Paypal Users: BEWARE!

2003-03-27T16:27:00.000-05:00

I'm tempted to make this site anti WorldCom and Verizon instead of anti Paypal. My company's internet access has been down since 2:50 p.m. yesterday. In fact, I'm typing this update in notepad, with the hopes of copying and pasting it into the Blogspot update app. later on.

Because of the yelling I've been doing at increasingly higher up (and yet so far no more effective) chain of command, it's reminded me of something that happened when I first got out of Basic Training and was at my permanent unit.

When I first got to my new unit, everything was going pretty smoothly except that I didn't get a paycheck when the first pay period rolled around. I'm assured it's just a little routing glitch, the check is in the system they just don't know where to send it, etc. The next pay period rolls around and I still don't have the first check nor this one. I'm starting to get concerned because the little money I had when I got to my unit is rapidly vanishing (hey, beer costs money, right?) I had an account back home that money from each paycheck was being directly deposited to, and that money was going in, so I knew the pay was somewhere, just not in my greedy, alcoholic hands.

There's a chain of command in the military (you might have already guessed this), and I, being the young, scared soldier that I was, dutifully went through mine. When the first check didn't arrive, I informed my tank commander (a Sergeant, E-5) and he went to Finance and bitched. When the second check didn't arrive, I let the E-5 know, who informed our Platoon Sergeant (E-7), who went to Finance and raised holy hell. When the third pay period rolled around and I still didn't have any money (actually, I'd had my mother send me some from the bank account back home to tide me over), I told the E-5, who told the E-7, who in exasperation told our First Sergeant (E-8).

Of course, having seen the escalation that had happened so far, I sort of expected tactical nukes to start raining down on Finance now that the First Sergeant was there. This guy was a first-class asshole, and he didn't give a shit for his soldiers (that I could see), but he seemed to enjoy getting involved in issues like this if for no other reason than to have an excuse to chew some ass.

I was in the E-8s office when the E-7 explained to him what was going on. The E-8 called Finance, identified himself, and in a calm manner explained the reason for his call. (This E-8 always held the phone like it was dripping some unidentified slime that he didn't want to get on his shoes. It wasn't effiminate in the least, but you could just tell that he had utter contempt for everything around him.) He kept looking me up and down while he was talking, with what I thought looked like a snear but decided that it was probably just the look this person gets on his face when he's talking on the phone, especially when he finally drops the polite, calm manner and starts chewing some well-deserving ass. Of course, I was wrong; he was snearing.

Anyway, the E-8 is explaining to the Finance person that I hadn't gotten paid in a month-and-a-half, and that he (the E-8) wanted the situation rectified. "I've got a soldier with no money," he snears, "who can't buy himself a beer tonight or a hamburger. He can't even buy him some soap to wash his nasty ass." (Again, this was all said very calmly, but with a snear probably directed at me.)

The first thing I thought was "That's cool, this guy is going to bat for me." The second thing I thought was "Hey!" I mean, yea I didn't have much money but soap wasn't that expensive. I was washing my nast... er, my ass, which was decidedly unnasty, thank you very much. The third thing I thought was "Shit, this isn't going to get me anywhere. He's being all polite and everything and these guys aren't going to do shit."

Well, as I said, this E-8 was pure dick, and his reputation was well known. I had all three paychecks in hand the next day.

2003-03-26T06:48:00.000-05:00

Once again, the one letter every 30 days (and 200 word limit) that my local newspaper imposes on the readers causes me to have to use this forum to respond to a few of the more ridiculous "Letters to the Editor" that were in today's paper.

In
Respect the limits of human authority, Kenneth Mothena objected to a commentary which said, in essence, that leaders who follow a religious leaning when making decisions are more likely to make bad decisions than those who consult experienced authority. This troubles Mr. Mothena because, as he puts it, "[s]eems to me this man... is stating that man is more dependable, more knowledgeable than God."

That's not what the commentary writer said at all (though it is true.) What he said was that following a religious writing, whether it's the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or whatever, leads to bad decisions because so much of what we face in today's world is never addressed at all in these writings. That just makes sense; these supposed "words of God" were written for a very specific people in a very specific time and have very little, if any, relevence to our lives today. Sure, you can maybe point out some "timeless truths" in these writings, but if, for instance, you are contemplating going to war with another country you had better base that decision on facts provided by your expert advisors, not some misguided principles you find in your holy book of choice.

In Someday science will trump evolution, Lawrence Buzzard makes the standard Creationists claim that the theory of evolution violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics. I actually responded to this one with the following, and hopefully it will get printed soon. You won't have to wait, however, as you get a special preview!

In "Someday, science will trump evolution", 3/26/03 Letters to the editor,
Lawrence Buzzard assures us that "[w]ith little research, one finds that the
theory of evolution more closely compares to the fable of 'The Emperor's New
Clothes.'" Considering that he has fallen for the standard Creationist
error that the theory of evolution violates the first and second laws of
thermodynamics (it doesn't), it's easy to see that Mr. Buzzard's problem is
exactly that: little research.

For the past 100 years or so, science has done nothing but affirm the theory
of evolution. Of course, Mr. Buzzard has a ready answer for that: a few
mean, old scientists have intimidated us all into believing a lie. A good
sign that a "theory" that flies in the face of accepted science is a bunch
of bull is when the crackpot advancing this "theory" claims that some
conspiracy is preventing the truth from coming out. I encourage everyone to
study the evidence for themselves (a good place to start would be to read
what the first and second laws of thermodynamics actually state) instead of
uncritically accepting what some misguided creationist assures you is the
truth.

Comments anyone?

2003-03-23T19:48:00.000-05:00

"Unfortunately, there probably are people in other lands who are praying against the president and against us. So I think it's important for us to have our share of prayer warriors."

The above quotation is attributed to Terry Posey of Greenville, S.C. in a Washington Post article titled "'Prayer Warriors' join the battle." Posey claims that his website, prayforourpresident.com, had over 52,000 visitors in the first 24 hours after President Bush's speech in which he generously gave Hussein 48 hours to go into exile.

Posey, like so many Christians in America, seems to believe in a God who is just waiting for the right amount of prayers before he will act. Posey's God either has no idea what's going on in the world or has no idea how he should respond until enough people pray for a particular outcome. Then, and only then, is this God's course of action clear to him.

Even those Christians who are quoted in the article as recognizing that there are other human beings involved in this conflict believe that their God is only going to if enough people pray. Apparantly, this God is not going to provide wisdom to the leaders, or work to keep as many people as possible safe during the conflict unless urged to do so by his followers. There is no Godly plan for the world, and he just sort of makes it up as he goes along, depending on how many people pray for what.

The article reports that Cathy Hawn, of Edmonds, Washington, prays at least twice a day, every day, for the president and U.S. troops. However, "we don't just pray for George W. Bush to win. We pray for the Iraqi people. We don't care what faith they are; they have children and families just like we do."

A fine sentiment, to be sure, and certainly a little easier to swallow than Posey's, but no less puzzling. Christians often describe their God as being omniscient (all knowing), and as having a plan for the universe. How many times have we had to hear some Christian explain that it's in "God's plan" that a 3 year old child had to die of starvation because his or her parents were too busy buying alcohol and lottery tickets to feed the child when asked "how could God let this happen?" If God really had a "plan" (for the sake of argument, let's forget that I don't believe in God), how could any amount of prayer from anyone or any group make any difference whatsoever?

Of course, it's not just American Christians who think so little of their God. Even the Pope was quoted (in another article) as saying that the war in Iraq "threatens the fate of humanity." Isn't that just peachy? We humans, who are no match for the Christian God in any way, can take actions that could derail the plan he has for us. Well, again, there's not a plan as such, is there? God's just sort of winging it, kind of waiting for the latest Gallop polls to tell him which way to turn. And here we mortals go and try to muck it all up by having a war.

Unfortunately, today has seen some setbacks for coalition forces. I guess there are too many Iraqi sympathizers and too few Posey's and Hawn's out there to sway God in the right direction.

2003-03-21T13:47:00.000-05:00

All during lunch today I was watching CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, FOX News, etc. as they were reporting that the Pentagon has stated that this is "A-Day", the beginning of the intense air barrage on Iraq. At the time, all was pretty calm in Baghdad and other locations, but they kept building it up and talking about it. When I left, nothing was happening.

By the time I got to my truck and was heading back to work, though, the radio station I listen to was reporting that the bombing had started. They cut in live to a reporter who is in Baghdad and was reporting on the action. He sounded pretty shaken up, and by the sounds of the bombs and anti-aircraft fire he had good reason to be. At one point he kind of groaned and said something like "the anti-aircraft fire has now shifted, and is actually pointing back over this hotel. I really don't like that at all." Yea, no shit.

So anyway, I'm in the truck listening to this, hearing all the explosions and firing, and I had to pull over. I don't know what happened, but I felt like I couldn't breathe. After about 10 minutes I was able to pull myself together (still listening to the live report, though I probably should have turned it to music or something) and get on back to work, which is where I am now. I just don't feel very productive right now.

2003-03-21T07:25:00.000-05:00

As a veteran of the first "war" in Iraq, I sometimes waffle between supporting our current operation there and wondering if we should really be there. On the one hand, I'm not sure that America has a real interest (other than oil) in going all around the world trying to right the wrongs we think are there. Obviously I believe that America has the right to protect themselves in any way necessary, with or without the rest of the world's approval. And if it's certain that Iraq poses a threat to America in some way, then I have no qualms with us taking the actions necessary to protect oursleves now. I'm just not entirely convinced that this is about protecting ourselves.

On the other hand, there's no way we should have left the region during the first "war" with Hussein still in power. I know the arguments for letting him remain the dictator there, I just disagree with them. We knew that he would continue to pose a problem, we knew that he would eventually wind up defying the very UN resolutions that allowed for the cease fire during that action (and some of us weren't at all surprise at how quickly he started defying them, knowing that it would happen almost immediately), and we knew that eventually it would have to be addressed. I think we (meaning Americans in general) were naive to think that the UN and the original coalition would remain intact and steadfast in our resolve to enforce the provisions of the cease fire. I think even the US's resolve wavered during the '90s, in large part because of the political climate at the time.

All-in-all, I support our current actions concerning Iraq because it is, in my mind, what we should have done originally in 1991. I don't agree with President Bush (yes, I call him "President" because, like it or not, he is America's President) on a lot of things, including some of the stated reasons for our actions in Iraq at this time. Nonetheless, I think it's the right thing to do even if we're doing it for the wrong (stated) reasons.

I mean no offense by this, dear readers (however many or few you may be) but I do not at this time care to hear whether you agree with me about this or not. I can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting someone with a dozen good arguments for or against the war in Iraq, and I don't care to debate them. It is not my intention with this current series of postings to encourage dialogue or open a discourse. The arguments have been made on both sides of the issue, but now that war has started, the arguments are mostly moot. We're there, it's started, so our only option at this point is to finish it once and for all. There will be some short-, mid- and longterm reprecussions to this war, but I think the future will prove to be better for our actions than it would be without them. You won't change my mind, and I have no interest in either changing your mind or exchanging a bunch of "I agree with you" correspondences.

I have some things to say about what is happening now, and I might offer some insight by comparing it to my experiences 12 (or so) years ago, and for those areas I do welcome feedback, good or bad. Please understand that it's just the issue of whether or not we should be fighting Iraq that I don't want to argue. Since it's my blog, I will at times state my opinion of that (it's inevitable that if I'm writing about the war I will have to say something about why we're there and if it's right or wrong) but I don't think I have to give anyone equal time to disagree. If you want that, create your own blog.

Now, if I haven't totally alienated all of my potential readers, I'll continue now with just a few words about what's been going on in the past day or so.

I just heard this morning that 8 British and 4 American soldiers died when a transport helicopter (I'm not sure, but i think it was a Chinook, which we commonly called "Shithook") crashed. It was apparently not due to any enemy action, but was instead most likely a mechanical failure. Even 12 years ago this wouldn't have been a surprise, though of course it's just a goddamn shame. I wish that no soldiers would die during this action, including the Iraqis, but obviously that's entirely unrealistic. But dying because of a mechanical failure is just so fucking stupid. I just hope that it wasn't caused by some maintenance that should have been done but was overlooked.

Not that that will help the families of those soldiers. Nor the families of the Marine who this morning was confirmed as the first American to die in action. No matter how "well" this war goes, or how "successful" it's considered (based on meeting our stated objective, lenght of time and number of lives lost) the families of those soldiers (and, almost inevitably, the reporters over there) who die will always know in the back of their minds that some failure occured.

In the first "war", my entire Battalion (around 1,000 to 1,500 soldiers) lost one man. It was before the war started, and we were in a holding area becoming acclimated to the weather (surprisingly cold for a while there, as it was January), training, and waiting for our equipment to arrive on the ships that was bringing it to us. We were building sandbag bunkers around the perimeter in case of an attack when one of them collapsed, trapping a Sergeant First Class (E-7) under 600-700 lbs of sand and wood. I didn't personally know him, but a lot of my fellow soldiers did. I hate to admit it, but I'm kind of glad that I didn't know him, though the people who did said he was a great soldier and person. Then again, what else are you going to say when a man in your unit dies, especially when the possibility of your own death seems so real?

More people are going to die during the next few days, weeks or months, however long it takes. That's a given, as much as I hate to think about it. I fear that everyone of those deaths will make me feel bad, but I fear even more that at some point the reports of those deaths will start to take on less and less significance.

2003-03-20T11:49:00.000-05:00

War has started in Iraq, at least on a limited basis so far. Without wanting to sound overly dramatic, but having been in the position 12 years ago that they're in now, I know what our soldiers over there are going through. They're tense and anxious, but few of them will admit it to either themselves or their fellow soldiers. One in a thousand (or maybe less) actually want to be there, but at a guess I'd say a higher percentage of them agree with what we're doing there than in the US population at large. Most of the soldiers have probably been concerned about whether or not the training they've gone through up to now has been good enough, but the chemical warnings that have gone off today may actually help to settle them down.

That's kind of a universal thing from the first Iraq war, I've discovered. One of the things you always train for in peace time is chemical warfare and getting into the MOPP (Mission Oriented Protective Posture) gear. If it's an all-out attach, you have to first put on the protective mask (never call it "gas mask"), and then put on the pants, jacket, boots and gloves in that order, all in less than 7 minutes (for testing purposes.) Most soldiers I knew in the Army hated that particular test, because it always seemed like there was no way you could get all that stuff on and tied and cinched correctly in just 7 minutes.

In 1991, right after the air campaign started, SCUD missile launches became a daily routine. They were never on target (we often considered ourselves safer if they were actually aimed at us than if they were aimed somewhere else), but were assumed to have chemical agents payloads. Everytime one was launched, we were given the chemical alert and had to go into full MOPP gear. The very first time was (in hindsight) very comical, what with all the panicky soldiers fumbling around trying to get that gear on and in place correctly. The hell with 7 minutes; we wanted it on NOW. By the third day (and probably the 12th alarm), people were calmly putting the gear on, waiting until the last minute to put the mask on. Why? Because we could get it all in place in less than 2 minutes (and that was taking our time), and we wanted to get a last smoke in before buttoning up.

The point is, it becomes apparent that at least one aspect of the training you did before hand worked. That gives you a little more confidence that, when the chips are down, you're going to be able to perform.

Right now, though, the guys are going through the worst of it. Action has already started, but they aren't in it. They can only react to events; they aren't in on the action. Once they get moving, with destinations, targets and other goals in front of them, they'll start to settle in and the anxiety level will start to go down (while the fear level will probably go up, but that's okay.) Once they start doing their jobs, they can focus on that and put other things out of their minds, at least for a while. They won't have much control, but what little they will have is better than the absolute none they have right now.

And for a while, they'll be able to put out of their minds the fact that the actions they are taking are directly resulting in the loss of lives. When they do think about it, they'll think of the people who die as the enemy. Later, when it's over (however long that takes) they'll start to think of them as people; soldiers much like themselves who probably didn't want to be there either.

More later.

2003-02-28T20:17:00.000-05:00

It's been suggested that I try updating the blog through the Mac. Okay, here goes. Honestly, I don't think it will be a problem because it's all web based, but we'll see.

2003-02-28T16:13:00.000-05:00

Taking a Walk on the Wild Side
but I'm not
David Coursey

Well, if anyone is still around to read this damned blog, I apologize for not updating in so long. Three freakin' months! Man, it's a good thing none of you depended on the information I impart here for a living, huh?

A good friend of mine has loaned me a G3 Mac (that's a computer), so I'm trying to get into learning that. For a life-long PC user it's a pretty big change. However, because I've had some experience with Linux it's really not as big a deal a change as it might be for some, because (if nothing else) I'm familiar with having to learn a whole new way of doing things. I like the feeling of discovery, but it can be a little frustrating.

Since my friend is responsible for this little experimentation, he's been on the ugly end of a lot of whining email from me about "how do I do this" and "why doesn't it work this way" and "which is worse, blue or black smoke?" Here's some of the email I just sent to him today, which I'm copying here (as if you have any real interest) so that you'll be caught up as to the progress I've made so far.

I bought a 2-button USB wheel mouse last night (from Logitech... who else?)
I shut down the Mac and disconnected the old mouse and connected the new one
then rebooted. I don't know if that was entirely necessary with a Mac, but
it is in the PC world and I figured it wouldn't hurt to turn the Mac off for
a minute or two out of the week. I was pleased that the mouse worked
immediately on reboot, I was happy that the right button worked without
having installed any drivers, and I was downright tickled that the wheel
worked, again, without installing any drivers. Of course, I had to find
something to complain about so when clicking the wheel button didn't do
anything I bitched. Then I went to Logitech's site and downloaded the OS X
drivers (the drivers supplied on the disk were apparently for OS 9) and
after a few false-starts was able to get them loaded. Then I forgot all
about playing with it because...

I also bought the Feb (?) issue of MacAddict. (rant: That sucker was $8, so
if I like it I will definitely get a subscription before I pay that newstand
price again. Jeez, man, I thought it was just the PC magazine industry
setting out to rip off the non-subscribers! :end rant) I haven't read any
of the magazine yet, but I did get a chance to look through the CD to see
what kind of stuff is on it. There are some things I'll want to try out,
like the games and some of the utilities and such. One thing I "installed"
(I don't think anything was actually installed, just the files copied to the
hard drive) is a neat little comic strip grabbing utility. It downloads
daily almost all of the comics I've been reading regularly at
http://www.ucomics.com/comics/ without the hassle of slogging through that
sites menus and popups. Very cool, though I realize that there are probably
similar utilities in the PC world.

You know, it just occured to me that I could probably write about this stuff
for my blog. That way I can bore the other three people who read that site
instead of just you. Though actually, it's been so long since I updated
that blog that I don't know if anyone even bothers checking it anymore.

So there you have it. There's actually been a bit more to my progress than adding a mouse and installing a utility, but do you really care that I installed Mozilla (a web browser better, in my opinion, than Internet Explorer) and a neat little project tracking and invoicing program? Well, if you do then good, because you just got the info.

Okay, that's enough for today. Maybe I'll be able to work up the gumption to keep up with this blog for a little while.

2002-11-14T08:54:00.000-05:00

Libraries, Porn, and the Supreme Court
(or What's a Libertarian to do?)

The Supreme Court is going to decide in the near future whether or not a law requiring Libraries to install software on their Internet computers to block porn in order to continue to receive federal aid. This is a hard issue to classify, because both conservatives and liberals would seem to have an ideological reason for supporting this law (in fact, Clinton signed the measure in 2000, and the Bush administration is pushing really hard to keep it in force.)

Here are some of my thoughts on the matter, and I invite comment on them (individually or collectively, doesn't matter):

1. I like pornography, and want it to remain available in all its (legal) forms.

2. Libraries should be allowed to block pornography in whatever way they see fit.

3. Libraries should make non-filtered computers available to adults.

4. Libraries should not be forced by law to do either 2 or 3.

5. Libraries should not be forced by law to avoid either 2 or 3 (or both.)

6. Parents are more responsible for what their children see on the Internet than any other person/group.

7. Parents are more responsible for how what their children see on the Internet affects them than any other person/group.

8. Accidental exposure to pornography probably isn't going to adversely affect an otherwise healthy, well-balanced child.

9. A child who is adversely affected by exposure to pornography was probably going to be adversely affected by something in his or her life anyway.

10. That doesn't mean that measures shouldn't be taken to avoid that exposure.

11. Between the ages of 10 and 16, I spent hours at a time in the library looking for any good "sex education" book. ("Good" being defined as "explicit.")

12. I scurried away like a scairt rabbit whenever a librarian or other patron came within ten feet of where I was standing.

13. I'd have been too embarrassed to have tried to look at porn on computer whose screen was visible to anyone else.

14. Heck, I'd still be too embarrassed today, even if I were doing valid research.

So how about it people; what do you think?

