowing big business to dictate the quality of our lives. When big business takes over, you lose. With control comes power. With power comes greed. With greed comes corruption. With corruption comes collapse. In 1929 the stock market collapsed. Everyone was poor, except rich people. They were still rich. Why, because their greed caused the crash in the first place. Do you think Rockefeller or Getty worried about the depression? Not much if at all.

But this country will never stand up and protest enough to make any kind of difference. There are always a few crusaders, but most can't be bothered, don't have the guts, or can't afford to support a concerted effort to quell the onslaught of the hordes of professional pickpockets disguised as businessmen and politicians. If everyone in the United States stopped buying gas for one lousy weekend, the oil companies would panic. But that won't happen because there are too many people who will be too scared they would miss work, too many who wouldn't be willing to give up that social life at the bar for one night, too many people who are too goddam lazy to clean the snow off of their car, and too many people who believe they have to have a car in case they need something.

All of these factors contribute to need for stopping at the gas station for a few gallons of gas. The convenience of gas station availability makes it too appealing to do otherwise. And besides, most corporate franchising contracts prohibit participation in and support for protests against the company. It all boils down to this; we are little fish in a big, big pond. We keep taking the bait, and we keep getting eaten alive. Will we ever win out over big business interests? Nope. The best any of us can hope to do is protest enough to keep it from spiraling out of control. So far, we've been pretty bad at it. Later.

Immortality notwithstanding.

2009-06-04T23:36:00.004-05:00

The actor David Carradine, best known for his portrayal of a wandering Shaolin preist Quai Chang Caine in the 1970s TV show Kung Fu, was found dead in his hotel room in Bankok, Thailand today. Police say it appeared to be a suicide. That seems strange to me because David Carradadine was one of those ever-enduring types that always seemed to show up in a movie when you least expected it. For example, his supporting roles in Kill Bill and Kill Bill 2 with actress Uma Thurman.

Although David had bouts in the past with alcohol and drugs, those days were long gone and well behind him. He had made a public statement a few years ago that he was embarking on a new career and his only direction was forward. David was a staple in life for me as is Clint Eastwood. I had trouble accepting the death of John Wayne because I grew up with his movies influencing every aspect of my life. I turned my attention to Quai Chang Caine and the drifter with no name, and that seemed to make sense of life for me. Like Eastwood, Carradine was always a bit mysterious and a little bit evil, but always came out on top. I enjoyed Carradine's films although I don't collect them like I do Eastwood's. I do have the two Kill Bill films though.

Like Eastwood, Carradine could play the bad guy equally as well as the good guy and still make it interesting. He was versatile but not overbearing, and not much for headlines. Although not a superstar, Carradine contributed amply to his fan base and supported his acting lineage of father John and brother Keith. It is hard to believe that David Carradine would off himself while he was seemingly in a good place in his life. At 72, Carradine achieved a lifetime of rewards and satisfaction for his work. This is pure speculation, mind you, but I personally think the man must have been terminally ill. Why else would he have done it? All that's left is foul play. But that's just my opinion. Later

Playing in the Sandbox

2009-06-03T23:30:00.005-05:00

I have to mention something here that kind of pisses me off, and that is the moral double standard this country supports. Although it is regulated by law, morality is a concept. Morality laws are written based on a majority of people in congress and state legislatures who agreed that pornography needs to be regulated to protect the 'moral majority' and the innocent from undue psychological harm. With that in mind, I bring your attention to two films. Although the structure of each film is different, the morality message is, or should be, the same.

In 1978, when Brooke Shields was 12 years old, she portrayed a child raised in a brothel at the turn of the century by her mother who was a prostitute. The moral values the child was taught were of the lowest decadent philosophy, to which she delighted in the knowledge thereof. When she was still not quite a teen, she was auctioned off as a virgin in the bar of the brothel to a room full of seedy and equally decadent men, one being a United States senator I might add. Her attitude was that of indifference, and yet a desire to do well in her new role in the whorehouse, while her mother basically ignored her and left her to fend for herself. Brooke was portrayed naked more than once in this film, showing her budding but undeveloped breasts, a partial crotch shot, and her buttocks. Others were naked also adding to the 'atmosphere' of the era. Although no sex acts were actually depicted, they were strongly suggested and sound effects indicated the young virgin getting her "cherry popped", and beginning her career as a prostitute herself. She ends up marrying a man twice her age.