2002-10-28T08:36:00.000-05:00

Since the name of this web log is "Paypal Users: Beware!" I think it's only appropriate that every once in a while I post some new information concerning Paypal. I know you would rather read the details of my oh-so-exciting life, but I should keep up appearances. So today, I will let you know about the latest (that I've heard) travesty from the Paypal front.

AbiWord is a free word processing program that competes (or tries to) with Microsoft Word. Recently, they posted this announcement in their developers' section. The long and short of it is, their Paypal donation fund (you know how people have those "donate to us using Paypal" links, right?) was robbed 3 weeks ago. The AbiWord guys have tried to contact Paypal about the problem and have gotten absolutely no response from them whatsoever. Good ol' Paypal, huh?

2002-10-24T06:12:00.000-04:00

No time for a long update...

Well, okay, the truth is I probably have the time but I just don't feel like taking the time this week. There isn't a lot to write about anyway.

Anyway, I lost my Fantasy Football game this week and the Cowboys lost. They've benched their starting quarterback (he threw four interceptions, two of which were in the end zone) for a rookie who hasn't played real football since 1997 (he played baseball professionally, though), so it doesn't look like they're going to get better any time soon. Of course, in the NFL these things have a way of surprising you.

My truck is leaking radiator fluid in such a way that it's coming up underneath the passenger seat. It's one damned thing after another with that truck. Hell, we just had to replace the battery in the wife's car last Saturday.

Nothing much else happened this week, so I guess the update will have to be left at that.

2002-10-15T14:59:00.000-04:00

Remember last time when I said I was going up against the person in my Fantasty Football league with the worst record, and how I hoped that didn't mean I was in for an embarrassing loss? Guess what happened. I lost. 92 to 61, which in my book qualifies as an embarrassing loss. What can I say? My guys didn't do it this week, and his (or hers; I forget) did.

However, the Dallas Cowboys did win this week, in pretty dramatic fashion. After being down 13 to nothing for most of the entire game, and really playing like crap for 55 minutes (out of 60), they came back and scored two touchdowns in around 3 minutes to go up 14-13. They need to fix a lot of things, but I'd rather be saying that when they've won than when they've lost.

I did wind up getting my left ear pierced Saturday night, so there is now two things I swore all my life I'd never do that I've done now (the wife and I got a tatoo two years ago to celebrate our 10th anniverssary.) Right now it's just a basic piercing stud that I have (a fake black onyx stone in a 14k gold setting, also probably fake) but after the 6 weeks is up I'll find something cool. Maybe a Darwin or Evolve fish, or something along those lines. I'm still going to wait on the hair.

On our way home from getting the piercings (the wife also had a second hole put in her left ear, and is wearing the mate to the stud I have) we were stopped in the left lane on Main Street while some Einstein was trying to turn left from the traffic lane instead of the turning lane (it's there for a reason, people!) We were 2 or 3 cars back, and three cars were behind us. Another Einstein in a Ford Mustang failed to notice all these cars stopped ahead of him and hit the last car in the line. That car rolled forward and hit an SUV in front of them, which rolled forward and hit the wife's car. How hard did the Mustang have to hit the first car to cause it to hit the SUV hard enough to move it into us?

The first car (a Hyundai Elantra) had a little damage to it's rear bumper and front bumper. The SUV's rear bumber was dented a bit and had some scratches in its front bumber. Our rear bumper has a small ding in it and a little of the rubber-like substance it's made out of was scratched off. The Mustang was a wreck ("good!" I say.) The front end was smashed and the hood was cracked, and I believe there was probably some damage to it's radiator at the very least. Hopefully we'll get a check in the near future from his insurance company, too. Hey, I'm all for profitting from the stupidity of others (but in a fair way.)

Joker (the dog, for those of you who failed to purchase a program as you entered the arena) got sprayed by a skunk yesterday. If you don't know what a skunk is, you're lucky. They are animals that, when frightened (say, by a fiesty dog who just wants to play, really), spray an extremely foul smelling scent on whatever they think is a threat. Apparantly, Joker was a threat and got a full blast right in the face. (Just to give you an idea of how bad a skunk spray can be, some animals die if they get sprayed badly enough because they simply can't breathe.) Joker was fine but he stunk. I'm not talking about a stink like he rolled around in some fresh mulch or a big pile of dog shit or something. I mean he stunk. If you don't know what a skunk spray smells like there's just no way I can explain it. In fact, if you are only familiar with the smell of a skunk that maybe got hit by a car a day or two earlier and that part of the road stinks now when you drive by it, you still have no idea just what I had to put up with yesterday.

I left Joker outside until I got an appointment with his groomer to bathe and "deskunk" him. The stuff they use doesn't get rid of the smell entirely, but it does make it tolerable. I can be in the same room with him, and I'll even pet him now, so that's a plus. The downside is, if he gets wet the smell comes back until he dries off. Just licking his fur is enough to set off the odor again, and walking him in the rain (like I had to do at lunch today) is hell. I really hope this doesn't last long.

Of course, since I was the one who had to handle him, I got the scent all over my hands. They don't smell as bad today as they did yesterday, but it's still enough to almost make me nauseas.

Of course, it was mostly my fault. I let go of his leash when we were coming back home from his morning walk so he could run the rest of the way home (something I do every day without incident.) He ran around to the back of the house, saw the skunk, and decided he wanted to see if it would play with him. Whatever game they decided to play, I think the skunk won.

The cost of the bath and the deskunking was $38, and we wound up having to buy a new leash and collar for an additional $20. The groomer is also all for profitting from the stupidity of others.

2002-10-11T16:27:00.000-04:00

We got back from vacation Wednesday afternoon, and we really had a great time. I was a little worried that I was looking forward to seeing my uncles again so much that the reality wouldn't live up to the expectation. If anything, it was even better.

But let me tell you how things started out. As soon as we got into the general area (but still about a half-hour away), we saw a pretty scary incident. Two cars were weaving crazily through four lanes of traffic and came to a stop at the red light. (The front car was blue and the back car was black.) Four guys in the black car jumped out with baseball bats and other stick-like weapons and started beating the shit out of the blue car, breaking windows and maybe a few heads. The wife and I were about three cars back in the adjacent lane, so we had a pretty good view of the whole thing.

I didn't freeze up, but I really didn't know what to do. Our cell phone didn't have signal in that particular area (someone else, it turns out, called the cops anyway) and there was just no way I was going to jump out and try to be the voice of reason. I considered using my video camera to record the incident, in case the police needed undeniable evidence, but a vision flashed through my mind of the guy with the baseball bat looking over and seeing me videoing them. We were pretty shocked by all of this, but I can only imagine how the people right beside those cars must have felt.

If I had been the driver in the blue car (who was blocked by at least one car in front and the others around him) and saw those guys coming at me with bats and such, I believe I would have taken my chances on driving straight back into the black car to 1)try to get some room to make a getaway and 2)try to cripple that car so that they couldn't come after me. Of course, if you do that and don't get at least objective number 1 accomplished, the guys who are already pretty pissed off at you are just going to be even more so. I mean, you wouldn't expect that to have a calming influence on the situation, right?

After the light turned green, the blue car took off and crossed two lanes of traffic to turn right down a different road. I guess the black car went straight, because the next thing we saw was a couple of cop cars chasing them in the opposite direction. I hope they caught them.

That's not to say that I automatically assume the guy(s) in the blue car were innocent victims in all of this. I thought at first that it was probably a case of road rage, but the more I think about it the more I think it was probably something entirely differrent. Maybe it was gang related, or a drug-deal gone bad. Anyway, I'm just glad no guns came out. At the time I was thinking that I wish I'd had a gun, but I honestly don't know what I would have done with one. I might have just had it out and held down low just in case. I also might have done something really stupid and tried to be a hero.

After all of that, we finally made it to my uncle's house and I got a chance to calm down. He and I watched the Redskins' game (they are another professional football team, and the hated rivals of my favorite team, the Cowboys.)

I was primarily interested in keeping up with the Cowboys' game score. They were playing the Giants, and it was apparently a pretty good game all-in-all. Unfortunately, the Cowboys lost, but there was still some promising progress on the offense's part. The defense kind of let the team down, so we'll have to see how that goes this week.

On the other hand, I wound up winning my Fantasy Football this week. I wound up with 99 points, which is the most I've had to date. I'm going up against the person with the worst record and who generally doesn't score many points. I hope that doesn't mean I'm getting ready to have an embarrassing loss.

Monday morning we were greeted with the news that a 13 year-old boy was shot outside of his school. A sniper has been shooting people since last Thursday, and it turned out that the boy was victim number seven. The last I heard, the boy was in critical but stable condition after life-saving surgery (he was hit in the chest, and the bullet shattered and damaged some vital organs). The sniper has primarily made head shots, and all but two of the victims have died so far.

It turns out that there was another shooting Wednesday evening, then another one just today. Both of the latest victims have died as well. Christ on a rotten tomato. Is it any wonder that I'm a misanthropist?

Still, we did have a lot of fun on our vacation. We got to see some of the tourist sites in Washington, D.C., like the Smithsonian Institute (we went into two of the museums), the Jefferson memorial, the Masonic Temple, and we walked around in Georgetown and Oldtown quite a bit. The best part, of course, was just hanging around with my uncles and their wives (just one each.) Next spring my wife and I are going to fly to California to visit the uncle that lives out there. A third uncle, also in California and only about a 2 hours drive away, may get there too. That would be sweet!

We took some pictures, and I got some decent video. I'm going to post pictures on a website this weekend and send the url to family members with 'net access. That way they can download the pictures at their leisure instead of through some crappy email connection. If anyone is interested in seeing the pictures, let me know and I'll send you the url too. If I get a huge response (yea, right) I'll just post the url here. I'm just making you send an email so I'll get some idea of how many people are actually reading this blog. Since my hit counter was taken away, and I'm too lazy to go find another one, I don't have any other way of knowing.

Oh, and I'm thinking of getting an earring. My sister told me that the California uncle had one, and I kind of jokingly told my wife that if he looked cool with it, maybe I'd get one too. Well, I thought he looked pretty cool, so now I might do it. The wife want's to get a second earring in one of her ears, so after the 60 days when you have to wear the initial stud mabye we'll get a pair that we can each wear one of. I don't think this is a sign of an impending mid-life crisis, but you never know. I'm considering getting highlites in my hair too, though.

Well, maybe I should just leave it at one change at a time.

2002-10-03T11:45:00.000-04:00

I'm going to try using Mozilla to post again, and see if it goes any better than last week.

Well, I won my Fantasy Football this week, with 81 points. I guess a win is a win, but I'm a little concerned about the inability of some of my players to get me any points. And it's not like I have other players benched who are getting more points (except that I chose to play the wrong defense this week.) I traded the running back who was supposed to be hot shit this year but has been mediocre at best so far. Since I traded him, I'm guessing he'll have an outstanding week, and go on to score a lot of points for the guy I traded him to.

Likewise, I'm sure the player I traded him for, who had a great game this week, will be a complete dud for as long as he's on my roster.

The Dallas Cowboys actually won! They beat the Rams 13-10, and are really starting to look better and better (overall) as the season progresses. They still have some weak areas that I desperately hope they address soon (the running game and the corners come immediately to mind), but I see progress. That's really all I hope for out of this season; steady, quantifiable progress.

The wife and I are going out of town this weekend to see some family I haven't seen in about 20 years (and she has never met.) I'm really looking forward to it, but I feel a little guilty becaues we're going to have to board Joker at a kennel (it's actually ran by his vertrinarian, so I trust them.)

What's worse is that we're leaving Sunday around (probably) noon, but the only time we could drop him off is between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. That means we either have to get someone else to drop him off for us or drop him off a day earlier. I keep going back and forth between which I think is better, but we'll probably wind up dropping him off on Saturday. That way he won't go from being "abandoned" by us to a stranger (to him) who then "abandons" him to another stranger. It's only an extra $11 so I'm not worried about the cost.

Joker gets so worked up whenever he sees us leave I really worry about him sometimes. If I put him in his room downstairs, he's fine for the most part. If we leave him chained up out back (because it's a nice day and we're only going to be gone an hour or so) and he sees us get in the car and drive away, he goes nuts. He whines and cries in such a mournful way. It's almost worse when we get back home because he's so happy to see us. I mean, it's great that he's happy to see us, but it makes me feel bad to think what must have been going through his mind to make him that crazy to see us come back home.

He was abandoned before, which is how he came to be at the animal shelter when we found him. I guess that's why he acts that way; he thinks everytime we leave that we're not going to come back. He even gets like that, though to a lesser extent, if just one of us leaves. In the mornings the wife leaves for work around 5:30 a.m., and if he's upstairs when she goes (as opposed to being downstairs with me while I'm working on the computer) he starts pacing and whining and wanting to go outside to look for her. The wife says he does the same thing when I go somewhere and she stays there with him.

So I know the poor guys is going to be hating it Saturday when we leave him at the kennel.

Still, it's going to be a fun trip. I have an uncle that lives in the Washington D. C. area with his wife, and another uncle who lives in California (he's the one I haven't seen in so long) who is coming to the East Coast with his wife (not the other uncle's) for their vacation. One of their stops is D. C., so we'll drive up there Sunday and stay with the uncle that lives there. These are uncles from my father's side of the family, and they are just about the coolest people I've ever known. Or at least, they used to be. I hope they still are, and haven't gotten too old to know how to have a good time.

2002-09-27T16:45:00.000-04:00

Well, something is definately screwed up, either with blogger or with using Mozilla to post. My last post is shown three times, and I really don't think it was that good. If you're reading this and you scroll down and see that the last post is only shown once, don't send the white-suited guys after me. I'm really not crazy.

2002-09-27T16:41:00.000-04:00

Okay, I meant to post last week and never got around to it. For those of you breathlessly awaiting news on my Fantasy Football prowess, I've lost two in a row. The first loss was heartbreaking because I was 34 points down going into a Monday night game in which I had three players (one of which was on the opposing team) starting. I wound up losing by only 8 points, which made it worse. I'd rather get blown out than lose a close one that I almost came back to win.

Well, I guess I can't say that's entirely accurate. The second loss was a blowout, and that didn't really feel any better. What made it worse was that my team (who had won the week previous) lost pretty badly in a game that they looked like they may do pretty well in. sigh

So this week I'm going up against one of the players who consistently scores many, many points. And my team (the Dallas Cowboys) are playing against the team most people think should be going to the Super Bowl this year, the St. Louis Rams. The funny thing is, the Rams are 0-3 (no wins, 3 losses) so far. I have a feeling they'll be kind of pissed off on Sunday, and are going to take it out on my team.

I've been using the latest stable release of the Mozilla browser, and I have to say it's pretty nice. I'm posting my first update using it right now, so we'll see how well it works. I think I'll copy the text in this box that I'm typing in first before I try to post, though. I'd hate to lose all of this and have to try to recreate it. In fact, I probably wouldn't even bother. So if you aren't reading this, you'll know why.

Andy Ihnakto never did mention my blog on his excellent site. Just thought you'd want to know. Still, don't hold that against him. Read his site anyway. The two or three hits I send him may make him feel guilty.

Okay, I gotta go, and I promise to try to update earlier next week to let you all know how my Fantasy Football week went.

2002-09-12T16:42:00.000-04:00

My eyes hurt today, and it's those damned terrorists' fault. No, I didn't get hit in the face with an envelope full of anthrax powder that billowed out like flour and settled between my glasses and eyeballs. My eyes hurt due to muscle strain.

I'm an avid reader, and will spend hours at a time reading anything that has a perceptible beginning, middle and end. Hell, I'll even overlook the lack of an ending, and even a middle, really, if the beginning is good enough. But over reading is not the cause of my eye soreness today either.

No, the terrorists are to blame because one year ago yesterday they flew two planes into the World Trade Centers and one into the Pentagon. Over 3000 lifes were lost, and America went immediately into mourning. Yesterday, the first anniversary of this cowardly attack, was a day filled with rememberance; a celebration of the continuance of our nation and our way of life, tempered with sorrow and mourning for those who died.

Why, you may be asking, are my eyes hurting? Because you couldn't swing a deat cat yesterday without hitting someone saying "God bless America" or exhorting everyone to "pray for those lives lost." Yesterday was rough on us free-thinkers, skeptics and atheists, because we rolled our eyes about every 30 seconds over some inane religous platitude or another. "We are one nation, under God" . "Those firefighters were doing what God wanted them to" . "Let's all bow our heads and pray..." "and thank God..." "that our Christian nation..." , well, it just went on and on and on. At one time yesterday at work, my co-workers thought I'd passed out because all they could see was the whites of my eyes. I was fine, but I'd just rolled my eyes up so much I thought it would save time and energy just to leave them up there.

And you've got to love the City of Salem, Virginia (where I live) and their determination to not be left out of anything. Roanoke had some local big deal, Radford had some local big deal, even Vinton (!) had some small local big deal, so of course Salem had to hastily plan and organize a local big deal. And if the planning and organizing of their local big deal involves blocking a heavily traveled section of Main Street without any warning whatsoever for 3 or 4 hours, what of it! People will understand. Once they get over the shock of having to slam on their breaks to avoid crashing into the Police car and city utility truck directing traffic through a hastily routed detour as they come over the hill at their normal 35-to-45 miles-per-hour, Salemites will embrace the local big deal with open arms and with all the considerable ferver with which they embrace a Salem High School football game.

It should be noted that the particular section of Main Street I'm talking about is a 25 mph zone. Normally travelling 10 or 20 mph faster would be just plain stupid, but considering that even the Salem police often pass me as I'm doing my sedate 30 mph in that section, giving me dirty looks and (in the words of Dave Berry, I'm not making this up) shooting me their middle finger, other drivers doing the same thing can hardly be blamed. I fully suspect that some day a cop will pull me over in the 25 mph section while I'm driving 30 mph and give me a ticket for going too slow.

But the wife and I walked to the local big deal with Joker (the dog), and listened to the speeches from all the local big shots (you can't have a local big deal without a lot of local big shots, after all) and politely applauded at the right spots. But there wasn't a speaker there who didn't mention God, and all but one had to throw in a Jesus or two to boot.

The guy who got my eyes hurting today, though (and yes, I can pinpoint this one as being the root cause, though I still blame the terrorists from last year) was the one who didn't throw in Jesus. Ironically, he was trying to appease the non-Christian believers with he said (and I paraphrase here, but it's pretty close) "Today I say to you that this nation is the great nation that it is because of all of us who pray to God, whatever god you happen to believe in, if you believe in God then you are the reason this nation is the great nation that it is." Even Joker rolled his eyes at that one.

Then we stood around and listened to a guy (who really should have practiced longer beforehand) sing a shakey rendition of "I'm Proud to be an American." My wife fell in love with that song during Desert Storm when I was in SouthWest Asia, and despite the meaningless addition of "God bless the USA" thrown in their, I have to admit that I like it too. Afterwords we went on home, and the wife watched a baseball game (she's a Braves fan) and I watched some HBO. I didn't want to watch any of the networks' "anniversary" shows.

2002-09-11T15:42:00.000-04:00

I just sent Andy Ihnakto an email to let him know that I put a link to his web log here. If you haven't read his stuff, you should. His style is (to me) very reminiscent of Douglas Adams (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy). I'm hoping he'll mosey on over here to check out my site and see that I've not only linked to him but that I've also mentioned his name twice... Andy Ihnakto... make that three times now. I'm not as funny as he is on his worst day, but maybe he'll be impressed nonetheless.

If nothing else, I bet he's not seen a lot of web logs that use the word "nonetheless" properly.

2002-09-09T15:04:00.000-04:00

I told you a few weeks ago about being involved for the first time in Fantasy Football. Well, the results of my first matchup are in. My players combined for a total of 70 points this week, which was the fourth lowest point total in our 12-team league. Fortunately, I was matched up against the team with the third lowest point total, so I won my first "game." The best part is, I won against my co-worker, and the guy who got me involved in the game in the first place. I'll need to do a lot better in the upcoming weeks, but all things considered I guess I didn't do too badly.

For those who aren't familiar with Fantasy Football, the idea is that you make up a team of current NFL players. Our league had a draft night where we took turns (we drew lots out of a hat in order to determine the order) picking players. Some leagues give you a certain amount of "cash" that you have to use to get players, but we just picked from the pool of available players. Our league is pretty simple, and we only start one quarterback, two running backs, 3 wide receivers or tight ends (any combination), a kicker and a defense. We draft a total of 14 players and start only 8 of them (a team defense is counted as one player), and score points depending on how those players individually do for their team. Whether the player's team wins or loses is immaterial.

You get 14 total spots so that you can have backup players in case one gets hurt or is scheduled for a bye week (each team has one week where they don't play at all). The trick is to know which players to play and which to bench in any given week. You have to look at how they've been performing, what teams they are going up against, did they have a good practice the past few days, are they banged up, are they shitting regularly, etc. It can be tough, especially if you were lucky enough to get enough good players that you have to bench someone who could potentially have a huge day.

My main concern was that, win or lose, I didn't have anyone benched who would have made more points for me than someone I was playing. That was the case, fortunately, so I feel pretty good about it. And I feel even better about winning, even though my total points were a little low. I just have to hope that some of my players will come up big next week, and in future weeks.

The Dallas Cowboys, my favorite team, lost in a pathetic showing last night. It's bad enough to lose your first game of the season, but they lost to an expansion team (that's a new team that's playing for it's first time.) Expansion teams are supposed to be bad because you don't have any team cohesion (because they're brand-new), though in this case there were quite a few experienced veterans on the team. Basically, though, Dallas just looked like shit. I really hope they get their act together, and soon.

Okay, enough for now. If you want to read a "web log" that's actually interesting, try Al's CWoB Yellow Text (the CWoB stands for Complete Waste of Bandwidth.)

2002-08-31T10:04:00.000-04:00

So, Joker and I are home today (Saturday) alone while the wife is at work. She melodramatically complains about the overtime, but it's obvious she enjoys making the extra money. She'd work more hours if they let her, but as it is she's working 10 hours per day during the week and anywhere from 4 to 8 hours on Saturday. Her employer has made 9 hours a day mandatory but she can volunteer to work longer. I've told her that if mandatory hours go on much longer I would prefer she not volunteer for more hours, because I think she's working too hard. Oh, but that allure of the extra money...

Anyway, I washed clothes this morning and, since it's raining this morning, I took them to the laundramat to dry them instead of hanging them up outside. There was a lady there with a kid who was probably 3 years old (the kid, not the lady.) I couldn't help but laugh (though I did it politely) whenever she would tell the kid "No!" or ask him to sit still or whatever. The kid would listen for about 2 seconds (the usual, in otherwords) then go ahead and do whatever he wanted to anyway. It struck me how much like Joker her kid was, but I don't think she would have appreciated me telling her that.

When I say I dislike kids, I hope that most of my readers understand that I mean that in a general sense, the same as my dislike for people. Obviously there are individual people and kids, mainly friends and family members, who are okay. But people in general, including kids, I have little use for.

As for kids, my true disdain if reserved for those parents who are either unwilling or unable to control them. In my opinion, if wannabe parents aren't sure that they will be able to handle having kids, they shouldn't have them. (For those of you who would say "If they had to wait until they were sure, no one would have kids" I say "Aha!") Parents who have kids and inevitably find out they they aren't able to handle them (as I say, it's inevitable) need to suck it up and learn how to. It's their responsibility, and I'm sick and tired of having to spend time around kids in public who's parents haven't lived up to it.

2002-08-30T14:12:00.000-04:00

I'm making a special plea to everyone who watches so-called "reality tv" on any of the major Networks: STOP IT! Because you watch it, it's popular. Because it's popular, the networks keep coming up with stupider and stupider ideas for this supposed "reality."

Oh, you don't believe me? Well, CBS and FOX are both working on new shows that I swear are going to be the beginning of the end of civilization. (Okay, okay, so I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, but before civilization ends I want to be able to watch some decent programs, dammit.)

FOX's show is just a stupid premise; take some wealthy, upper-class family or individual, maybe a celibrity, out of the "big city" and drop them into a less afluent environment, possibly the South. Well, shit-dang if that don't beat all git out, huh Ma? For Christ's sake, people, most of the South is not that fucking different from the rest of America (despite liberals' best efforts to tell you otherwise.) We're not all ignorant, shit-kicking hicks who don't know how to use a telephone, much less a computer.

If this all sounds like the main theme behind Green Acres, there's a reason: it's supposed to. What makes the whole premise so stupid is the South simply is not that far behind the rest of the country. FOX will have to put some fake community together with scripted "misunderstandings" based on their being so ass-backwards. If they try to drop the "fish out of water" players in a real Southern community and film them, those rednecks are going to get sick-and-goddamned tired of being made fun of pretty quick (like, 15 minutes top, and only because they'll be courteous at first.) Then the squirrel rifles will come out.

CBS's show is, if you can believe it, even stupider, and is based on the Beverly Hillbillies. They plan to "drop a lower-middle-class family into a Beverly Hills mansion in hopes of much mirth." Okay, I'm sorry, but your average "lower-middle-class family" is not going to be astounded by all the new-fangled gadgets and cement ponds. They've seen these things, even if they've never actually owned or used them. So what CBS will have to do is find some family willing to make absolute asses out of themselves to convince the viewing public that they are just as hick as CBS needs them to be. Yea, that's reality alright.

Again, if you're one of the apparantly majority of people who watches these stupid-ass shows, thereby making them popular enough that the networks constantly look for a way to outdo each other, I'm begging you to stop. Please! If not for the sake of society (because really, who cares?) at least for my sake!

2002-08-29T13:19:00.000-04:00

I saw a great sign in front of a church this past Sunday. It read "Telling the truth is not an option for Christians." I'm sure that will relieve quite a few Christians who weren't wanting to tell the truth any damned way.

Speaking of unintended messages, I heard a true classic on a local news station on my way back to work this afternoon. I wish I'd caught the guys name who was making this quote, or even the full context, but basically he talking about drug testing in schools. "Testing kids for drugs isn't about punishment," he said, "that's the big misconception. It's about preventing, treating and educating kids." Well, I suppose in a round-a-bout way if you keep kids off drugs you will also prevent kids. That just seems to be a funny way to put it.

Actually, long-time readers know that I am all for any program that prevents kids. We humans have had a pretty good run for a while, but we've worn out our welcome. It's high-time we just move on and make room for the next evolutionary development.

Maybe I should change the url for this site to http://kids-nomore.blogspot.com/. Nah, then ebay would just wind up buying kids.

2002-08-28T10:48:00.000-04:00

By now you've probably heard about the software consultant (I have no idea what that is) David Williamson who sent a bill for $100 per hour to the federal court in San Antonio in response to a summons for jury duty (as opposed to the normal $40 a day). On top of that, he informed the court that if payment wasn't received in a specific time frame he would start charging interest, and invited the judge to contact him for an appointment if there were any questions. Though I was tempted to write something about this as soon as I read it on Sunday, I had all but decided to forget it. Circumstances and my own basic nature of procrastination had led to me putting it off until last night, by which time I'd decided it wouldn't be much use anymore. I mean, it had been two days and I was pretty sure other, far better writers would have jumped on it by now, so why bother? And I was right: this morning I heard on a local radio station that carries Rush Limbaugh's show in the afternoons and a quick spot from him in the morning (it was the quick spot that I heard this on) Rush talking about this guy. Once Rush weighs in with his rant, I don't see a lot of point in trying to write anything about it because he's already said what I would have, right?

I was wrong. Oh, Rush poked fun at Williamson, especially when talking about how U.S. District Judge Fred Beiry reacted. The judge, in case you are unfamiliar with the story, did indeed want an appointment with Williamson. The judge specifically wanted Williamson to come and explain to him why he shouldn't be thrown in jail on contempt of court charges. Rush then explained how Williamson apologized and agreed to perform the jury duty for the standard $40 a day instead of the $16,000 plus he'd estimated. How nice of him.

But just as I was expecting Rush to lament over how far society has fallen, he illustrated exactly how far it's fallen by commending Williamson for his entrepreneurial spirit! Rush said (and I'm just absolutely stunned by this) that the guy took a shot in the "nothing ventured, nothing gained" vein and verbally clapped the guy on the back. Worse than that, really, he pretty much high-fived the guy. He said the guy feels his time is worth something and expects others to do the same, and we should admire him! Rush said that!!

Well, I for one do not admire Williamson; I'm disgusted by him and those like him who think they have a right to charge the court (which means taxpayers, for those of you not paying attention) for doing their civic duty. I'm so sick and god-damned tired of Americans who bitch and moan about their rights to this or that and completely ignore that along with those rights comes responsibilities. We live in a society that can only work if people agree to do their part to make it work. If they don't agree to do their part, they have no business being here, enjoying the benefits that the rest of us pay for.

Jury duty is one of those responsibilites. Most people, especially those with a pretty good job, find it an inconvenience to have to perform it, and many of them do whatever they can to avoid it. They'll come up with whatever lame-ass excuse or hare-brained scheme they can think of that will get them out of it. That's bad enough. But to actually charge the court for his time makes Williamson one of those low-life scum that I simply detest. And I'm sure there are others who, like Rush, beam with praise for this guy who had the "courage" to make a stand, however briefly.

"But I'll miss out on the $100 an hour I've grown accustomed to" he whines (I'm sure he does, aren't you?) "$40 a day won't pay for my breakfast, much less the mortgage on my over-sized house, the note on my over-sized SUV (that will never see time on an unpaved road), and clothes for my over-sized family, including the kids I had with my first two wives."

As far as I'm concerned, potential jurists are lucky to get the $40 (plus mileage) a day they already get. And I couldn't possibly care less that they'll miss out on some work here or extra pay there. It's America, people, home of the free and all that. But you have to do your part, too, and it goes a lot better for everyone if you just do it and quit bitching about it.

2002-08-21T15:31:00.000-04:00

The "Beseen" hit counter I've been using on this site, as well as the statistics they provide about how many visits per day I've had, have been pretty useful. For instance, they let me know that 5 people visited here yesterday (thanks, guys). For a free service, it's been pretty good. Unfortunately, they will be closing down later this month because free services aren't particularly well-known for their revenue generating potential.

My favorite American football (NFL) team is the Dallas Cowboys. Those who follow the NFL may wonder why they are my favorite team after the last 2 seasons, or at least wonder why I admit it. Maybe this year they'll do better. Maybe not, considering the number of injuries they've had on their offense just during the pre-season. Ah, well...

In any event, this year I've joined a fantasy football league that a co-worker invited me to. I've never tried it before, so I imagine I won't be very good at it. I drafted some decent players, and assuming that none of them get injured or that I am completely unable to get decent available players each week when I need them, I should be able to win a few two or three weeks out of the season. Then again, last year the person who came in second in this league had never played before either. Apparently, she did the exact opposite of what her husband suggested. Ha! I'll let you know how I do as the weeks go on. The first "game" is the first week of football, as these things work out.

One of the best things about having a dog now is coming home from work in the evenings. I get a pretty good reception when I let Joker out of his room in the mornings and during the day when I come home for lunch, but he's more interested in getting outside and sniffing a few bushes (and then watering them) so I don't get much more than a perfunctory tail-wag, a quick lick on the hand and maybe he'll let me pet him on the head and scratch his ears for 5 seconds or so. Then it's on to business. By the time we get done with the walking, the excitement is gone and then he's basically just a pretty cool dog to have around (except when he's being a pain.)

But when I come home at night, now that's a different story! My wife lets him out of his room when she gets home and takes him walking, so he's gotten that out of his system for the next half-hour or so. She says that when Joker hears my truck pull into the driveway, he starts whining and running from the front door to the back door. I usually go in through the back, so she opens the door and he stands at the screen door waiting for me. He sits there whinning until he sees me, then he immediately gets up and starts wiggling all over. As soon as the wife opens the screen door, he runs down the steps, almost yelping in excitement, and jumps up and down all around me. His tail is curled so that when he's happy he's not just wagging it, he's wagging his whole butt around. It's like he's won some mega-million dollar lottery.

Frankly, it's a great thing to come home to. I love my wife and I enjoy coming home to her too, but Joker really knows how to make me feel welcomed. The wife doesn't lick my hand and demand instant attention like Joker does (though she will give me a quick kiss if she's not mad at me about something.) And it's been years since her butt wiggled like that when she sees me. I really enjoy having a dog.

My niece is staying with us this week. She's the one who was in the accident last spring, but she's doing fine now. She still has some vision problems, and I suppose the scars on her chin and neck will never entirely fade, but all-in-all she's gotten off pretty lucky.

Anyway, she's staying with us because my sister and her boyfriend are going on vacation. Actually, my sister's ex-husband has legal custody of my niece, but he's been kicked out of his new wife's (soon to be second ex-wife) house because he's traded his drug addiction (supposedly) for alcoholism. I don't know the full story, but he apparently doesn't have any money and is living (somehow) in some seedy motel room. My niece was to be staying with her mom (my sister), but this was a pretty recent development and happened two nights before she and her boyfriend were going to go on vacation with the boyfriends parents and (I think) his brother and sister-in-law. Confused? You won't be after this week's episode... (that's for all you "Soap" fans.)

So, they couldn't change their plans at the last minute, and we get to watch my niece for the week. I don't mind, of course, because she's family and all, and sometimes she's even pretty cool. It just pisses me off when she talks and acts dumber than she is. She's better about that when she's around me, because she knows that I don't like it. But last night we took her and one of her friends to a baseball game, and they met up with a couple of other friends of theirs. Once all of them were together, she started that crap up again. Kids, harumph!

I'm still working on some articles for The Skeptical Review Online, and was able to post a new set of articles from Farrell Till. I still have a number of articles to convert to html, and I hope to be able to work on that some in the mornings and maybe in the evenings and get them up sometime this weekend. We'll see.

2002-08-15T14:20:00.000-04:00

On my way back to work today after lunch (I go home at lunch these days to walk Joker) I stopped at a convenience store to buy a Diet Coke. As I was waiting at the traffic light to leave, I glanced in the car on my left. There was an old lady driving, a girl who was probably 9 or 10 in the back seat, a 12 year-old boy in the front passenger seat, and a baby in a car seat between the driver and the boy. No seatbelt, and the carrier was turned around so that the baby's head was pointing to the front of the car. In other words, the exact opposite of what you're supposed to do with a baby in a car. It's not like there wasn't plenty of room in the back seat for the carrier, even with the girl back there. People are so goddamned stupid it makes me want to scream.

I rolled down my window and casually called over to the driver "Lady, if you have a wreck that baby is going to die." She, of course, told me to shut up and mind my own business, using words you certainly wouldn't expect of a grandmotherly woman with grandchildren in the car. Even the boy blushed. When she was done, I shrugged and said "Oh, well, I guess if you're trying to kill the child then you're doing the exact right thing." Then the light turned green and I went on my way.

Being the misanthropist that I am, I guess I shouldn't be too concerned when someone tries to do his or her part to lower the population. I just think it's a lot more efficient to not have children at all than it is to have them and purposefully try to get rid of them after they're born. In this particular case, if the lady really is the child's grandmother, maybe she shouldn't have had the kid that wound up being the baby's mother or father. And the baby's parents damned sure shouldn't put their kids' lifes in this idiot's hands.

Some people reading this may immediately think that I'm just a callous asshole, and to a certain extent that's probably true. There is some part of me though that hopes the lady got over her initial knee-jerk anger and pulled over to put the carrier in the back seat where it belongs.

2002-08-14T13:57:00.000-04:00

Wow, it's been over a month since I last updated, hasn't it? If any of my regular readers are still coming back, man what the hell for? Just kidding. I admire and appreciate your loyalty.

So, Joker has been with us almost 2 months now and so far things are going good. He's learning slowly but surely what we expect from him and what we'll let him get away with. We try to be consistent in things like feedings, walking and discipline, so I think that helps. I'll post some updated pictures of him soon, whenever I get around to 1) taking pictures and 2) transferring them from the camera to the computer.

I have finally gotten the pieces together to get Farrell Till's The Skeptical Review Online up and running. That's been going for a while now (hence the long period of no updates) and there's quite a bit posted so far. Till is involved in a major debate with Robert Turkel (aka J.P. Holding) concerning Yahweh's failed land promise, and is exchanging articles back and forth on a couple of other topics. I'm in the middle of editing the latest round of Till's response to Turkel's latest (lamest) attempts, so hopefully those will be up soon.

I kind of hinted to the Biblical Errancy list that someone could do me a big favor by making a "Links" page for me, but no one has bitten so far. A couple of weeks ago I got burned out on the list and unsubscribed. I may rejoin later, but I just couldn't put up with it anymore. It'd gotten to the point where even the postings that were somewhat topical were just too boring to read. That probably says more about me than the posters, though.

Anyway, I apologize for the long delay in updating here, and I apologize for the shortness of this post (unless you readers consider it a blessed relief.) Once my home computer is back up and running properly (I'll tell that story soon) I should be able to update the blog from there, so that will help some.

2002-07-01T08:47:00.000-04:00

For some reason, I can't post updates here from my home computer. It keeps crashing with a violation error that takes my computer completely down. That kind of sucks, because that means I really only get a chance to post at work, and that's kind of a no-no. Fortunately, I can write the update at home then email it to myself and post it from work.

Anyway, I got an email this weekend from some aol user with the subject "you sounjd like you will be some kind of pet owner..." (shown exactly as it was received.) The message follows:

3. Just try putting a kid to sleep because the kidney operation is just so expensive.

Lets hope it doesn''t get hit by a car
get bit by a snake
get sick
chew on the furniture
make a mess
bore its owner so he will end up back at the pound.

People like you dont need dogs, they need shiny objects to keep them amused. Try the robotic dogs, they are on sale online for $49.00 and when you are done having your fun for the day, you can put it in the closet or laundry room, whichever you prefer. They also don't get sick, which would be a good thing, since if they were your dog, not only would they feel awful if they got sick, the alternative would be to be put down. Lovely..Thank god they are already spayed or neutered before you got them, hate to waste money on that, especially if they start acting like your wife and having sex with everything in sight. Don't worry if you have kids, Im sure you will be proud to have your son fuck every tramp in site, since you seem to think only men are supposed to be getting some. (no one thinks she's a tramp.) Your mentality is the reason people should need a permit to have a dog or child. You don't seem bright enough to raise either. Don''t bother responding, I couldn''t care less what your pathetic ass thinks.

Now this sounds to me like someone seriously devoid of a sense of humor. Not to mention a spell checker. I haven't decided if the writer is an immature boy with too much time on his hands now that summer school is out or an over-indulged, under-sexed princess who wants her pony and wants it NOW! You be the judge.

Apparently "Princess" thinks I wouldn't get my dog medical attention if he was sick or injured. I don't know what gives him or her that idea. Maybe he or she is projecting. Princess is also offended by the double standard society has placed on girls, that if they sleep around they are called tramps but boys aren't if they sleep around. I don't know why Princess is blaming me for this standard, but I can assure him or her that it existed long before I was born. All in all I don't mind that Princess disagrees with what I write, but why does he or she feel it necessary to make disparaging remarks about my wife, who has nothing to do with this web log?

On the other hand, I do agree with Princess that people should have a permit in order to have a child. If something like that had been in effect 12 or 13 years ago, though, Princess most likely wouldn't be here now. Whether male or female, though, I think Princess should seriously consider doing something to dislodge whatever it is that's crawled up his or her ass to make him or her such a foul-mouthed, unhumoured person. Maybe the place that sells those robotic dogs he or she seems to love so much has some "silver bullets" on sale. I suggest the 12" model for Princess. He or she needs all the help he or she can get.

Since Princess doesn't care what my "pathetic ass" thinks (for one, I think my ass is pretty okay), maybe he or she would care to know what you readers think. If you're interested, let him or her know.

On another note, The Skeptical Review Online is now live and operational! Read Farrell Till's debate with Robert Turkel (James Patrick Holding) about Yahweh's failed land promise, or read the articles both have written concerning biblical errancy. There is also a discussion area where you can talk about the articles that have been written so far. It's fun!

2002-06-21T16:15:00.000-04:00

Okay, so I know everyone is all aquiver wondering what's up with the dog my wife and I adopted. We named him Joker (because, that's why) and he's a pretty cool dog. Here's pictures one, two, and three, though my ugly ass is in them too, so beware. Also, they're kind of big if you're on a dial-up.

So, Joker is a pretty good dog. He's already a year old, so he's about as big as he's going to get. That's good, because we really don't want a big dog just yet. He looks to be a cross between a Chow and a Sheppard, but what the hell do I know about dogs? He's house broken already, which is a plus, and the only time he barks is when we first put him in the laundry room at night when we go to bed, or in the morning (after letting him run around the house for a while) when we go to work. Except that last night, when my wife took him for a walk just before bed-time, she came back a little earlier than I'd expected. She said they got to the end of the block where the house there had a light on in the carport. Joker barked like crazy at the light, says my wife, then almost drug my wife home.

He's also a bit skittish at times. It's not like he's really scared, but he constantly looks to the wife and me when we're walking with a look like he wants to make sure he's not screwing up. He goes through a whole overly-dramatic submissive thing whenever I get too close to his head, first acting like he doesn't want it, then oh-so-graciously ducking down and conceding my right to pet him or brush him. He actually jumped and growled the other night when, after dinner, I cut loose with a loud belch. Actually, I was kind of proud of that.

Well, this isn't going to become one of those weblogs, where I'll be obsessively writing about my dog. I'll update from time to time, probably more at first while the enthusiasm is high then gradually getting less and less. Deal with it for a little while, then things will get back to normal (meaning a few lame postings now and then.)

2002-06-18T15:28:00.000-04:00

My wife and I have decided to adopt a dog from the local shelter, and I'm pretty excited about it. I've wanted a dog for years now, but the circumstances were never right. Especially since I told my wife when we were first going together that I want a big dog. Not a BIG dog, just a big one like a Lab.