In 1983, Traci Lords was 15 years old. She did what is commonly referred to as a standard porno film. She did everything you're not supposed to do on film until you are 18, the age selected by the federal government for displaying yourself in sexual acts for sale to the general public. The only difference between this film and the Brooke Shields film is the actual visualization and a few more dubbed in sound effects. The defenders of the moral code in congress will tell you that you can't compare the two films because they depict different things and different values. Oh, really? Seems to me they suggest and portray the same values, only difference being Traci did it for free and Brooke charged money for her services. Which, then, is more decadent? You tell me.

The biggest and most obvious factor here is that they are both under aged children. One film was produced in Hollywood with parental supervision and is called "career and/or artistic development", and the other film was produced someplace else in the immoral world of pornographic films. Brooke's parents and agent were up front about her age. Traci lied about her age. I don't think the honesty or dishonesty of age disclosure has anything to do with the fact that you can still get Brook's movie 'Pretty Baby', but you cannot get Traci's movie 'Sister Dearest' anywhere in the United States (not that I am looking for it). Some people will tell you it is because of the further inference indicated by the title that suggests she is having incestuous relations with her brother. Meanwhile, a 12 year old prostitute does not suggest anything but a child duped into unfortunate circumstances and faced with making her own decisions in life? Ahem.... They try to justify their moral position at the end of the film where her morally reformed and now married mother returns to get her, tearing her away from her husband against her will, and calling her life wrong.

Very interesting plot twist don't you think? Traci didn't reform at the end of her film. Is that why her movie was banned and Traci was punished? No, it was banned because the sex acts were actually filmed instead of merely suggested. However, the fact remains that both girls were depicted completely naked in their respective films. If Traci was just naked and didn't put that guys penis in her mouth or vagina, would her film be treated exactly like Brook's film? I seriously doubt it. Because her film was made in the so-called 'porn underworld' and not by credited and reputable professional artists under sanctioned film society rights, Traci was banned. Double standard? Yeah, I think so. Later.

Take my guns....please.

2009-06-02T08:04:00.003-05:00

Yeah, right. I think not. This current democrat regime (notice I didn't say democratic) rejoices in it's self-proclaimed victorious conquering of the evil and insidious gun owner, who we all know are notorious criminals simply because they own firearms in the first place. The G is going to be relentless in its restriction of the sale and ownership of firearms and ammunition, thereby punishing all us obvious social morons for not being intelligent enough to be in possession of such items with which to eliminate untold countless innocents from society.

I am so sick of hearing that crap. While I agree that the average hunter doesn't need a .50 cal Barrett sniper rifle or a fully automatic bullet spraying war weapon, I don't think that is a basis for demoralizing and eliminating shooting sports and hunting in America. Great Britain and Australia eliminated the possession and ownership of firearms by their subjects (also notice I said subjects and not citizens). By relieving the population of firearms they turned their citizens into subjects who must follow the will of the government in the control of their lives. As a result, violent crime in those countries rose dramatically. In Sidney, Australia murders went up an incredible 300% in the first 12 months after the government banned firearms from the population for their own good.

"How can that possibly be?", you ask.

Here is the simple and 100% correct answer; The simple truth is that criminals don't give a shit about the law . The criminal will always have a firearm. There will always be someone willing to supply him with one. The law will not stop it. People who lack the means to defend themselves become victims. Do you really think the police is capable of avenging your loss? The fact is that only 2% of murderers ever get arrested. That isn't a good ratio for the political argument that your elected officials would have you believe. They are emphesizing the fact that firearms enable the assault or death by the user at a distance. Therefore, they are evil. The actual truth is that most deaths by firearms are up close and personal. The evidence of this is shootings by inner city gangs. If you think you're going to stop gang wars in the cities with legislation, you're stupider than I thought. Gangbangers don't care about the law either. They grow up as children in an environment that promotes their eventual demise.

Let's say for a moment that the G is successful in their endevour to relieve their "subjects" of firearms altogether. What's next? How about this list; bow and arrow, crossbow, spears, javelins, knives, slingshots, bolos, baseball bats, tire irons, rocks, table utensils, automobiles, motorcycles. Shall I go on? The list is endless. Any one of the items above can be used as a weapon. So why do they single out firearms? Because this isn't about guns at all. It's about the government telling us what's best for us, according to them of course. Our constitution guarantees us the right to control our government when we feel they are getting out of hand, not the other way around. The American people, by allowing the government to dictate policy without protest, become subjects and not citizens.