Recently, however, I found out that we weren't going to be able to buy the new house with the bigger yard that we've been thinking about (we hadn't actually found one yet, but in generaly we just wanted a new house with a bigger yard.) I still want a dog, though, so we decided that we would just get a smaller one. Sunday we went by the animal shelter and saw two dogs that we liked, and today we've decided to go pick up the one that we both like most. The only sad part is having to leave the other dogs we liked, but there's no way I could talk my wife into getting 3 or 4 dogs. Not that I would really want to, but you know what I mean.

So, I'll leave work early and we'll go pick the dog up, then go by one of the pet stores we like and pick some supplies up. I haven't owned a dog in a really long time, so I don't know what all we'll wind up needing. I guess the first things we'll have to get are food and water dishes, something comfortable for the dog to lay on in the laundry room, a leash and collar, some chew toys. Oh, some food also, as well as doggie snacks. Sheesh, what else do we need?

Some of my co-workers have jokingly said that owning a dog will be as bad as raising kids. I don't think so, and am in the process of working on a "why dogs are better than kids" list. Here's what I have so far, and if you have any other suggestions, send them to me:

Why dogs are better than kids
1. Dogs don't give your wife stretch marks.
2. You can play pretty rough with a dog without worrying about it puking all over you.
3. Just try putting a kid to sleep because the kidney operation is just so expensive.
4. If your dog has sex, no one thinks she's a tramp.
5. You really don't have to bathe the dog.
6. The dog doesn't care if you change the channel from Barney.
7. You can leave a one-year-old dog alone while you and the wife go eat dinner at a nice restaraunt.

Okay, you can do that last one with a kid too, but people look at you kind of funny. Anyway, that's what I've come up with so far. Now I gotta run though, and go pick up my dog.

2002-06-03T12:54:00.000-04:00

I know it's been a while since my last update, and I do apologize. I had actually attempted to post an update last week, but I was working on it from home and for some reason everytime I tried to actually post what I'd just spent the last hour typing, my computer would crash. In fact, I'm not entirely certain that won't happen here at my work computer (I'm writing this during lunch, for those keeping track of my hours.)

Anyway, my mother-in-law's visit ended Friday. She was visiting us from Germany for the last three weeks and is now back home. My wife and I are both glad to be able to get back into our normal routine (some call it a "rut") but I did enjoy having the MIL here. She didn't really cook as much as I'd hoped for, and though she did wash the dishes I wound up having to go behind her when she wasn't looking and re-wash a majority of them. Honestly, ever since she had her stroke (Christmas day, 1999, when the wife and I were there for our three week visit, though I'm sure that's just a coincidence) she just isn't the same. I guess it's understandable, but it's a little sad to see.

Anyway, she was here, we did some things we otherwise might not have done, and we had to do normal, day-to-day things differently for a while. Now she's gone again, and we can go back to our old ways. Though some of the ways we were forced to do things differently might actually be better than how we did them before, so maybe we'll try it for a while and see what happens.

From the "other interesting news" department: nothing. Sad, isn't it?

So, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis are finally going to fight this weekend. Maybe. I'm a fan of boxing, and I used to be a fan of Tyson's. Even when he was convicted of that first rape charge, I supported him because I thought he was railroaded. I anticipated his return to boxing when he got out of prison, and despite fighting a couple of tomato cans to "warm up", I thought his first fight with Hollyfield would be pretty good and would ultimately be a win for Tyson. I was dissapointed when he lost, but it was a good effort and an honorable outcome. I figured he would train harder and smarter for the next fight, and be prepared for Hollyfield's style.

The second fight was just ridiculous. For those who don't follow boxing, that was the fight where Tyson bit a piece of Hollyfield's ear off. Tyson claims that he did it in retaliation for the head butts Hollyfield was throwing, and from what I've seen of the fight tapes I can see his point. Still, I lost just about all respect for Tyson after that. Since then, it's been one damned thing after another marring just about every fight he's had. I don't believe all of the fault lies in Tyson, but trouble follows him and he certainly shares in some, probably most of the blame.

Now he has a chance to redeem himself against Lewis. If he can win, and win cleanly (or as clean as can be expected under the circumstances) he will go a long way towards restoring the respect he once had, at least as a boxer if not a person. I seriously doubt this will happen, though. With the animosity between Tyson and Lewis, I have a feeling something embarrassing to the world of boxing will happen either before the fight or during it. It might not even be Tyson's fault, because even Lewis' trainer has expressed (in what may have simply been pre-fight hype) his concern that Lewis might not behave himself appropriately.

Some people I know were talking about pitching in to get the fight on pay-per-view, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen now. I'd like to see that fight, but I'm not paying $55 for it. With Tyson's history, it's just too much of a chance of it being money down the drain.

2002-05-15T14:51:00.000-04:00

In my last poll I asked readers to agree or disagree in varying degrees to the statement "A law or amendment to the US Constitution is needed to ensure all peoples' right to pray in public." Out of 17 respondents, all but two strongly or somewhat strongly disagreed with the statement. And one of the two listed him/herself as ambivalent. It's astounding to me that something that seems to be so damned common sensical (and apparently most of you agree) can be so badly misrepresented, whether intentionally or not, by our elected officials.

Butch Church, for instance, is chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and displays a shocking lack of understanding in the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment. This is easily seen in the article he wrote to the Roanoke Times defending his vote (one of the 4 out of five) in favor of adding an amendment to the Constitution. Statements he makes such as

'[t]he issue of proposed public prayer isn't one of mandating it forcibly on any person. It simply affords the freedom of prayer to everyone who wishes to pray. The First Amendment doesn't give this "open freedom."'

show a decided lack of comprehension, and really make me wish that I lived in Roanoke County just so I could have the pleasure of voting against him (as well as the other 4 council members who voted for the silly resolution.)

Jorge Parrott, in his letter to the editor praising the supervisors for their votes, doesn't show any better understanding of even his own religious convictions when he asks "What is wrong with what the Ten Commandments say, even to those who are not Christians, that they should not be a creed to live by?" If Parrott were as knowledgeable about the Bible and, especially, the Ten Commandments as he no doubt wants all his God-fearin' neighbors to believe he is, he wouldn't ask such an asinine question. The first four commandments (1. No other Gods before me, 2. Don't take God's name in vain, 3. No graven images, and 4. Keep the Sabbath holy) are so obviously Judo-Christian (duh!) that it's just mind-boggling that someone would ask what objections non-Christians have to them as creeds to live by. For God's sake (pun intended) don't these people even know their own Commandments?!

Think about the intimate (though possibly mundane) conversations you have with your spouse. You know, about things like aspects of your sex life, or (ahem) digestive problems, the things you wouldn't necessarily want to discuss around other people because it's personal between you two. Now, think about another couple you know, especially a couple that you think of as being sweet and innocent, and try to imagine them as having the same types of conversation. I don't know about you, but that kind of blows my mind when I think about, say, my neighbors discussing the sex they had the night before over their morning coffee, or one casually mentioning to the other that he'd just taken a satisfying dump. The thing is, they probably do, and they probably think the same way about me and my wife. What's my point? I don't have one; I just thought I'd mention it.

2002-05-06T10:46:00.000-04:00

So, the wife and I went to see "Spiderman" this weekend. She thought it was okay, I thought it was pretty good. It's not my all-time favorite movie, and it might not even be my favorite movie this year, but it was still fun. Especially the rain scene with Kirsten Dunst running around in a flimsy shirt and bra (if it could be called that.) a-ooooh-ga! Hubba hubba! Still, I liked it at least as well as I liked "Lord of the Rings", though not as much as I liked the "Harry Potter" movie.

Now, I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone, but I think this has to be said: Peter Parker is Spiderman.

Not much else happened this weekend. We went to another "Fiddle and Banjo Club", and my cousin came with us. We didn't stay very long, but we had a good time for the time we were there. Sunday after the movie my wife put together a chest-of-drawers kit that we bought while I patched a concrete hole in our basement floor. I tell you, mixing concrete (I actually used what's called Quickrite) is a pain in the ass. I've never done it before, so I had absolutely no idea what the ratio of water to mix was supposed to be. Plus, since Quickrite is just sand with gravel in it, I breathed in enough dust to pave both of my lungs. I pretty much got the mixture right finally, but now that it's mostly dry the area I patched isn't as smooth as it was when it was wet. I don't know if that means I had it too dry, too wet, or I just screwed it up entirely when I was "smoothing" it out. Oh, well. Oh, and I didn't use quite enough, so I fell about 1/4" short of filling the hole entirely.

I also replaced some gear on our gas grill, so we can grill again. I grilled some chicken last night which came out okay, but it stuck to the grill at first. Plus, I left it a little too long on one side, so it was a little dry and chewy on that side. I think I should stick to the hamburgers, hotdogs and ribs and leave the harder stuff to my wife. That won't keep me from trying to grill a steak or two when my mother-in-law is in town next week.

Only nine responses so far to the poll question this week. Of those, eight don't agree that a special amendment is necessary in order to ensure peoples' rights to pray and one listed himself or herself as ambivalent. I'll put a new poll up soon, I suppose.

2002-05-03T15:11:00.000-04:00

I received the following in an email today. I don't know if I can believe all of them, and a few sound like they are supposed to be a joke. Which ones do you believe are false?

================================================
A M A Z I N G - B U T - T R U E F A C T S
================================================

Sixty Amazing-but-True Facts!

* In the weightlessness of space a frozen pea will explode if it
comes in contact with Pepsi.

* The increased electricity used by modern appliances is causing
a shift in the Earth's magnetic field. By the year 2327, the
North Pole will be located in mid-Kansas, while the South Pole
will be just off the coast of East Africa.

* The idea for "tribbles" in "Star Trek" came from gerbils, since
some gerbils are actually born pregnant.

* Male rhesus monkeys often hang from tree branches by their
amazing prehensile penises.

* Johnny Plessey batted .331 for the Cleveland Spiders in 1891,
even though he spent the entire season batting with a
rolled-up, lacquered copy of the Toledo Post-Dispatch.

* Smearing a small amount of dog feces on an insect bite will
relieve the itching and swelling.

* The Boeing 747 is capable of flying upside-down if it weren't
for the fact that the wings would shear off when trying to roll
it over.

* The trucking company Elvis Presley worked at as a young man
was owned by Frank Sinatra.

* The only golf course on the island of Tonga has 15 holes, and
there's no penalty if a monkey steals your golf ball.

* Legislation passed during WWI making it illegal to say
"gesundheit" to a sneezer was never repealed.

* Manatees possess vocal chords which give them the ability to
speak like humans, but they don't do so because they have
no ears with which to hear the sound.

* SCUBA divers cannot pass gas at depths of 33 feet or below.

* Catfish are the only animals that naturally have an ODD number
of whiskers.

* Replying more than 100 times to the same piece of spam e-mail
will overwhelm the sender's system and interfere with their
ability to send any more spam.

* Polar bears can eat as many as 86 penguins in a single sitting.

* The first McDonald's restaurant opened for business in 1952 in
Edinburgh, Scotland, and featured the McHaggis sandwich.

* The Air Force's F-117 fighter uses aerodynamics discovered
during research into how bumblebees fly.

* You *can* get blood from a stone, but only if contains at
least 17 percent bauxite.

* Silly Putty was "discovered" as the residue left behind after
the first latex condoms were produced. It's not widely
publicized for obvious reasons.

* Approximately one-sixth of your life is spent on Wednesdays.

* The skin needed for elbow transplants must be taken from the
scrotum of a cadaver.

* The sport of jai alai originated from a game played by Incan
priests who held cats by their tails and swung at leather
balls. The cats would instinctively grab at the ball with
their claws, thus enabling players to catch them.

* A cat's purr has the same romance-enhancing frequency as the
voice of singer Barry White.

* The typewriter was invented by Hungarian immigrant Qwert Yuiop,
who left his "signature" on the keyboard.

* The volume of water that the Giant Sequoia tree consumes in a
24-hour period contains enough suspended minerals to pave
17.3 feet of a 4-lane concrete freeway.

* King Henry VIII slept with a gigantic axe.

* Because printed materials are being replaced by CD-ROM,
microfiche and the Internet, libraries that previously sank
into their foundations under the weight of their books are
now in danger of collapsing in extremely high winds.

* In 1843, a Parisian street mime got stuck in his imaginary box
and consequently died of starvation.

* Touch-tone telephone keypads were originally planned to have
buttons for Police and Fire Departments, but they were replaced
with * and # when the project was cancelled in favor of
developing the 911 system.

* Human saliva has a boiling point three times that of regular
water.

* Calvin, of the "Calvin and Hobbes" comic strip, was patterned
after President Calvin Coolidge, who had a pet tiger as a boy.

* Watching an hour-long soap opera burns more calories than
watching a three-hour baseball game.

* Until 1978, Camel cigarettes contained minute particles of real
camels.

* You can actually sharpen the blades on a pencil sharpener by
wrapping your pencils in aluminum foil before inserting them.

* To human taste buds, Zima is virtually indistinguishable from
zebra urine.

* Seven out of every ten hockey-playing Canadians will lose a
tooth during a game. For Canadians who don't play hockey,
that figure drops to five out of ten.

* A dog's naked behind leaves absolutely no bacteria when
pressed against carpet.

* A team of University of Virginia researchers released a study
promoting the practice of picking one's nose, claiming that the
health benefits of keeping nasal passages free from infectious
blockages far outweigh the negative social connotations.

* Among items left behind at Osama bin Laden's headquarters in
Afghanistan were 27 issues of Mad Magazine. Al Qaeda members
have admitted that bin Laden is reportedly an avid reader.

* Urine from male cape water buffaloes is so flammable that
some tribes use it for lantern fuel.

* At the first World Cup championship in Uruguay, 1930, the
soccer balls were actually monkey skulls wrapped in paper
and leather.

* Every Labrador retriever dreams about bananas.

* If you put a bee in a film canister for two hours, it will go
blind and leave behind its weight in honey.

* Due to the angle at which the optic nerve enters the brain,
staring at a blue surface during sex greatly increases the
intensity of orgasms.

* Never hold your nose and cover your mouth when sneezing, as
it can blow out your eyeballs.

* Centuries ago, purchasing real estate often required having
one or more limbs amputated in order to prevent the purchaser
from running away to avoid repayment of the loan. Hence an
expensive purchase was said to cost "an arm and a leg."

* When Mahatma Gandhi died, an autopsy revealed five gold
Krugerrands in his small intestine.

* Aardvarks are allergic to radishes, but only during the summer.

* Coca-Cola was the favored drink of Pharaoh Ramses. An
inscription found in his tomb, when translated, was found to
be almost identical to the recipe used today.

* If you part your hair on the right side, you were born to be
carnivorous. If you part it on the left, your physical
and psychological make-up is that of a vegetarian.

* When immersed in liquid, a dead sparrow will make a sound like
a crying baby.

* In WWII the US military planned to airdrop over France
propaganda in the form of Playboy magazine, with coded
messages hidden in the models' turn-ons and turn-offs.
The plan was scrapped because of a staple shortage due to
rationing of metal.

* Although difficult, it's possible to start a fire by rapidly
rubbing together two Cool Ranch Doritos.

* Napoleon's favorite type of wood was knotty chestnut.

* The world's smartest pig, owned by a mathematics teacher in
Madison, WI, memorized the multiplication tables up to 12.

* Due to the natural "momentum" of the ocean, saltwater fish
cannot swim backwards.

* In ancient Greece, children of wealthy families were dipped
in olive oil at birth to keep them hairless throughout their
lives.

* It is nearly three miles farther to fly from Amarillo, Texas
to Louisville, Kentucky than it is to return from Louisville
to Amarillo.

* The "nine lives" attributed to cats is probably due to their
having nine primary whiskers.

* The original inspiration for Barbie dolls comes from dolls
developed by German propagandists in the late 1930s to impress
young girls with the ideal notions of Aryan features. The
proportions for Barbie were actually based on those of Eva Braun.

* The Venezuelan brown bat can detect and dodge individual
raindrops in mid-flight, arriving safely back at his cave
completely dry.

Pass these on to your friends.

2002-05-02T13:09:00.000-04:00

Another controversy "raging" through the Roanoke Valley (and in other parts of the country) concerns the use of the camera speed-traps. I was first introduced to these damned things in Germany of all places. Here in America, it's widely rumored that there aren't any speed limits on German roads, which simply isn't true. Some portions of the Autobahn aren't regulated, but the smaller roads certainly do have a speed limit. And a lot of times, a little camera stand is setup to take a picture of the back of your car if you're going too fast. Then the police send you a nice little letter saying, in effect, "Nah, nah, ne-nah, nah! We caught you, and you have to send us 100 DM or you'll really be in trouble." That's one thing about the German cops; they don't screw around. If you don't send in that 100 DM when they tell you to, they'll yank your driver permit with no warning. You'll get another letter a few weeks after the fact, and if you get caught driving on that suspended license before then, that's just too damned bad.

Anyway, a few communities are testing these devices here in America. There's a couple of stands set up in locations near here, and I know there are a few places in California testing them. And you know what? They work. In areas where they are known to be operating, fewer and fewer drivers are speeding, and there are fewer speed-related accidents. Of course, that doesn't stop groups like the ACLU from complaining about privacy rights being violated (as if not getting caught speeding is a right) and claiming that it actually increases the danger because people slam on their brakes when they realize there's a camera nearby. I support the ACLU for the most part, but even they aren't above not letting a few facts get in the way of their rhetoric.

I used to be dead-set against the cameras because it just seems they are a means to punish violators instead of a way to educate people to be better drivers. Now, I'm all for them. I don't speed myself, and I hate when other people do, so I think punishment is just fine. And if people don't learn to slow down when they get speeding tickets as long as 2 weeks after the time of the speeding incident, there isn't going to be much education can do for these people anyway.

People have actually complained that it's not fair that they get a ticket for speeding under these circumstances. They've complained that it just gives the state or localities more money and increases insurance rates for those who are caught. Someone in the article I read about it this morning even suggested that, since the camera doesn't know if it's the owner of the car who's driving and not just someone the owner lent the car to it's not fair because the wrong person will be ticketed. Well, if I was ever brain-dead long enough to let someone borrow my car, and a few weeks later I get a speeding ticket that was issued during the time he or she was driving my car, you can bet I would get the money to pay the ticket from them. I would also never lend them my car again. True enough, that won't do anything for my insurance rates or driving points, but that's just the chance you take when you let someone borrow your car.

Personally, I'm all for those cameras. I even like the ones that will catch those who roll through red lights (you know the ones, they speed up when the light turns yellow and keep going long after the light turned red.) I say "bring them on!"

2002-04-29T12:55:00.000-04:00

Our last poll had 27 respondents, 9 of which agreed strongly or somewhat (8 and 1 respectively) that virtual pornography should be illegal and 14 disagreed either strongly or somewhat (9 and 5 respectively.) Four were ambivalent, which I hope means they were undecided and not apathetic. As for myself, I can see merit in both sides of the argument. On the one hand, artistic freedom of expression should be maintained. If I want to dress an obviously older woman up to look like a child (pigtails, holding an oversized lollipop) and take pictures of her, I should be allowed to do that. However, should I be allowed to manipulate otherwise innocent pictures of children to make it look as if they are engaging in sexual activity? Even if they are fake, the technology today makes it so hard to detect. Some people claim that it can be impossible to tell if someone really good is doing the manipulating. Then the problem is, if someone gets caught with a bunch of images that aren't faked, can they claim that they are fake? How hard would it be for people distributing child porn to make sure they have some images around that will collaborate their claims that the images are fake? I don't know, it's a tough issue.

The new poll this week is based on local events here: the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors has recently voted to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow people to pray in public places, including schools. The actual wording of the amendment that the board voted on (which passed 4 to 1) is:

"To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience:

"Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed.

"The United States and the States shall not compose school prayers, not require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity."

There is apparently a small but growing movement all throughout the United States by local governments to vote on such resolutions. It seems to miss the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution that takes peoples' right to pray away from them. An amendment that doesn't actually amend anything is pretty stupid, right?

No, the real motive here isn't to ensure that people have the right to pray in public (a right they already have.) The motive is to ensure that Christians have the right to make daily prayer a regular school-day activity for a captive audience. Oh, they'll pay lip-service to the idea that nobody will be forced to pray, but the truth is that the majority of the participants will be Christians and will single out for ridicule those who don't wish to participate. Students, especially those who are younger, will be intimidated into participating in the prayer, even as they are already being intimidated into participating in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. If any proof of this happening is needed, just look to the places of higher education. Like VMI, for instance, and the dinner prayer issue. One of the reasons the judge in that recent decision went against VMI is because of the clear evidence that students who didn't participate in the prayer were being maligned and harrassed.

Even some teachers will likely find themselves facing a tough decision. After all, in a day and age where parents of ten-year-olds will throw punches at coaches and referees over a stupid soccer or baseball game, is it much of a stretch to imagine good Christian parents complaining to school officials when Mrs. Crabapple refuses to lead her homeroom in prayer?

Anyway, this weeks new poll: Agree or disagree; a new law or amendment to the Constitution is needed to ensure all citizens' right to pray in public. As always, if you'd like to go into further detail in your answer, or wish to comment on anything I post here, email me. Remember, if you want to remain anonymous let me know up front. Otherwise, your name and email address may get posted with your response.

2002-04-19T10:04:00.000-04:00

John Kesler is a member of the Biblical Errancy mailing list, and after a recent exchange concerning actual bibilcal errors, contradictions and inconsistencies versus "allegorical" or "figurative language" explanations came up with the following song. It's to the tune of Sinatra's "Witchcraft" (which I'll admit that I don't have a clue how that tune goes, even though I'm sure I've heard the song.)

See, we fun-loving skeptics do know how to party! If you want to join in on the fun of the Biblical Errancy list, go to www.topica.com (you'll have to register, which is free) and type in "ii_errancy" (without quotes) in the search box. Then join the list, and watch the fun begin! If you are a biblical inerrantist (in other words, if you believe the Bible is 100% God-breathed and without any error), we would especially love to have you join us. The list is growing stale because of the biblicists inability to successfully defend the Bible against charges of errors, inconsistencies and contradictions. Heck, you might even be able to engage a few of us atheists in discussions concerning the existence of God, though that's not what the list is set up for.

Oh, and fair warning: Farrell Till, the owner of the list, can be a real cantankerous old coot to those people who think "debating" means making one unsupported assertion after another. If you come, come prepared.

"That's Midrash" (To be sung to the tune of Frank Sinatra's "Witchcraft")
Thanks to John Kesler

Call them errors, we don't care,
With allegory all is fair,
Say I'm wrong-now don't you dare,
That's midrash.

Israel killed Amalekites,
Little babies left and right,
But figuratively-so it's all right,
That's midrash.

Hell is imaginary too,
No one goes there-much less you,
Jesus used a point of view,
Called midrash.

Who cares if Matthew fiction paints,
Like magi and resurrected saints,
The point is, "Hey, ain't Jesus great,"
That's midrash.

If deeper meaning you would find,
Put on your best Semitic mind,
We'll leave the literalists behind,
With midrash.

Errancy list will be no more,
Discrepancies-now what a bore,
Explaining them's an easy chore,
With midrash.

I'll close my simple little song,
I hope that you will sing along,
As we worship Bishop Spong,
With midrash.

2002-04-17T09:03:00.000-04:00

Yesterday the Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on computer generated child pornography, and I'm not quite sure how I feel about that. I personally don't have a problem with pornography, and in fact I enjoy it sometimes. I realize that it can be harmful to some people, just as violent movies, video games and moms can be harmful to some people, but it comes back down to personal responsibility. I don't think pornography is any more demeaning to women than most religions are, and women who voluntarily permit themselves to be photographed in various lewd poses or hardcore acts should be allowed to do so. In fact, I consider them to be performing an important service.

Child pornography is obviously different, at least to an extent. Most people here "child pornography" and they think of little Betty or Sammy, ten years old, being molested by some shady character with a poloroid. But the law as it stood banned not just doctored photos of children engaging in sex (both with other children and with adults), but also banned (in theory) paintings or drawings of such activity. And, though the law itself didn't cover it, people have been prosecuted just for writing about sexual activity with children, especially if it's written in a first-person "I did this" or "I want to do this" style. It's considered a confession instead of a story, I guess.

When it comes to pre-teens, I suppose I can understand the point of the law, even if I don't agree with it entirely. I suppose my biggest objection to the law is that the definition of "child" is so broad. I think some of our laws concerning "children" and sex are inappropriate. It seems obvious to me that children under the age of 12 or 13 are just too easily manipulated to entrust them with making decisions concerning sex and the photography of it, but I also happen to think that most people, by the time they are 16, are old enough to make most, if not all, decisions concerning their own bodies as long as those decisions don't unduly effect others. In other words, I think the age at which we consider "children" to be adults and no longer in need of parental (or adult) supervision should be 16. They should at that time be given all of the rights, and all of the responsibilities, of making their own way in the world.

Now I'm sure there are plenty of examples of people who, at 16, are or were completely incapable of governing themselves. It's my opinion that the majority of those people aren't capable of it at that age because they aren't expected to be capable of it at that age. Society these days expects kids to stay kids until they're 18, or 21 in some cases, so there is no reason for a person of 16 to act like an adult. Those who geniunly are not ready to take care of themselves at 16 are most likely not going to be ready at 18, 24, or 52.

But back to the original point; child pornography. Think of this: in most states, a girl at 16 can consent to sex either with another teen or even with an adult. If her lover takes pictures of her nude or engaged in sexual acts, even if they are only meant to be for their own personal enjoyment, the way the law is worded he could go to jail for 15 years. He can bang her all he wants legally, but if he takes a picture or films the acts, he's suddenly a pedophile. And if anyone else sees the pictures, they too are pedophiles according to the law.

I dunno, it just seems screwed up to me. Be sure to look at and answer today's poll.

2002-04-12T11:19:00.000-04:00

Out of 15 respondents to the poll this week, 73% (11) of you strongly disagree that drivers over age 65 should be required to take yearly driving exams. Why on earth would anyone disagree with a common-sense solution to bad drivers being on the road? If you have a good reason to disagree with this, one that's not based purely on emotional reasons, I'd like to hear it. Send me an email with your arguments and I'll post the best of them. Remember, if you want to remain anonymous, let me know in the email.

Now, I'm not saying that old drivers are the only problem on the road, or even that all older drivers are a problem, but how can it be ignored that a problem with old drivers exists? By testing drivers 65 and older (and remember, I'm for starting it even earlier than that) each year, the DMV can catch those drivers who will be a danger to themselves because of failing eyesight, hearing, or mental capacities. Again, I know that not all older people are going to have these problems, but these problems do exist, and they are more often present in older people. I honestly can't understand why anyone would disagree with mandatory yearly testing.

2002-04-08T13:55:00.000-04:00

Virginia's Governor, Mark Warner, signed a bill that makes "aggressive driving" illegal. I guess they get around to defining what aggressive driving is at some point, and I'm pretty sure that it covers a lot of my behavior when I'm driving. I don't really consider my driving to be aggressive, but I'm sure the bleeding-hearts behind this bill probably would. I think a better bill would be to mandate that, from the age of 65 on (or even younger; maybe 55 or 60) all drivers are required to take yearly driving exams. There's too many old farts and fartesses out there who shouldn't be allowed to hold a set of car keys, much less get behind the wheel.

Actually, there's probably more good than bad in a bill like this. The section of Interstate 81 where I live is considered very dangerous because of all the fatal accidents that have happened there over the years. A few years ago, the speed limit on a 20-mile stretch (give or take) of the interstate was reduced from 65 mph to 60 mph. It's helped some, and it's not quite as scary as it used to be, but it's still bad. Truck drivers think nothing of tailgating cars at 80 or 85 mph in the right lane, or blocking traffic for miles in the left lane traveling 40 or 45 mph. When I was a kid, truckers were considered the heroes of the highway. They drove well, they were courteous, and you could always count on help from them if you needed it. Or at least it seemed that way in my naive youth. These days, they're just as self-centered and obnoxious as all the other drivers, except they have ten or more times the mass of the standard auto on the road. In other words, when their screwups cost others more than it costs themselves.

But I'm more of a passive-aggressive driver. I consistently drive (as much as traffic conditions allow) around 5 mph over any given speed limit posted. In other words, if the limit is posted as 25, I'll drive 30 if there aren't any slow cars in front of me, or a lot of people walking around. If someone in front of me is driving the speed limit (plus or minus a mile or two) I won't get pissed off and tailgate them to try to get them to go faster. However, if they are driving 5 or more mphs below the speed limit, I start getting frustrated. If they keep it up and don't look like they're trying to get with the program, I'll flash my lights or try to direct their attention to the speed limit signs or something. I guess that would be considered "aggressive driving" by the new law, and I would be fined up to $1000 and maybe even spend some time in jail while the knucklehead impeding the normal flow of traffic wouldn't even get a stern look. That's what pisses me off the most.

On the other hand, I do enjoy having somebody who obviously wants to go much faster than the speed limit stuck behind me. If I'm driving along at 30 mph in a 25 zone and someone closes in on me, I love knowing they have to slow down to a safer speed because of me. And if they tailgate me, it's only safe for me to slow down to lesson the chances of an accident occurring. And I'll keep slowing down as long as they're tailgating. (I consider it tailgating if I can't see the under the front of the vehicle in my rear-view mirror. Think about it.) Some drivers will get all upset, like I'm supposed to speed up just for their convenience. They'll honk their horns, back off then come back up on me real fast, flip me off, whatever. And honestly, I get a huge kick out of it.

I guess it seems childish, but it's not like I'm purposefully changing my driving behavior specifically to annoy someone. I just like it when my driving behavior, which is following the rules of the road and which I would be doing anyway, irritates the idiot behind me.

2002-04-08T13:35:00.000-04:00

Virginia's Governer, Mark Warner, signed a bill that makes "aggressive driving" illegal. I guess they get around to defining what aggressive driving is at some point, and I'm pretty sure that it covers a lot of my behavior when I'm driving. I don't really consider my driving to be aggressive, but I'm sure the bleeding-hearts behind this bill probably would.

Actually, there's probably more good than bad in a bill like this. The section of Interstate 81 where I live is considered very dangerous because of all the fatal accidents that have happened there over the years. A few years ago, the speed limit on a 20-mile stretch (give or take) of the interstate was reduced from 65 mph to 60 mph. It's helped some, and it's not quite as scary as it used to be, but it's still bad. Truck drivers think nothing of tailgating cars at 80 or 85 mph in the right lane, or blocking traffic for miles in the left lane traveling 40 or 45 mph. When I was a kid, truckers were considered the heros of the highway. They drove well, they were courteous, and you could always count on help from them if you needed it. Or at least it seemed that way in my niaive youth. These days, they're just as self-centered and obnoxious as all the other drivers, except they have ten or more times the mass of the standard auto on the road. In other words, when their screwups cost others more than it costs themselves.

I'm more of a passive-aggressive driver. I consistently drive (as much as traffic conditions allow) around 5 mph over any given speed limit posted. In other words, if the limit is posted as 25, I'll drive 30 if there aren't any slow cars in front of me, or a lot of people walking around. If someone in front of me is driving the speed limit (plus or minus a mile or two) I won't get pissed off and tailgate them to try to get them to go faster. However, if they are driving 5 or more mphs below the speed limit, I start getting frustrated. If they keep it up and don't look like they're trying to get with the program, I'll flash my lights or try to direct their attention to the speed limit signs or something. I guess that would be considered "aggressive driving" by the new law, and I would be fined up to $1000 and maybe even spend some time in jail while the knucklehead impeding the normal flow of traffic wouldn't even get a stern look. That's what pisses me off the most.

On the other hand, I do enjoy having somebody who obviously wants to go much faster than the speed limit stuck behind me. I guess it seems childish, but it's not like I'm actively looking for that kind of situation. If I'm driving along at 30 mph in a 25 zone and someone closes in on me, I love knowing they have to slow down to a safer speed because of me. And if they tailgate me, it's only safe for me to slow down to lesson the chances of an accident occuring. And I'll keep slowing down as long as they're tailgating. (I consider it tailgating if I can't see the under the front of the vehicle in my rear-view mirror. Think about it.) Some drivers will get all upset, like I'm supposed to speed up just for their convienience. They'll honk their horns, back off then come back up on me real fast, flip me off, whatever. And honestly, I get a huge kick out of it.

2002-04-05T15:48:00.000-05:00

Man, I hate when I've written a lot of text for an update and then something stupid happens and I lose it all before I get it posted. Now I'll have to try to recreate it.

I'm a big fan of Piers Anthony, the author of the Xanth fantasy series. He's also written a lot of other books, including Sci-Fi and some that could be considered horror (all genres that I love.) Of coure, the humor that underlies all of his books makes it hard to consider his "horror" stories as really, er, horrible (though some cri-tics disagree) (those of you familiar with the Xanth series will know that "cri-tics" is not necessarily a misspelling above.)

I'm a regular visitor to his website, and a regular reader of his bi-monthly newsletter. His latest newsletter (which are usually an eclectic assortment of musings) had some interesting topics that I thought I'd comment on. What the hell, since I can't really come up with anything else to write about.

By the way, last week saw a spike in activity for a few days, where I had over 300 hits one day and almost 600 the next. It's tapered back down to the teens the last few days, but still that's not bad for a weblog (hence the name "blog" for those of you unitiated with the concept.) Thanks to all of my visitors, and I promise that I'll put in a better poll question as soon as I can come up with a good one that will be contreversial enough to get some feedback.

Back to our program: One of the items Piers wrote about is that PETA, a group I normally don't care much for at all, wants to run an ad showing Mary nursing the baby Jesus. The Catholic Church is protesting, because we all know that the Good Virgin© wouldn't dare use her naughty fun bags for their intended, natural purpose. Or maybe the Catholic Church is just a major invester in the baby formula industry. That would explain their anti-birth control stance, maybe.

Piers also mentioned Mike Weatherford, aka James Michael Ford (I think Weatherford is his real name), who is a retired, disabled veteran. After a number of years in a number of different professions, Mike is now an author and self-publisher of Sci-Fi stories. If you like Sci-Fi, check it out. You can download the stories and (like the shareware model) pay him later if you liked them. All three of his current works would only cost you $8, which is pretty cheap for 3 paperbacks (though in electronic format.) Heck, even if they suck it's not that much. I haven't read them yet, but if Piers Anthony thinks one of them ("Hukata") is pretty good, I'll give it a shot.

I looked at some of the other areas of his website, and discovered that he considers himself a "Jeffersonian Limited Anarchist," but he sounds like a Libertarian to me (that's what I am, for the most part.) He also believes in God (hey, we can't all be perfect) but I don't think he could be considered a Christian in any way, so that's a plus.

In a correspondence with a fan, Piers seems to have coined a new word. Among us internet geeks, "address" (generally referring to "ip address" or "web address") is often truncated to "addy." Based on this, Piers notes that "snail mail address" can be shortened to "snaddy", which seems to be pretty apt. He also made a pretty funny comment regarding "snaddy" in his correspondence with the fan, but I won't try to recount it here. You can read it yourself at the link I gave above.

The latest on my niece is that she's doing fine now (for those of you who read about her accident last week), and is at home with her father. He is, as I predicted, being a dick and talking about suing my sister's boyfriend's parents to pay for H's medical bills. I don't think he'll be successful, considering he was supposed to have had insurance on H for, like, a year now and never got it.

Well, that's enough for now. I have to go back to looking busy.

2002-04-01T13:34:00.000-05:00

Sorry about the lame-ass poll question this week. I'm going to change is as soon as I can come up with a good one (again, if anyone has a suggestion on a good poll question, send it to me.) Here's the results from the last one: out of 72 (!!!) responses, 4% (which is 2.88 people) said they would become a believer if it were proven the life could not possibly exist on other planets, 1% (.72 of a person) said he or she would no longer believe, and the rest said it wouldn't change their belief at all (54% said they would continue to believe, 40% said they would continue to not believe.)

I assume the quizlet software is just rounding the percentage numbers, which is why the numbers look so screwed up.

2002-04-01T13:22:00.000-05:00

I've seen the errors of my ways. I hereby renounce atheism, and declare that I am a born-again Christian. Jesus Christ is now my personal savior, and I kneel before God's almighty majesty.

So, it's April Fool's day here in America, and I suppose in much of Europe too. Another day of listening to idiots calling the radio stations to complain about some outlandish news item they just heard the disc jockeys reporting, never once thinking that it might be a joke. Tomorrow the local paper will probably have to print an article about how a downtown historic building isn't really being bought out by a fast-food resturaunt chain, and everyone should just calm down. (No kidding, that was the "news" this morning, and angry idiots all over the Roanoke Valley are calling in to let the world know that they think it's rotten, and they aren't going to stand for it!)

A few years ago the two hosts of the evening show on one of the local stations convinced listeners that "Bull Durham II" was going to be shot here in Salem, and that people who showed up at the Civic Center by 3 p.m. that afternoon could sign up to be extras. When the throng of mouth-breathers showed up hoping for their 15 minutes of fame, they were told it was an April Fools joke, but they could have free tickets to the local minor league ball game. They were shocked! They were stunned! They were disappointed that they weren't going to earn minimum wage for probably the first time in their lives! They howled and protested, and said it wasn't fair for the radio station to trick them that way. Their voices were heard, and in what must have been the single most satisfactory outcome in any of their lives, the DJs were suspened (with pay) for the following week. Justice had been served!

And none of the idiots realized that even that was another joke pulled on them. The DJs weren't suspended; they were on vacation. It was planned all along, because it was pretty damned predictable that people would howl and cry about having been so cruelly tricked.

I'm not saying I've never been fooled by an April Fool's joke, but you'd think that people would realize that radio stations and monthly magazines live for this kind of stuff. Of course they have to make it as outlandish as possible (because it's no fun fooling people into believing something that's perfectly normal), so it should just stand to reason that the outlandish stories on April 1 are going to be a joke. I mean, even the clever ones should be pretty obvious to the people who are fooled by them.

Some people will spend weeks setting up a joke just to say "April Fool" on April 1. Last year (or maybe the year before) Illiad over at User Friendly (a pro any-OS-but-Microsoft-especially-Linux website) told readers starting a few weeks earlier that Microsoft was sueing him to stop defaming the company and it's software. He had images of official looking "cease-and-desist" documents from MS lawyers, email and snailmail excerpts, the works. People were sending him messages of support, some pledging monetary support should he choose to fight this act in court. I thought something was fishy, and sure enough of April 1 Illiad explained that it had all been a joke. Most of his readers were just so relieved that he wasn't being sued and censored to pay much attention, but I thought it was a cheap "gotcha." I mean, you can fool anybody with a semi-ridiculous story if you tell it to them on any day other than April Fool's day. Especially if it involves Microsoft and lawyers.

Well, lunch break is over, so I have to go. Besides, I want to get some more prayers in.

2002-03-28T12:59:00.000-05:00

I joined a blog review project, and was randamly assigned "the l.i.s.a. project." I'm not going to provide the link to the site because of the popups. I guess I won't even be providing the review, at least not unless I see it printed at the review project site. I had it copied and pasted, but a blog screwup caused it to not get posted, and I'd already copied something else into the clipboard. Oh, well, I guess they'll arrest me now.

2002-03-27T12:12:00.000-05:00

This is one of those posts that leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

World Church of the Creator, at first glance, appears to be yet another white-supremist group that "justifies" their racist ideals from a biblical perspective. If that were the case, it would be bad enough. This group, though still pretty small, boasts of 24 regional and local branches (their "World Headquarters" is in Illinios) and claim to have members all over the world. They use the standard "shock" language to describe other races, and cite the same old tired rhetoric about Jews, Blacks and other "mud" races (their word). They are popular among white teenage boys because they use a powerful combination of music and video games, some of which are of pretty high graphics quality and of fairly slick rendering.

The most disturbing thing about this group (and the National Alliance, a similar white-supremist group) is that they aren't a pseudo-Christian group like you would suppose, ala the Ku Klux Klan. They are not only anti-Semites and anti-nonWhites (and proudly so.) They are also secularists, naturalists, humanists (though using any form of the word "human" to describe this group makes me feel dirty). They are atheists, though they reject the label, claiming that it is merely a smear perpetrated by the Jews.

Their concern is for "the Survival, Expansion, and Advancement of our White Race exclusively." They believe that "what is good for the White Race is the highest virtue, and what is bad for the White Race is the ultimate sin." This is the basis of their religion, and they reject all other religions including Christianity. I've seen some of the same arguments they use against Christianity used by atheists, and they argue that "natural laws" lead them to the conclusion that the White race is the ultimate product of nature. I would suspect that they are really a parody, created by some Christian trying to show the "logical conclusion" to the naturalists' world view, but they just seem too organized for that.

Ultimately, they're just another example of why sometimes "freedom of speech" is a dual-edged sword.

2002-03-26T10:53:00.000-05:00

My niece is slowly doing better. One thing I didn't mention yesterday about the accident was that her head was also snapped back by the fence and she hit a spark plug that sticks up from the engine. Because she wasn't wearing a helmet, it actually gave her a puncture wound that the doctors were treating like a skull fracture. She also has a concussion from the blow and has been pretty lethargic, coming in and out of conciousness. Yesterday the doctors did another CAT scan (the second one since Saturday), and fortunately the results came back "good". I don't know what they thought might be wrong, but apparently it isn't.