People need to review and understand the history of this country. Until the 20th century, citizens of the United States had a say in how the government interfered in their lives. They excercised their will by voting down controversial issues veiwed detrimental to the good of the country. After WWII the government started to dictate how it's population should behave. With the advent of the cold war, the citizenry was receptive to a belief that the government actually did know what was good for them. But the truth of that was that they were players in a strange new game of which there was only one outcome. We came out unscathed but by the seat of our political pants. After wiping the sweat from their brow, the G went back to business as usual with just a few distractions like Viet Nam, Watergate, Chapaquidik, Whitewater, and a couple others. With these diversions, it was really hard to see what the G was doing behind the scenes all the time.

Now we face another lop-sided political malformity who is going to start with what they percieve is an important step to 'save the country', the elimination of firearms in America. If you want to be a victim, then by all means, go ahead and shoot yourself in the foot. I think I'll stay on the other side of the fence and defend my rights as an American citizen. Later.

Hold the phone...

2009-06-01T13:42:00.004-05:00

I must be getting old. I hate it when the phone rings. It just means somebody else wants to bother me with their bullshit. Yeah, I know I should probably be more concerned about it, but being accosted by incessant telemarketing calls just rubs your nerves, you know. Of course, I don't answer it. I haven't answered the phone to people I don't know in ten years. That's why I have caller ID and an answering machine. Don't these boobs know that people aren't going to answer when they look at the caller ID? If it says, No Data or Unknown Caller, I'm not answering it. If it does say who it is and I don't know them, I'm not answering. If it's somebody I know that I don't want to talk to, I'm not answering. If they want to talk to me, they can leave a message. Usually, nobody does. That's fine, I didn't want to talk to them anyway.

People say, 'Hey why didn't you answer your phone'. And I say, 'Why didn't you leave a message?' End of conversation. I have a cell phone, but I only give that number to people I actually want to talk to. Those people have instructions not to give the number out to anyone. I think I'm gonna get rid of my house phone. It's just a number I give to people I don't want to talk to anyway like applications or when you buy something. It's not likely I'm ever going to talk to them. Still, it is a convenient way to lie and tell the truth at the same time. There actually is a number, but you aren't ever going to answer it.

I think the only reason I am even mentioning this is that my phone has rung now a dozen times in the last three hours, all with unknown caller on the caller ID. I could shut the ringer off, but then I might miss something, right? Maybe, but not likely. Maybe I'll keep it for a while longer. Meanwhile, I guess I just needed to announce my perturbance. Later.

Oh, deer....

2009-05-31T02:31:00.004-05:00

I love this; people actually calling the police because there is a deer in their yard. I mean, come on already! What are the police gonna do, arrest the deer for tresspassing? Ok, so there's a deer in your yard, it's eating your flowers, your dog is barking, the neighbors are taking cell phone pictures, and you are afraid to go out of the house. What do you do? The answer is nothing. That's right, do nothing. The deer will go away when it's done. Or you could open the door, in which case the deer will run away anyhow. Deer do not attack humans. Of that you can rest assured.

But what are we going to do about the deer "problem". Gee, what problem would that be? If I were a deer, I would be thinkin' 'what er we gonna do about the human problem?' See, the deer are not invading your space. Quite the contrary. It's the other way around. They have been there for hundreds, if not thousands of years. You just didn't see them until Joe Contractor bulldozed it's habitat and built houses on it. The deer aren't going to go away simply because you bought a house where it's home used to be. The more congested it becomes, the more animals you see. And not just deer; raccoons, ground squirrels, woodchucks, skunks, and numerous other critters. But they are not quite as visible as deer. Also with a bigger human population, hunting is restricted, and the deer get comfortable and confident because they are not being shot at. Thus, the deer population flourishes.

We all know what those big red blotches on the highway are. I don't have to say it. And how many times do you see dead deer in a ditch on the side of the road while you are on your way to work. When you drive unaware, a deer will challenge your driving skills always at the most inopertune moment. But still, it isn't the deer's fault. Deer act or react by instinct alone and not with any modicum of reasoning as we perceive it. To blame the deer for damaging your favorite tree would be like blaming Santa Claus because there is too much snow. Besides, maybe the tree you planted just happens to be the deer's favorite tree also. The difference is you as a human have the ability to make a conscious decision to purchase and plant the tree in the first place. The deer's brain isn't that complicated. It just knows it likes the tree (or doesn't like it).

Believe me, the deer are not invading. So, next time you look out the window and see a deer in your yard, just take another sip of coffee and read your paper. It'll go away. It'll probably be back tomorrow, but then, that's not the deer's fault. Later.

Dude, hang it up!