Actually, H (using the same naming convention as yesterday) was up and walking around a bit yesterday too, which is a good sign. My wife and I went to see her yesterday, but she was asleep for most of the 45 minutes we were there. We're going again tonight, so I hope she's a little more "there" so I can tease her. I wouldn't be her uncle if I didn't tease her. I also want to thank her for giving me a good excuse to miss going to the gym for a few days.

Last year at this time, I weighed 245 Lbs. I'm 6'1" and pretty solidly built, but even so 245 Lbs didn't look very good on me. My wife also weighed quite a bit more than she should have, and needed to take high blood pressure medicine because she wasn't in really good health. Then, last April she joined Weight Watchers and we both started following their "Winning Points" system. Under this system, you have a certain number of points that you can eat each day, based on how much you weigh. Foods are given points based on the number of calaries, and the number of grams of fat and fiber in each serving. If you stick to low-fat, high-fiber foods, you can actually wind up eating quite a bit each day.

Well, it's been wildly successful. By Thanksgiving (in November) my wife had lost 55 Lbs (from 205 to 150) and is still maintaining that weight (and trying to lose more), and I've lost 45 Lbs. I actually had gotten to as low as 195, and I want to get there again, but I put on some weight after my back surgery in December. To be perfectly honest, I didn't really put that weight on until after January, when we started working out at the gym. I'd like to say it's just muscle weight that I'm putting on, but I think I know better. The muscles I've been working on are probaby growing some, but I also know I am getting back in the habit of eating too much. The big difference now is, generally what I eat too much of is healthier these days than it used to be.

But my wife's progress is the most amazing, in my opinion. Before starting this diet (though it's less of a diet and more of a change of lifestyle) she wouldn't want to do much of anything after work. Neither did I, for that matter. She wouldn't walk around the block if she absolutely didn't have to, and if she did she'd be huffing and puffing. And as I said, her blood pressure was dangerously high without her medication. Now, she daily walks between 2.5 and 3.5 miles on the treadmill at the gym (she started out on the small treadmill we have at home, but could only go about 1 mile at first), she has a lot more energy when she gets home, and she no longer has to take the blood pressure medicine. She's still a little chubby, and wants to lose another 5 or 10 lbs, but the difference is tremendous.

Well, I'm not in the habit of making commercials for services or products (especially when they aren't paying me to), but I do like to let people know about what works. Some of my co-workers have been so impressed with my weight loss, they've joined up and are losing weight too. They all agree that it's not so bad once you dedicate yourself to it.

The only problem is, here in America it costs a lot more to eat healthy than it does to eat junk food. Our weekly grocery bill used to average below $50. Since we've been buying low fat, high fiber foods, and cutting out the stuff we used to love in favor of stuff that's better for us, our bill has gone to generally over $65 a week. That's a pretty big difference considering we don't have kids. It's no wonder that so many Americans, especially children, are overweight. You give a single-income family a choice of a weeks worth of healthy groceries costing $100 (or more) and unhealthy groceries costing $80, and it's obvious which they will choose. And you can talk all you want about how they could get more exercise, eat less, or whatever but it still comes down to too much fat in the American diet.

If the government is serious about encouraging Americans to get in shape, they need to start at the food manufacturers. Give them incentives to make the healthier foods more affordable than the junk foods, and a large part of the problem will just go away. Sure, people will still eat the junk food, but they'll eat it less and eat the good stuff more if it costs them less to do so. It also wouldn't hurt to jack up the taxes on alcohol, tobacco (I rarely drink and quit smoking three years ago) and gas, and lower the taxes on most groceries.

But what the hell do I know?

2002-03-25T07:10:00.000-05:00

First, the administrative stuff: there were ten respondants to last weeks poll, of whom 1 said the discovery of intelligent life on another planet would make him or her become a believer, one said he would continue to believe, 4 said they still wouldn't believe and 4 wants us to discover intelligent life on this planet. I'll be posting a new question soon, probably today. (If you have a suggestion for a poll question, feel free to send it me via email.

This was a pretty tough weekend. My 10-year old niece was involved in a pretty serious go-kart accident (for those of you who don't know, go-kart are little "cars" with some type of small engine, made especially for kids.) Apparently she lost control and instead of hitting the brakes she hit the gas pedal (this was her first go-kart ride) and went through/under a chain-link fence. Actually, the bottom of the fence rolled up over her, cutting her neck pretty bad and whacking her a good one in the mouth. Her top bridge was broken and some teeth were knocked out. She's doing better now, but she'll be feeling some pain for a while.

Of course, since this blogspot is about me, I feel compelled to tell you how this affected my weekend. For starters, I volunteered to help out at my company's warehouse Saturday morning, counting some new inventory and helping to get it "received" in the system. I thought that counting wouldn't be a problem for my back, which is still bothersome even now, but I was wrong. After three hours of stooping, kneeling, and lifting (I wasn't supposed to lift anything, but when there are women around who are hauling heavy boxes I can't just stand by) I was ready to call it a day.

I came home and took one of my pain killers (not a very strong one, of course) and the wife and I went out for our normal Saturday chores. When we got home, I was ready for my normal 1 or 2 hour Saturday nap (I wake up really early on Saturdays, so by mid-day I need some sleep) when my mother called to tell me about the accident. Of course we rushed right out to the hospital, and stayed there until around 5:30 pm. Then we went out for a quick dinner, bought my niece a stuffed animal and went back to the hospital to sit with her for a few more hours. By the time we got home around 10:30, I was emotionally and physically wiped out. The worst part was, I kept forgetting to take another pain pill, so my back was killing me.

***********

Airing Dirty Laundry in Public Time

About three years ago, my sister ("B") left her husband ("M") of twenty years for another man ("K"). Now, B denies leaving M for K, but let's call a spade a spade. (It's not a big deal to me, because I think she should have left that asshole years ago, and K is a good guy.) When B left, she left her daughter with M, and came to live with my wife and me. B's daughter, "H", came to live with us also after a few weeks.

Two months after B left M, K went to jail for about a year because of some stupid things he did. Then we found out B was pregnant with K's baby (which would turn out to be a little girl). M knew about B and K and wasn't really happy about it, but after a while he came to accept that things just sort of happen. Then M wound up getting fired, and actually going to jail, because he was stealing from his employer to buy pain killers (Oxycontin.) What was really funny was that M wound up in the same jail as K (though thankfully not the same cell), and the two had to have daily interactions. I guess they both realized it wouldn't make a lot of sense to fight over the things that had happened, but it wasn't like they were buddy-buddy.

M got out of jail before K did (which pissed B off, because by then she was really missing K) and made one last effort to win B back. When she eventually (don't ask) spurned him once and for all, he found another girl ("S") who turns out to have quite a bit of money. M is apparently the first boyfriend S had ever had (she's probaby in her late 30s or early 40s) so she never had much of a need to spend money. Anyway, S paid for M's rehab, paid his fines, bought him stuff including a commercial garage, etc. M is a mechanic, and supposedly a good one (just ask him, he'll tell you all about it.) So now he "owns" a garage thanks to S. They wound up getting married last year some time.

K got out of jail, and he and B moved into an apartment together. B had her baby, L, so it was the four of them. Well, five when you include B's oldest son, J. Actually, six because J's girlfriend was there so much that she might as well have been living there. B finally had enough of J and A being there, so she made them move out. J and K didn't get along real well anyway (J is a lazy sod), so it was for the best. ("Br" is the second oldest boy, but he has been on his own sharing an apartment with a friend for a year or so.)

Imagine trying to explain this to a friend of the family who's been out of touch for a while and asks "So, how is everyone doing?"

So the scene at the hospital emergency room Saturday: B and K, with K's two boys from his previous marriage and B's two boys plus B and K's daughter, K's parents (they were at his parents' house when the accident happened), my mother and step-father, M and his wife, two of M's sisters (who were real bitches to B when she left M), and me and my wife. It's a wonder a fight didn't break out.

The staff at the ER told us only two people were allowed in to see H at a time in the room where they were first working on her. They changed that to four, then six, and finally, when they saw we weren't listening to them anyway, said we just needed to keep the door clear. Once it looked like H was stablized the herd started thinning out, but for a few hours there, we owned that ER waiting room! Whenever a doctor would come in to give us an update on H's condition, we would all jump up and start crowding in. One poor little doctor's assistant got so flustered she wound up running off before the doctor made her come back a few minutes later. We weren't trying to be intimidating, but we damn sure were.

2002-03-23T06:48:00.000-05:00

Pete Hite, a Roanoke youth leader (whatever the hell that is) at Patterson Grace Bretheren Church, wrote a response to my article on changing the motto that at least had some meat to it. However, if you've read my article you'll soon see that Hite's response was more straw man than anything. (If you haven't read it yet, I urge you to read mine so that you'll see that I'm telling the truth.) As before, his commentary (not just a letter to the editor) is copied complete here and my responses will be in bold.

A Short lesson in history
(National motto wasn't born in fear)

IN RESPONSE to the commentary by Rob Miles, "It's time to change the national motto (March 2)," some glaring statements are contrary to historical fact.

Miles would have us believe that the adding of "under God" to The Pledge of Allegiance (1954) and adopting or adding "In God We Trust" (1956) to our national motto was out of fear of Joseph McCarthy and his "Communist witch-hunt." McCarthyism was a sad and tragic event in our history, but this was not the reason Congress made the decision on our national motto.

McCarthy lost the support of many people after a televised hearing in 1954 when he accused the U.S. Army of "coddling communists." Also, that same year, the Senate condemned him of "contemptuous" conduct toward a subcommittee. McCarthy's support and power began to decline severely after 1954. The motto "In God We Trust" was adopted two years later, in 1956. This does not seem to be related to a fear of Joseph McCarthy's reprisal.

Here we see the first of Hite's misleading statements. I don't know if they are intentional, but he introduces strawman after strawman throughout his commentary. I never said it was fear of McCarthy's reprisal that forced Congress to change the national motto. It was fear of being labeled a communist. Hell, even today people with an even tenuous link to communism won't make it very far in politics or the federal government. McCarthy did get the country on an anti-communist bent, and though he personally might have lost favor by then the anti-communist sentiment was still in full force.

It should also be noted that the early Christian community was, if the Bible can be believed at all, communist in nature.

Regarding "In God We Trust," Miles would have you believe that this phrase came about during the 1950s. This is far from the case. The motto first appeared in 1864 on the newly introduced 2-cent coin.

I'm sorry, but this is a downright lie. Nowhere in my article do I imply that the phrase "In God We Trust" was first used in the 1950s. My article was solely directed at why the national motto should be changed. I provided a brief history as to how it came about, and showed how that it was then put on our paper currency, "so help me God" became a federal oath for office, and the Pledge of Allegience was changed to include "God" was just a natural extension of the problem. Give the word "God" an inch, it will take a mile.

Also, President Lincoln and Congress endorsed this statement as they were facing the horrors of the Civil War. This idea for a motto may have come from the words in the fourth verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner," "and this be our motto in God we trust."

The motto was added in 1866 to the quarter, half-dollar and dollar, and has remained on these since that time. The motto was removed from the Eagle gold piece in 1908 by Teddy Roosevelt, but restored that same year by an act of Congress.

So "In God We Trust" was not born out of fear in the '50s, but out of hope by men like Francis Scott Key in the War of 1812, by Abraham Lincoln and the Congress of 1864.

Again, I never said "In God We Trust" was born out of fear in the '50s. I said it was made into the national motto out of fear in the '50s. I wonder if anyone will ever get around to actually addressing the points I raised instead of just building and knocking down these strawmen?

Miles also would like to sidetrack us into thinking that because of the motto "In God We Trust," the motto "E Pluribus Unum" has been shelved, given a back seat and degraded.

Once again, this is just a lie. There's no other way to put it.

This great statement still holds the ideals and values of this country as much today as it did when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams suggested it in 1776 for the National Seal. Since 1873, the law requires that it appear on one side of every United States coin minted.

Further to my comment above, if you've read my article you can see that Hite is just making noise here for the purpose of making noise. I believe he realized that he couldn't address my central theme (changing the motto), so he tried to attack minor aspects of the article. Then he didn't even get that right!

In fact, all that his above paragraph does is enforce my position, which is that "E Pluribus Unum" should be the national motto. I suppose I should thank him for that.

The last item I would like to address is Miles' statements about the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. He would like us to believe that they never would have allowed references to God on national symbols, money, etc. If that's the case, we need to remove the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence. In this document, which Jefferson wrote, "Creator" is used (with a capital C) indicating a reference to God.

Jefferson and Madison both were Deists, not theists. They believed in a creator god, but did not believe in the God of the Bible (i.e. a god that continued to have influence on our daily lives.) Again, however, Hite is building another strawman; I never said anything like what he claims I would like you to believe.

Also, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Jefferson were members of the committee to select a seal for this new country. To view the Great Seal of the United States, look at the reverse side of a $1 bill. The obverse of the seal is on your right, and the reverse is on your left. The "eye" above the pyramid is called the "Eye of Providence." The Latin phrase "Annuit Coeptis" means "He [God] has favored our undertakings."

Here we see a little obfuscation in Hite's commentary. It's true that Jefferson was a member of the committee to select the seal, but the design that we now know today was finalized by Charles Thomson and William Barton in 1782.

It should be noted that, according to usscouts.org, Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin proposed a design that showed Moses crossing the divided Red Sea, with motto "'Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." Make of that what you will, but remember that it was Jefferson who, in his letter to the Danburry Baptist Association in 1802, coined the phrase "wall of seperation between church and state." He used this phrase as a clarification of the First Amendment.

The full letter, and the original Danburry Baptist Association letter to which Jefferson was responding, can be read at this web site.

Do you think that Jefferson never looked at the back of the seal that the committee selected?

And yet, they all recognized the folly of having a national motto that would automatically exclude people who didn't share their religious views. It's a damn shame that so many people today can't recognize this same folly.

I close these comments using part of Miles' closing question. "How can the United States possibly claim to stand for the principle that 'all men are created equal?'" and not believe in their Creator?

Well, it's obvious that in the US the principle "all men are equal" is paid only lip service, especially by fundamentalist believers in any religion.

Anyway, in Hite's commentary we see an example of someone going to great lengths to say something (anything!) without really having anything to say. His erection of strawmen and complete avoidance of the central issue says volumes, in my opinion.

2002-03-21T16:59:00.000-05:00

I have now permanently posted the article I wrote that the Roanoke Times no longer provides a link to. The article is in Word format, so if you have MS Word installed on your computer it should open in your browser. If people start mailing me that they're having problems viewing the document, I'll convert it to text format.

Tomorrow (or maybe tonight) I'm going to post a reply that was in today's paper. If you haven't read my article yet, please do so that you'll see just how bad the reply actually is. I'll also be posting my comments throughout, of course.

2002-03-19T07:19:00.000-05:00

Brian Wolford of Salem (the city I live in) is the first to write a negative response to my article on changing the national motto. (Since the Roanoke Times is no longer posting it, I will provide a link to it directly from here on my own.) Below is Wolford's reply as printed in the paper (and online), with my responses in bold. You'll see that Wolford doesn't really give me a lot to reply to, which really isn't a big surprise.

Abandoning God isn't a lesson to learn

IN ADDRESSING Rob Miles' March 2 commentary, "It's time to change the national motto," I'd simply like to establish a completely dissenting opinion and make a couple observations.

I'll not engage in a protracted theological debate here. Nor is it my intention to attack his use of hyperbole and feeble analogy, which certainly betray weakness in his argument.

Of course Wolford won't "engage in a protracted theological debate here." This is a forum that doesn't lend itself to debate. As for attacking my use of hyperbole and feeble analogy that betray the weakness of my argument, since he hasn't provided examples of such I really can't address his charge. It's far easier to assert than to demonstrate.

I'll not vouch for the accuracy of his statistics but will suggest that, if they are accurate, then 80 percent of our population does subscribe to the belief in God reflected in the motto. A majority of this magnitude should clearly have the latitude to state its beliefs anywhere and any time it chooses.

And where did I say in my article that people shouldn't have the freedom to state their beliefs, anywhere and at any time they chose, to the extent that they don't infringe on the rights of others? I didn't, and Wolford knows this (assuming that he is at least moderately intelligent.) All my article did was explain why a national motto that is clearly wrong (because we do not all trust in this non-existant God of his) should be changed.

I submit that Miles' diatribe is perhaps born of insecurity and emptiness. Maybe he's trying to compensate for this emptiness by filling his void with such a trite quest. In spite of his attacks, I'm certain that God would welcome the opportunity to bring him the security and peace that only belief in the Lord can offer.

Oh, of course, how silly of me. My disbelief in God, and hence my contention that the national motto that is incorrect in stating that we trust God is wrong, is all based on insecurity and emptiness, no doubt because I reject belief in his non-existant god. Now it's all so clear. However, I suggest that Wolford's diatribe is perhaps born of insecurity and emptiness, and that he's trying to compensate by filling his void with answering (in a particularily lame manner, I might add) my diatribe. The source of his emptiness and insecurity is, of course, the ingrained knowledge that his beliefs are not only wrong but indefensible as well.

The tragedy of Sept. 11 abounds with lessons. Abandoning God is not, however, one of them.

No, of course not. Wolford would rather the lesson we learn from the September 11 attacks is that it's okay to continue alienating 20% (or more) of the population with a phrase that makes no logical sense. Just what is it that we "trust" in this supposed god?

2002-03-15T10:35:00.000-05:00

A Christian friend of mine sent me this so-called "New School Prayer", and I sent him a response. I hope I haven't lost him as a friend, but I think it's important to challenge the rhetoric and smarmy platitudes that these emails usually contain with logic and reason. Anyway, my responses, just as I sent them to him minus personall matters, are in bold. (His name is Rob also, so don't let that fool you.)

> Thought of you when I read this:)
> Rob

Okay, but you didn't think I'd let it go without comment, did you? You have
my permission to forward this to whomever it was that sent it to you, if you
want to.

> > > New School Prayer
> > >
> > >
> > > Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord's Prayer are not allowed
in
> >most
> > > public schools anymore because the word "God" is mentioned....a kid in
> > > Arizona wrote the attached "NEW" School prayer. I liked it....

Maybe we just live in too isolated a part of the country, but I'm not aware
of the Pledge being banned in any public schools, not to mention in most of
them. I'd be willing to bet that those schools that have banned it are
doing so for a variety of reasons which may or may not have anything to do
with "God" being mentioned in it. This is the kind of rhetoric we have come
to expect from believers, particularly Christians with an ax to grind.

Besides, "God" was never a part of the original Pledge. It was only added
as a knee-jerk reaction to the McCarthy communist witch-hunts of the 1950's,
and should be taken out. "God", as a mythological creation, had nothing
more to do with the founding of this country than Santa Claus or the Easter
Bunny.

> > > Now I sit me down in school Where praying is against the rule For this
> >great
> > > nation under God Finds mention of Him very odd.
> > > If Scripture now the class recites, It violates the Bill of Rights.
And
> > > anytime my head I bow Becomes a Federal matter now.

More rhetoric. A kid can bow his or her head and *quietly* pray to him or
herself without fear of reprecussion. On the off chance that some
well-meaning but overzealous teacher takes that student to task, I would be
one of the first to defend that students right in that regard.

As for the class reciting scripture, isn't that what Church is for? It's
certainly not something that belongs in school, especially as more and more
schools all across the country are being filled with non-Christians. Why do
Christians insist on alienating others in a public setting?

> > > Our hair can be purple, orange or green, That's no offense; it's a
> >freedom
> > > scene. The law is specific, the law is precise. Prayers spoken aloud
are
> >a
> > > serious vice.
> > >
> > > For praying in a public hall Might offend someone with no faith at
all.
> >In
> > > silence alone we must meditate, God's name is prohibited by the state.

Actually, some schools have pretty strict dress codes that discourage
"non-natural" hair colors like purple, orange or green. However, it must be
noted that there is a big difference between allowing kids to display their
"individualism" and the schools tacitly endorsing one religious belief over
all others.

Again, we see a classic example of rhetoric. "Prayers spoken aloud" in
public is a common occurance, and there is no law that prohibits it. What
the law prohibits (or at least, what it should prohibit) is mass recitation
by a captive audience led by authority figures. God's name is not
prohibited by the state, but the state is prohibited (or at lease, should
be) from taking God's name on behalf of it's citizens, many of whom do not
want the state invoking for them the name of something they don't believe in.

> > > We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks, And pierce our noses,
> >tongues
> > > and cheeks. They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible. To quote the
> >Good
> > > Book makes me liable.

Most schools (in my experience) discourage cursing, especially the really
vulgar words (f*ck, sh*t, p*y r*ises, etc). It still occurs, of course, but
it's not "allowed". A student's personal dress or decisions the student
makes about what to stick through what are generally allowed (within reason)
because noone is being coerced into dressing the same way or sticking the
same things through the same things. (The obvious exceptions being in those
cases where the school has a definitive dress code, of course.)

And the rhetoric continues. When were students or teachers *allowed* to
bring guns to school? (I'm speaking in general terms, not in a few specific
instances where rural schools might have looked aside during hunting
season.) To say that Bibles were outlawed *first* is ludicrous. Not to
mention wrong, since in most cases Bibles aren't outlawed. In situations
where students have gotten into trouble for bringing a Bible, it has been
because of a violation of school policy that bans a wide range of books for
various reasons, not just the Bible that was banned.

> > > We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen, And the 'unwed daddy,' our
Senior
> >King.
> > > It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong, We're taught that such
> > > "judgments" do not belong.

*Sigh* The rhetoric never ends. It is absolutely appropriate to teach
right from wrong. What is inappropriate (or at least, should be) is basing
"right from wrong" on an outdated book written by a superstitious, ignorant
people some 2000 to 4000 years ago (and mostly based on earlier mythology at
that) that *not everybody agrees with*! It's fine to teach students that
lying, murder, and stealing is wrong because of the harmful effects it has
on society. It's not so fine to teach them that those things are wrong
because you'll go to "hell", and that additionally it's wrong to have any
other god before Yahweh, don't make graven images, and you damned well
better "rest" on the seventh day. What the hell does that have to do with
teaching right from wrong?

> > > We can get our condoms and birth controls, Study witchcraft, vampires
> >and
> > > totem poles. But the Ten Commandments are not allowed, No word of God
> >must
> > > reach this crowd.

Well, teaching kids who are having sex about condoms and birth control and
making them available sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Kids who aren't
having sex aren't not having sex because they didn't know about those
things, or couldn't get them.

As for studying witchcraft and vampires and totem poles, these are taught
purely through a historic perspective. I have no problem with teaching
about Christianity through a historic perspective, as the mythology that it
is. Claiming that the Ten Commandments is the word of God is *exactly* why
it should not be allowed in school. It's okay for you to believe it's the
word of God, and to teach your own kids that, but quick trying to teach
everyone elses' kids that. It's not your business to force your mythologies
on others.

> > > It's scary here I must confess, When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
> >So,
> > > Lord, this silent plea I make: Should I be shot; My soul please take!
> >Amen

You'll here no argument from me that our schools, indeed our society, are a
mess. But if you think that this has only happened because of the removal
of religion from the schools, I invite you to look at 1) the statistics that
show the crime rate rising throughout the 1950s, long before O'Hare
challenged the legality of school-led prayer and 2) the skewed crime rate
statistics of the southern regions of the United States, especially those
parts that make up the so-called Bible belt. In addition, look at the
grossly overrepresentation of Christians in prison compared (on a percentage
basis) to every other religion or non-religion in relation to their
percentage in the US population as a whole.

> > > If you aren't ashamed to do this, please pass this on.
> > >
> > > Jesus said, " If you are ashamed of me," I will be ashamed of you
> >before
> >my
> > > Father."
> > >
> > > Not ashamed. Passing this on.

My friend didn't write any of the above, of course, and I realize that he passed it on to me knowing that I wouldn't buy any of this stuff. I didn't respond in order to put him on the spot by any means, but I hope that he will forward this to whatever mailing list he got it from.

2002-03-14T16:01:00.000-05:00

I hate to admit it, but I watched Celebrity Boxing on FOX last night. I normally hate these stupid ass "reality based" shows, because they are generally far from anything realistic, but I love boxing. And getting a chance to watch Danny Bonaduce (Danny from The Partridge Family) beat the hell out of Barry Williams (Greg Brady from The Brady Bunch) was priceless. Oh, and remember Todd Bridges (Willis on Diff'rent Strokes)? He got to beat up Vanilla Ice, the white, one-hit wonder rapper from the late '80s (real name Rob Van Winkle, maybe). That was pretty cool. Then Tonya Harding (bashed Nancy Kerrigan in the knee) did some girly thing with Paula Jones (had the affair with Bill Clinton) and won. Poor Tonya; she didn't get any respect last night even though she won.

I watched knowing it would be really stupid, and I wasn't much dissapointed. Although, the boxing itself was real. Well, you can't really call what any of those guys did "boxing", but they threw some amatuer punches and got rocked a few times. All in all, I guess it was pretty good, for a guilty pleasure. What I don't understand is why someone like Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini or Michael "Let's Get Ready to Rumble!" Buffer would sully his name by being associated with such trash. I guess money can buy anyone.

2002-03-14T07:08:00.000-05:00

I wrote a few days ago about the article I wrote that the Roanoke Times published, and promised that I would post any responses to it and my replies. Today I read the first direct reply that's been printed(here) but I don't really have a lot to say about it. Teresa Chase of Roanoke agreed with what I wrote and also added some good points.

I ENJOYED reading "It's time to change the national motto" by Rob Miles (March 2 Opinion page), and I appreciate your having the courage to print a piece sure to draw hostile reactions from many readers.

Most Americans assume "In God We Trust" was in place as a motto from the founding of the republic, a republic that's commonly believed to have been founded as a "Christian nation" - when in fact, many of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, weren't Christians at all, in the modern sense of the word.

As a result, those who "come out" as nonbelievers are frequently treated as second-class citizens, and open bigotry against atheists seems to be the last acceptable prejudice in America. American atheists are just that - Americans who exercise their right of choice and choose not to believe in religion.

What do you know; my first fan!

The Blogger site did some upgrades recently that has caused some minor problems with these web logs. One of the problems, apparently, is that my stuff isn't showing up correctly. If you're reading this, that means it's been fixed. If you're not reading this, I guess it's still screwed up. Unless of course I also cannot post at this time, which means I'll have to redo all of this later. I guess I should cut it short then, just in case.

2002-03-12T13:50:00.000-05:00

Wow! I've had 41 visitors today that weren't me. What's up with that? For those of you who are coming back, thank you. I apologize for not posting anything in a while, but I've been busy. Well, the truth is, I've been lazy. And busy, but mostly lazy.

I've changed the poll question, and though I've called it a "weekly" poll, I may leave it longer. It depends on the repsonse. Last weeks question, would you renounce your religion to save your life, was answered nine times (hopefully by nine different people) with the majority (five) saying they don't have a religion, three saying they wouldn't renounce it, and one saying they would.

Today's question concerns the hypothetical discovery of intelligent life on another planet and it's affect on your belief. I left a joke answer in, but I'd really like to know how you feel about it. E-mail me if you'd like to expand on your answer a little more than what my canned answers allow for. Again, if you want to remain anonymous, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll post your response, name and email unless you tell me otherwise.

2002-03-06T13:57:00.000-05:00

My local newspaper printed an editorial I wrote and sent in, called "It's Time to Change the National Motto." I don't know how long it will be available, but if you want to read it and the link doesn't work, let me know and I'll email you the Word document. The printed article is slightly different (The Roanoke Times made a few editorial changes I don't agree with) but is essentially the same.

I expect there will be some feedback from local readers (generally in the form of Letters to the Editor), and as they show up I'll post them here along with my comments. If you want to comment on the article, send me an email using the above link and I'll post it along with my comments as well. If you wish to remain anonymous, you must specifically tell me so. Otherwise I will use your name and email address.

One thing I hear a lot when I get a Letter to the Editor printed is how I have to respect the Christians' beliefs. No, I don't. I may respect the person, and I respect their right to have a belief or opinion no matter how stupid I think it is, but I absolutely do not have to respect the belief itself. I can't respect the belief that God exists because it has no basis in reality. There is not one shred of impirical evidence to suggest that God exists. If the only justification someone has for believing in God is their faith (which is "believing in what you know ain't so") I can't respect that belief anymore than I could respect the belief that white people are superior to black people.

It's tempting (for me) to call Christians (and other believers of god(s)) stupid, and unfortunately I give into that temptation on occassion. I mean, honestly, some people are stupid, and one of the many ways a stupid person will act is by spouting one nonsensical religious statement after another. But I don't think all "believers" are stupid. I know quite a few people who are religious and who are otherwise highly intelligent people. But I can't understand why people who can see right through other scams and nonsense have such effective blinders on when it comes to a belief in God. The bullshit detectors that usually go off without a hitch are strangely silent when it comes to their holy scripts. Oh, the alarms work just fine when it comes to another religion's holy text, but when it's their own they don't hear a thing. Or maybe they do hear them, in some small way, but they choose to ignore them.

Actually I guess I can understand it. I dated a girl for a year when I was stationed at Fort Knox who told me one preposterous story after another about herself and her family. I knew most of it was bullshit, but she was pretty and the sex was good (usually) so I just went right along believing it. I was stupid, and willingly so, because I wanted to believe the crap. I had nagging doubts now and then, but I generally just pushed them down. Even when I would catch her contradicting an earlier lie and she would try to cover it up with an even more preposterous story I would accept it, again because I wanted to believe her. And of course I would angrily defend her against anyone who tried to point out how ridiculous her stories were, partly out of misplaced loyalty to her but mostly because the bullshit simply had to be true. If it wasn't true, I was an utter fool for believing it.

So I can understand why otherwise intelligent people believe in something so remarkably unbelievable and why they defend that belief. But I certainly won't respect that belief.

2002-03-04T13:53:00.000-05:00

One of the only downsides to bluegrass music is that so much of it is religious. I remember years ago hearing a song titled I'd Hate to be the Man, and the lyrics were something like "I'd hate to be the man, who put the nail in Jesus's hand, yet I know I do the same, when I take his name in vain" (that's close, but probably not exactly right.) I wasn't an atheist at the time and I still thought it was pretty stupid. It's even worse if it's a kick-ass tune which has some sappy, sentimental "God is my bestest buddy in the whole wide world" message strapped to it. It's kind of like listening to a great Baptist choir; the music is great, and the singing is wonderful (though "wonderful singing" is not really a neccessity with bluegrass), but the lyrics just make you cringe.

Saturday night, though, I heard what has to be the absolute worst message in a bluegrass song I've ever heard. The name of the song is (and this pretty much says it all) I Don't Need to Understand, I Just Need to Hold God's Hand. "I don't need to understand, I just need to hold God's hand. I don't ever even need to ask him why." This is the epitome of all that's wrong with Christianity in my opinion. This goes far beyond the disgusting "God works in mysterious ways" babble you hear when someone's child dies in a senseless way. The person who wrote this song (or even who sings it) is the kind of person who would smile and sing "I've got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart" while happily burning and destroying anything or anyone if he or she believes that God told him to do it. And the scary thing is that Christianity is as chock-full of people with this mentality as Islam and Hinduism is.

Andrea Yates may have been crazy, but she needed Christianity to focus on a reason to kill her kids. She thought she was failing as a mother and had to kill her kids to keep them from going to hell. I'll bet she heard a lot of "you don't need to understand, you just need to hold God's hand, you don't even ever need to ask him why" from her family and friends. Not that I'm trying to excuse her for what she did, mind you. But it's just another example of how unquestioning obedience to and faith in any religion is dangerous.

2002-03-03T07:37:00.000-05:00

My wife and I went to the "Fiddle and Banjo Club" last night. This is a monthly get together of novice, amatuer and (almost) professional bluegrass bands, and frankly, I'm surprised that not only did my wife go, she actually enjoyed herself. Until about 2 weeks ago, I had no idea that she was interested in that type of music (though to be fair to me, it's only been a recent development.) She's always been into Phil Collins, dance-mix, a little bit of older music ('60s and '70s), and the occassional cross-over country song. Of course, what passes for country music these days I don't really consider country music, but you know what I mean (don't you?)

We've got some friends who live out in the mountains (Elliston, Virginia). They have two big parties each year, for New Years Eve and for the Fourth of July, and we almost always go. I especially like the New Years Eve party, because if the weather hasn't been too dry and it isn't too windy, we burn Christmas trees all night long. And drink, of course. And eat too.

Cletus (yes, his name is really Cletus, but he's not some slack-jawed yokel) plays banjo (once again, he really isn't a slack-jawed yokel), and he's damned good at it. Some of the others who come to the party play the guitar, mandalin, harmonica, etc. Now I've always enjoyed good bluegrass music, but generally only when it's being played live. I'm probably not going to buy any tapes or CDs (though I may borrow some from my step-fathers extensive collection to copy), but when I'm around a group of players gettin' down and pickin', my foot is probably going to get to tappin'. I play guitar, but I'm really not very good. Cletus and the others keep telling me to bring it and join in, but I've been too embarrassed to at this point. I really don't know the songs they play other than to hear them, and when they get going nobody wants to hear me fumbling around trying to learn the chord changes. Then again, it's not really that hard as just about every song they play uses the same three chords, but still.

Anyway, I always thought my wife just sort of ignored or tolerated the music as much as possible over the years that we'd been going there. I never saw her foot tapping and she never asked me about any of the songs on the 20 minute drive home. In fact, she pretty much just went where the other women went and if they weren't around the music she didn't seem to mind. Then, two weeks ago, a commercial came on for a "best of" CD of bluegrass and what's called "Old Timey" music (similar, but there is a distinct difference.) Just about every song on it is one that Cletus and the guys play, and my wife was the one who pointed that out! She'd not only been listening, she'd been remembering the songs and enjoying them! She actually wanted me to order the CD, but I talked her out of it. I know I can find every one of those songs in my step-father's collection, and I'd hate for her to spend money on a CD that she'd wind up not liking as much as she thought. See, I think she's transferring the enjoyment of hanging out with friends onto the music they play.

But I could be wrong. She did enjoy herself at the Fiddle and Banjo Club last night, and when my parents suggested yesterday that we go with them to one of the many bluegrass festivals they attend each year, she actually said that it might be fun. We've been married for eleven years now, and I'd have to say this is one of the biggest surprises I've ever had from her. But it's a pleasant surprise.

2002-03-01T14:39:00.000-05:00

Man, I wish I could write like The Misanthropic Bitch. I mean, I don't agree with everything she says (how boring would that be?) but I definately like here style. She's intelligent, witty, and enough of a bitch that if she knew I was linking to her (on her FAQ page she says it's okay but you have to pay royalties) and saying all these nice things about her she'd just make fun of me. She doesn't think much of those of us who do these blogs. Not that I really give a rat's ass what she thinks, I just like reading her articles. I wish she'd update a little more often though.

Here in Roanoke (I live in Salem, but Roanoke is where all the news-worthy stuff happens) a man shot and killed a 15 year-old girl who was on his porch ringing his doorbell. (Actually, the girl may have been 16. One thing about the Roanoke Times, you can never be too sure of the facts they present, because they might change from one article to the next.) According to the story I can't link to because the newspaper's online site is down while I'm writing this, four local teens (I think they were all girls) had been harrassing the guy (who is in his 80s) for quite a while that day. They were ringing his door bell and pounding on his windows, then running away. The girl who was shot wasn't involved in any of this, but she knew the ones who were. In fact, she was trying to return the guys car keys (which the other girls had taken, planning to steal his car) to him. She didn't know that the girls had been harrassing the man, and didn't know that the old guy had yelled at the girls that he was going to shoot through the door the next time they rung the bell. So when she rung the bell (again, to return his keys), and he shot her, I imagine she was pretty surprised and a little confused.

The old mans lawyers, of course, are going to try to defend his actions by saying that he feared for his life and was therefore acting in self defense. I doubt that's going to fly, because I don't know of any circumstances where it's acceptable to fire a gun through a closed door just because someone rang your door bell. Last year there was a case where a man fired into a crowd of hoodlums in front of his house who were actually threatening him with bodily harm. He only wounded a few of them and he wound up spending a few months in jail (he plea-bargained down from a felony offense.) These punks had actually thrown bottles at him, and he and his son were hit with broken glass before he shot into the crowd. If that guy went to jail when there actually was some physical threat to him, this old guy should get the book thrown at him. It doesn't help that he plead guilty to murder 50 years ago in a (?) unrelated case. In fact, the case is so unrelated that it should have never been brought up.

I predict that the girls who started all the trouble will only get a slap on the wrist (but only if their parents allow them to.) That's a shame, because I think there's a good chance that they knew the old man was going to shoot the next time someone rang his door bell, and let the girl go up there without warning her. A practicle joke, you see. I'd like to think that they thought he wouldn't actually hit her, and that it would scare her and they would all laugh about it afterwards, but I'm too cynical about human nature. It can't be proved, of course, and unless one of the girls involved confesses that in fact that is what happened, it will probably never be an issue.

2002-03-01T13:16:00.000-05:00

I've taken down the link to the chat page. I guess it wasn't that great an idea after all. A few people tried to visit me, but I was either too busy to stop in or it was the wrong time zone. Anyway, in it's place is a quizlet that I will try for a while (you'll probably have to scroll down a bit to see it.) A quizlet is just a little poll, and it will be changed weekly for now, and if there is ever enough traffic on the site to warrant it, I'll change the question more often. Suggestions for polls can be sent to me here. (By the way, you can use the same email link with a different subject if you want to email me any other suggestions or comments.) If you read these pages, encourage others to come by and answer the polls.

2002-02-28T09:09:00.000-05:00

This has got to be one of the coolest sites I've seen in a while. If you need a thesarus, you can't really do much better than this Plumb Design Visual Thesaurus. Let the page load, then click on the "loaded, click to launch" section. This will open another window and you'll have one easy to use thesarus.

2002-02-27T13:25:00.000-05:00

Racism runs rampant in my family, but they would be absolutely shocked if you accused them of it. My mother and step-father, who vote for the Democratic party in every election come hell or high water and consider themselves as liberal as it gets, consider it just a fact of life that Black people aren't as good as Whites (except when it comes to sports.) They use the word "nigger¹" casually when talking about some black people², and I swear to you, they honestly don't mean it in a hateful or derogatory way. Of course it is hateful and derogatory, but they don't see it that way. They don't "tsk, tsk" as much as they used to when they see a black man with a white woman, but they still think that if a white woman is beaten or killed by her black boyfriend or husband, it's her own fault, right? She knew what she was getting herself into.

Don't get me wrong; I love my mother and I have a great deal of respect (in other regards, anyway) for my step-father. I just hope that the attitude they have in this regard is on it's way out. Unfortunately, I sincerely doubt that it is. Despite the progress that has been made in these regards, there's still to many suspicious instances of white cops beating black suspects. We in the South are considered ignorant, racist rednecks, but it sure seems like more of these stories are coming from the far more sophisticated and enlightened Northern bastions of democratic principles. You know, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc. That doesn't mean I think we're any less racist in the South, just that we're either getting better at disguising it or that, when and if things like this happen here, it's not considered news because we're just sort of expected to treat minorities badly.

I grew up in this atmosphere and I know that if it hadn't been for the time I spent in the Army I would be just as casually racist as they are. As much as I bitch about my time in the Army, I did come away with some things that make me, in my opinion, a better man. I learned to work with, trust, and rely on people from many different walks of life. Black, white, brown, red, yellow... it didn't matter. Work needed to be done, and war needed to be waged and survived. I learned pretty quick that irrational and unsupportable fears and stereotypes would have to go. Sometimes I think that if people were forced into similar situations they too would come away with some of the insights I gained. Then I remember the racism I ran into in the Army among people who should have known better and simply didn't.

Favoritism is a fact of life in the Army (and probably in the other branches as well) and it generally ran in neat, straight, colored lines. White soldiers were almost always getting promoted faster under white NCOs³, and black soldiers were almost always getting promoted faster under black NCOs. Not too surprisingly, I suppose, is that (in my experience anyway) black soldiers under white NCOs usually got promoted faster than white soldiers under black NCOs⁴. When I was an NCO, I spent a lot of time with other white NCOs in "sensitivity" classes that I don't remember black NCOs ever having to attend. (Don't shoot the messenger here. I'm just relaying my own experiences. It may have been different for other people stationed at other posts and in other jobs.)

When I was stationed in Germany, I often saw black and white soldiers going to the clubs together, usually in large groups. And even though this was generally because it's often a good idea for American soldiers to travel in a large group in foreign countries (two or three American GIs, no matter what color, wanted to get cornered by a gang of Turks), these guys would generally really like each other. There may have been the occassional hard feelings between a couple of soldiers, but it was probably more of a personality clash than anything race-based.

Once I was back state-side, though, it was a different thing. White soldiers generally hung out with other white soldiers, and black soldiers hung out with other black soldiers. If there were enough hispanics in a unit, they would hang out together but if there weren't they would hang out with whichever group they most identified with. When I was at Fort Campbell, Tennessee, there was one hispanic soldier who was about as openly prejudiced as anyone I've ever seen since. He hated white people with a passion, and didn't care who knew it. I'm not just saying that, because of the way he acted towards people, I assume he hated whites. He told me point blank (I was lucky enough to be his section leader) that since I was white he could never respect me as a man and that he hated all whites. I hate to think what would have happened to me if I had said that to one of the black NCOs I had over me in my military career.