2009-05-30T00:06:00.000-05:00

If you are messing with your phone while driving, you better just stop it right now. Illinois has passed a law restricting the use of texting and twittering while driving. Well....duh!! I am unsure of the fine structure, but I don't think it's gonna be too funny for a lot of people. Used to be in the olden days be fore cell phones (How much of the crowd did I just lose?) you would see countless people on the expressways reading a book or putting on makeup while waiting to get through the toll booth. Now we have the I-pass, and although you are only supposed to go through the booth at 20 mph, people fly through at speeds in excess of 50 mph, and then wonder why they get a ticket in the mail for blowing a toll booth.

This is going to be interesting...seeing how it's going to be dealt with in the courts. I'm sure there are going to be numerous challenges, basically because it addresses a "problem" that has not been addressed before. A small town in Ohio regulated the use of cell phones while driving because it was viewed as a real traffic hazard. And it was, and still is, a traffic hazard. People don't devote all their attention to their driving skills while they are on the phone, and we all know the result. Of course it's always the other guy and not you that caused the problem in the first place. Some of you will argue that the use of these electronic devices is no more distracting than tuning your radio. For some, tuning their radio causes traffic crashes.

There will be those who will go to court and argue that by the law not allowing them to use these services they are losing fortunes because they cannot conduct business while traveling. Mothers will complain that they cannot keep track of their children, thereby not being the best parent they could be. Still others will maintain that their social agendas will be compromised because the use of their electronic devices is so severely restricted. I really can't say as I sympathize with that. I believe the state Illinois is doing the right thing to save lives and better regulate the flow of traffic. But then, a lot of people always whine and complain like children about any regulation created for their own good. I am old enough to remember when there was no such thing as a car phone unless you were a rich guy, and then you sat in the back seat, not behind the wheel.

The advent of these electrononic toys has turned a convenience into an absolute necessity for may people all over the world. What would they do without them? Die of boredom, I suppose. Later.

Hey, you got a license?!

2009-05-29T06:14:00.000-05:00

People get into bad habits, and do them so often they don't catch themselves in time before something bad happens. For instance, twice this morning within ten minutes, I had to avoid traffic hazards that would have resulted in a crash simply because people weren't paying attention. The first one was a woman backing out of her driveway (at a pretty good clip by the way), and I had to blow my horn the get her attention. Her reaction was to slam on her brakes hard enough to put skid marks in her driveway. Explain that one to your husband, lady.

The next one was a guy picking up another guy in front of his house. Ok, but when the guy got into the car, I could see them talking. As I passed him on the left, the guy pulls out right in front of me. I blew my horn, the guy slammed on his brakes, and then had the balls to give me the finger as I went around him. I stopped, got out of my car, and the big girl floored it and ran. I just want to know where these people come from. Is this what our educational system is producing these days; morons with attitudes?

I know that parents are no help. As a matter of fact, they are a major part of the problem. Today's parents seem to have lost the common sense that God gave geese, and appear to be unable to cope with normal things they should be teaching their children as they grow up; I mean, besides feeding themselves and using a toilet. Things like common courtesy, responsibility for their actions, and the ability to recognize right from wrong. If you think I'm in error here, just sit and watch people sometime. You will laugh, you will become angry, you will actually feel sorry for some people, and sometimes you want to smack the crap out of their parents.

Driver's Ed hell! You can't tell me those DE teachers aren't crapping themselves when some of these fools get behind the wheel. You couldn't pay me enough to do that job. After they get a license, they throw the rule book out the window, and then argue with the cops when they get caught doing some dumbass maneuver. I personally know 16 year old kids who lost their license after three weeks of driving because they did something really stupid. One little girl I know went to court with her friend, and when it was all done, she was sitting in a jail cell for arguing with a judge and calling the prosecutor an asshole in open court. Neither the girl or her friend thought they did anything wrong. Folks, judges don't just throw 16 year old girls in jail unless they deserve it, and she did.

This girl, nor her friend for that matter, had any idea the trouble they created for themselves. There is an order that needs to be followed. Otherwise, we have a society based on kaos. The girl's father, believing his little angle could do no wrong, tried to sue the court and the arresting officer for false arrest and cruel and unusual punishement. Fortunatley, no lawyer would touch that case. I think some people watch too much television. That stuff is for entertainment purposes only and none of it is real. Those judge shows on daytime TV....they get paid for it people! What's real is real, and that ain't real! Yeah, some of it you see on the news is real, but you have to know the difference. Hmmmm...here we are back at common sense again. If you don't have it, you need to get it. You can only achieve that by paying attention.

That's my rant for the day. Later.