¹I don't like the word, but I write "nigger" instead of some cutesy euphamism like "the 'n' word" because I think it's childish to shy away from a word just because it's hateful or makes you uncomfortable. I apologize if this offends any readers.
²I still haven't figured out what, in their mind, distinguishes one black person from another when it comes to using this word.
³From the rank of E1 to E4, promotions are given based on the recommendation of the soldiers first-line supervisor and Platoon Sergeant.
⁴Just in case you think I'm relating this as a white soldier who was overlooked for promotions in favor of black soldiers, that's simply not the case. I never felt that I personally was being treated unfairly when it came to promotions, and any screw ups that caused slow promotions for me were based on sheer incompetence, not on one NCO or another deciding for whatever reason that he didn't like me.

2002-02-26T11:10:00.000-05:00

Continuing from the last story (see below or the archives):

We finally got to go to sleep around 0300 that first night (I'm going to use military time for the military stories; for any number over 12, subtract twelve for the equivalent p.m. time), and was promptly awoken at 0530. We found out that we hadn't actually started Basic Training yet; that would come in a week or so when enough people were there to make up the various classes that we had all signed up for. See, some Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) would all be lumped in together for Basic Training for 8 weeks, then the class members would go off to their different Advanced Individual Training (AIT) classes of varying lenghts. Other MOSs, like tanking for instance, would spend 13 (or was it 15?) weeks straight in a combined Basic/AIT course. It takes a little longer to get a full class together for those courses, so that means a longer wait in what's called "Zero Week", that time period of limbo I had now found myself in.

Because Zero Week was not truly the start of Basic Training, the DIs had to take it a little easier on us than they normally would have. They didn't drop us for pushups, and though they would bitch about some transgressions, they didn't really get in our faces for spit-flinging shouting sessions. The reason is because during this time a recruit (we weren't called soldiers until week 10) could easily get out of the Army by just making the request, because technically he wasn't quite in the army yet. I watched 10 people do it in the first week. Remember, this was during the time when the DIs were being relatively nice to us. We still had to "volunteer" for chores (kitchen duty, clean up, guard, etc) that would often last far into the night, and we were still required to clean our personal bunk areas and common barracks areas, of course.

Let me just take an aside to explain why I will put "volunteer" in quotes for those of you unfamiliar with the "Army Way." Everybody, even the DIs, will tell you to never volunteer for anything. No matter what they tell you the chore or detail is, if you volunteer for it you'll look like a suck-up and wind up doing the worst crap the DI can think of. The DIs only ask for volunteers to see who is stupid enough to ignore their advice against volunteering thinking he will get an easy duty. Again, this was during the time when the DIs were being relatively nice to us. It got a lot worse when we were actually in Basic Training.

All in all, (especially in hindsight) this was a relatively easy-going period. We were herded here and there and worked longer (though not particularly harder) than many of us were used to, but it was actually not a big deal for me. I had worked at the college bar when I was at Roanoke College, which meant many late nights and early mornings getting to my next class, so I was actually kind of used to it. In fact, when my cousing and I closed the bar (he worked there too) we would wind up getting pretty hammered because the boss would let us drink all the draft beer we wanted while he cooked... er... did the books. Two motivated alcoholics can drink a lot of free tap beer in 30 or 45 minutes. So not only was I used to functioning with very little sleep, I generally had a hangover to boot.

One kind of funny thing happened about the sixth night there. That day had been pretty busy because we'd been marched all over the area getting our uniforms and other recruit gear (sleeping bags, field gear, a bunch of stuff) and carrying it around all over the camp on our way to the next location to pick up more stuff. We had dinner (in the Army it's called "chow") about 1700, then the first round of "volunteers" was chosen for various duties. Most of us didn't get picked, so we got to march over to a little theater and watch Stripes. This was the first time I'd seen the movie, and I loved it. (The DI told us that everybody who sees that movie in Basic Training winds up getting in trouble by trying to copy Bill Murray or Harold Ramis or John Candy, and he was right, but that's a different story.)

Anyway, after the movie we went back to our holding area. It was about 2100 hours, and the DIs told us that they needed just a few "volunteers" for some chores and the rest of us could go to bed. This was pretty exciting because this would be the first night we'd gotten to hit the hay before midnight since we'd been there. Considering they woke us up every morning (after that first one) at 0430, some of us were getting pretty close to exhaustion.

Of course we'd listened to the DIs advice, and nobody was going to volunteerr. We all did exactly what we were told (by the DIs!) to do: avoid eye contact with the DI asking for "volunteers" without making it too obvious that you were avoiding eye contact. Don't ever look down at the ground, because that just draws attention to your avoiding eye contact. And don't look up at the sky, because then the DI will think you're rolling your eyes at him. Very bad things happen when a DI thinks you're rolling your eyes at him. One guy was doing as well as the rest of us in avoiding being picked until he sneezed. I swear, the four DIs prowling the room for "volunteers" converged on him like Jerry Springer in an audience of slack-jawed yokels (what other type of audience does Springer ever get?), salivating over the chance to put him on the crappiest detail they could think of.

The recruit went bug-eyed as the four DIs argued amongst themselves over him. Finally the senior DI pulled rank and, with an almost evil grin, said "Come on, 'cruit, you're coming with me. I got a good job for you!" At the same time one of the other DIs was telling the rest of us that we could go to our barracks, that was it for the night. The chosen recruit (a pretty big guy) snapped. He was crying and flailing around, screaming that it wasn't fair that he had to pull duty again, and all the DIs had to wrestle him down to the ground to get him under control. Finally, two of them drug him out (he was still crying, but no longer fighting), and another recuit who must have known him said "Hey, Drill Sergeant, he's alright. He just misses his girlfriend." The DI said "Well, that's okay 'cause I think he's going to get to see her again sooner than he thought." Sure enough, I didn't see that guy again after that, so I guess he was sent home. Of course, I can't say for sure that he wasn't just killed and buried somewhere out of the way, but let's just assume that didn't happen.

At the time it was pretty disturbing, because you just don't expect to see someone flip out like that out of the blue. At least, I didn't. Now, I just think it was pretty damn funny. One of the DIs finally just picked someone at random and put him on trash detail (about a ten minute job), and sent the rest of us back to the barracks. A different DI met us there, and kept us up until 0230 mopping the floors, cleaning (in exquisite detail) the latrine (bathroom), washing windows, and learning how to polish and shine our new boots. The guy who was on trash detail was excused and allowed to go to bed.

2002-02-24T20:02:00.000-05:00

Wow! One hit this weekend. To all one of you who read this, I apologize for not having written anything lately. You'd think I would have plenty of time to write on the weekend, but that is rarely the case. Anyway, there just hasn't been anything that big to come up since Friday to get me writing.

Well, I guess I could talk a little bit about my experiences in the Army. I won't bother with chronological order with these tales, but I'll try to give you hints as to the appropriate time frame as we go (assuming I write more about them in the future.) Tonight's story, though, is from Basic Training, so it's actually the beginning. Huh. Imagine that.

I was 6' 1" and weighed 235 lbs. on the day I left home for the Army. It wasn't all fat, but I certainly couldn't have been considered in good shape by any stretch of the imagination. I had actually lost 5 lbs. the week prior, but nobody would have noticed. In fact, nobody did. One of the advantages of going into the army, or so I convinced myself, was that I would get into shape. Remember John Candy in Stripes? I don't remember the exact quote, but he says something like "What have you got here, a six-to-eight week program? That's perfect for me!" That was kind of how I felt about it.

Embarrassing Fat Story #1:
After I finished in-processing in Richmond, Virginia, the Army flew me to Charlotte, North Carolina (this was still a few years before I developed an extreme fear of flying). We had a pretty good in-flight meal about 6 p.m. From Charlotte I next flew to Louisville, Kentucky where I would be attending Basic Training at Fort Knox (don't ask me why I flew from Richmond to Charlotte then to Louisville.) On that second flight, I was served another in-fligh meal around 9 p.m. I really wasn't hungry, but that never stopped me from eating before. This time, though, I decided to save the sandwich they served (a sub, basically) for later. I didn't know what kind of time schedule I would be on, so I figured I better have something in reserve for later. I stowed the sandwich in my carry on bag, and promptly forgot about it.

I landed in Louisville about 10 p.m., got herded on a military bus with a bunch of other soon-to-be soldiers, and rolled into Fort Knox about 11:30 that night. This was actually going a little faster than I'd thought. I was hoping for another night in a hotel before commencing with the "good stuff", but no, we got started right away. After getting us off the bus, they herded us all into a mess hall (fancy, Army-speak for cafeteria) and fed us a meal of chili-mac and green stuff that might have been vegetables. I wasn't real familiar with vegetables at the time, so you'll have to forgive my uncertainty. I wasn't really hungry for that meal, but just as I was thinking about dumping my tray one of the Drill Instructors (DIs) starting chewing out another guy for doing the same thing. The whole "you wasting food, boy?" kind of thing. So, I ate.

By 1:00 a.m. we were in the barracks and another DI was going through our bags looking for contraband (drugs, weapons, dirty magazines, etc.) I almost laughed at the decidedly finicky way that he picked up a sandwich he found, holding it between his finger and thumb like it was diseased or something. Then I realized that it was my sandwich he'd found, and I know my face must have gone red when he looked from the sandwich to my fat, overhanging belly and said "Oh. My. God." It didn't get any better later, either.

"Boy, we're going to feed you," he said, looking at me like I was feeble-minded or something. "You don't have to worry about that. You ain't gonna go hungry in the Army, so you don't have to try to pack food away for later, okay?" Talk about condescending, and this from a guy who probably didn't even know what "condescending" meant. All the other guys were snickering, and I was desperately hoping someone would find a knife or something to take the focus off of me. Then I farted (you know how it is when your embarrassed an nervous; some part of your body feels like it's its duty to make matters even worse), and bedlam ensued. Fortunately, about 15 minutes later one of the DIs found a knife in another guys bag, and he got some attention for a while. Still, if I had my choice, I would have rather been caught with a knife than with a sandwich. Even the fart wouldn't have been as embarrassing if it had been a knife the DI found.
End of Embarrassing Fat Story #1.

That's all for tonight. The Simpsons is on.

2002-02-22T13:15:00.000-05:00

This picture is pretty funny:

I got it from Rush's site. Now, I'm not a "Rush is Right" kind of guy, but it is worth noting who in this picture is "looking" through binoculars with the lens caps still on. Of course, you also kind of have to wonder what the finger is pointing to. Is someone off camera trying to tell Bush "Psst, north is that way"? Also, at first glance didn't you think Bush had the binoculars backwards? They aren't, of course, but to me it just kind of looked that way at first, especially compared to the way Clinton's look.

2002-02-22T10:14:00.000-05:00

Robertson Calls Islam a Religion of Violence, Mayhem (washingtonpost.com) Television evangelist Pat Robertson yesterday described Islam as a violent religion bent on world domination, drawing immediate protests from American Muslims.

Jeez, do you think Robertson ever reads his own Bible? If Islam is a religion of violence, what does that make Judaism, and Christianity which is (at least nominally) founded on it?

2002-02-22T10:06:00.000-05:00

Did you like The Tick? I'm not talking about the the cartoon (though it's cool too, of course.) I mean the live action series that was on Fox. It was only on for 8 episodes, but that was some of the finest TV going. It sure beat the hell out of some of the other so-called comedy shows, or any of the ridiculous "reality" TV shows going. Man, Fox pisses me off sometimes. They have some really great shows like The Simpsons, Dark Angel, Malcolm In the Middle, and so many others. Then they have "That '80s Show", "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire", "The Chamber" (or is it "The Chair"?), "Grounded for Life", and (again) so many others. There's very little in-between with them; either the show rocks or it absolutely sucks. And whoever is in charge of their programming decisions should be horse-whipped, what with all the seemingly random programming changes from one week to the next.

Anyway, I ask because if you liked The Tick and would like FOX to put it back on, why not go sign this petition and let them know how you feel. It probably won't affect FOX's decision, but what the hell; be radical for a change.

2002-02-22T05:44:00.000-05:00

Here's my good deed for the day: Search for books and compare prices at isbn.nu. This site can save you time and money when you need to buy books. You can also sign up for mailings that will send coupons and information about special deals your way.

I heard about isbn.nu from Brian Livingston, author of the "Windows Secrets" series (although he refused to write one for Windows XP, so at least he has integrity.) He has a newsletter called E-Business Secrets which has a lot of interesting information. Check it out.

2002-02-21T14:33:00.000-05:00

Alright, more Paypal news! Let's hope the lawsuits keep mounting!

PayPal hit by class-action suit - Tech News - CNET.com

2002-02-21T10:42:00.000-05:00

The following is a translation of some Taliban literature:

"HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN that violates both natural and revealed law. It is an inherent evil disfavored under the law. It is a detestable and an abominable act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it."

"We carry the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. We must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle."

"No matter how much society appears to change, the law on this subject has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law, and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil, and if a person openly engages in such a practice, that fact alone would render him or her an unfit parent."

Actually, I'm lying. The above is quoted from an American (?!) judge, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore. (The link points to the Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State web site.) Isn't it amazing that, here in the 21st Century, we still have the likes of Moore getting into positions of power? How can we, as Americans, stand for this nonsense? I know Alabamans are often derided as uneducated, backwater, redneck hicks, but Christ on a jar of Hot & Spicy Salsa, this is just stupid. It's bad enough that we have idiots like Pat Robertson actually on TV, but to allow someone like Moore to be a lawyer, let alone a Chief Justice, is just mind-boggling.

At least Americans were smart enough to keep Pat Buchanan out of office. It's still depressing that enough of us support him that he actually thinks he can win these elections.

(Special Thanks to J.E. Hill for posting this to Farrell Till's Biblical Errancy Discusion list.)

2002-02-21T07:14:00.000-05:00

I was all set to get worked up over an effort going on in California to raise the legal smoking age from 18 to 21. I mean, I think it's preposterous that we keep telling people who are between 18 and 20 that they are now adults with all the rights and responsiblities that come with it, except for drinking and (soon) smoking. Either they're adults or they aren't. If a male must register for selective services once they reach the age of 18 (meaning that he can be drafted under the right circumstances to fight in a war that he may oppose), then he should be able to make decisions about his life that may or may not be harmful to him. If he choses to smoke or drink, as long as it's not imposing on someone else's rights and health, he should be able to. And lest you think I'm being sexist, of course 18 and older females should have exactly the same right.

I used to be dead-set against the whole "legalize marijuana" thing, but I've changed my mind over the past few years. I was pretty heavy into pot when I was (much) younger, but by the time I'd gotten out of high school (when I was seventeen) I had stopped smoking it altogether. Why? I don't know, mostly I just didn't like it anymore. In college I drank heavily, and every once in a while would snort some coke or meth, but it was rare. Now, I loathe even taking aspirin unless I need to. I had some kick-ass painkillers after my back surgery, but after enjoying them (with my Doctor's blessings) for two weeks I made an aggressive effort to limit them to only when absolutely necessary. When that prescription ran out, I insisted that I be given a milder one, and I still have almost all of those left. When I drink now, it's mostly a beer or two maybe once a month. I truly enjoy drinking a beer while smoking a good, expensive cigar, but I don't get a chance to do that often. Especially when the weather is bad as I don't smoke inside the house.

Anyway, I've come to the realization that, although I would never again smoke pot (as far as I know), I do support it being legalized. Pot is no more harmful than beer, less cancerous than cigerrettes, and could be taxed heavily (hey, the stoners would gladly pay the tax on it over what they're paying for it now when it's illegal).

2002-02-18T20:54:00.000-05:00

My hit counter (down at the bottom of the page) is going up, and it's not all because I keep coming back and checking on it (which I do) or hitting refresh for whatever reason (which I also do.) Look, the point is that somebody is reading this, and that's great. I appreciate the interest. No, really, I do. I think a few people have come by the chat room, but unfortunately I couldn't get it to come up properly most of today so I haven't had the opportunity to meet many of the chatters. This isn't exactly world-shattering problems, but what the hell else am I going to write about at 8:30 at night (EST).

That's the problem with these journals, of course. I read the paper in the morning, so all the crap that pisses me off, or otherwise inspires me to write, generally hits me when I'm at my most vulnerable. Not that I need to be particularily vulnerable to get pissed off, or otherwise inspired, but it helps. Anybody who knows of my posting history on the Biblical Errancy mailing list will probaby find that most of my postings come in the earlier hours. It's only been since I've had a laptop to bring home that I've done any kind of writing at night, and that's only started recently. And then only if I'm not reading some book that's caught my eye.

I do a lot of "junk" reading (though there are some that say no reading is junk reading), which is to say I read mostly fiction. I like horror, fantasy, science fiction, or any combination (especially combinations) of the above. I also like to read some historical or scholarly stuff, but generally for specific knowledge of a single point. I can't sustain interest in that type of reading long enough to actually finish a book.

Back to the point from above: so most of my inspiration to write comes in the morning, but I don't have a lot of time to do writing these days. So I try to sneak in a moment here or there at work (if anybody from work is reading this, I'm just kidding. I would never do that.) Mostly I'll write during lunch if I have a chance. If I don't write it in the morning or at lunch, by the time I get home and have time to sit down and do any writing, most of my piss and vinegar is gone. So you get these boring, non-contreversial postings (as opposed to the boring, contreversial postings I could have written in the morning.)

Maybe I'll relate some more of my Army experiences tomorrow.

2002-02-18T13:55:00.000-05:00

Hey, for some reason the cool link to the chat room isn't showing up right. I don't know if this is temporary or what, but the direct address is http://mercury.beseen.com/chat/rooms/m/22710, so if it's important to you bookmark it.

2002-02-18T13:35:00.000-05:00

I've still got a few minutes of lunch, so I thought I'd put in a quick paragraph. Got to keep the updates coming, or all two of you who read this might start to get bored. Er... yea.

Anyway, a little about me: After high school, I went to Roanoke College, a somewhat small, private college right here in Salem, Virginia. It's also pretty darned expensive, though by what standard I don't know. So that means I'm a spoiled rich kid, right? Wrong. My family was actually pretty poor for most of my life (my parents, as I've mentioned before, were divorced when I was six, and my father was no better at actually providing the support he was supposed to than he was at telling the truth). By the time I was getting close to graduation, though, my mother did remarry (her third marriage, actually) and we would probably have been considered low-to-mid middle class. Still, I wouldn't have been able to go to a state college, much less a private school like Roanoke College, because there just wasn't enough money and my grades weren't good enough (by far) for any kind of scholarship. However, my mother was a librarian at Roanoke College, so I got to go tuition free. Which means I fit in really well with the rich, spoiled northern kids. Yea, right. (By the way, my mom's second husband was an alcoholic who, despite having a well-paying job, was always broke because of 1) the amount he spent on drinking and 2) the colossally stupid things he did when he was drunk. I miss him.)

Anyway, part of the deal with me going to RC for free was that I had to be a dependent living at home. That was the part that sucked. I mean, I love my mom and I respect my stepfather, but after two and a half years of that I was ready to explode! So, in my junior year, I went to the local recruiting office and, long story short, joined the Army. (I know you may be thinking "Too late" about that long story short thing, but believe me, if I went into all the details that were involved in my actually joining the army... well, let's just say it is really a long story.) Because of my high scores on the qualification tests, I could have had any job in the military I wanted. I could have chosen from any number of fields that would have helped me find good employment later in the civilian world like, for instance, accounting, computer programming, plumbing (I kid you not.) And a lot of the jobs I could have had would have kept me nice and safe, warm and dry instead of spending a lot of time in the field for training exercises. Guess what job I chose. Go ahead, guess. Nope. I was a tanker! I thought it would be a cool job. I was wrong.

Maybe you've seen some of the Army recruiting ads on TV, or maybe not. Back then (this was in the early 80's) there was a spot where they showed a tank crew on the M1 Abram tank speeding along at night. You see a tank in their target that's just starting to turn towards them when they "fire" (it's simulated), and the tank is "destroyed" (also simulated). The tank that gets shot was an M60. Take a wild guess which tank I was trained on. Nope, I was on the M60. You know, the one that was shot. Oh, I signed up for the M1 training, but the Army never let a little thing like contractual obligations stand in their way. There was a little (literally) clause in my contract that said the Army wouldn't guarantee my any assignment and would put me where they thought was best. Apparently, there was a much bigger need for M60 trainees than for M1 trainees. That only stands to reason, though. Because of the aforementioned recruitment ad, everybody and their brother (no women allowed in combat arms back then) were signing up for the M1 training. Quite a few were also signing up for the M60 training, but they didn't know it until a week into basic training.

Technically, I could have left when this all came about. I could have said "Wait, you guys screwed me so this contract is invalid. Send me home!" A few guys did, and they got sent home. No problems at all, from what I understand, either. The Drill Instructors (DI) didn't beat them, or even yell at them. They processed the paperwork and sent the little whiners... er, I mean, the unfortunate individuals home with a paid plane ticket and their sincerest hopes for a successful future. I could have done that. I could have done that!

Yea, I could have done that, but what would I have been going back home to? I had no real job experience, and since I'd dropped out of college and was, however briefly, no longer a dependent living at home, my free college ride was gone. My parents couldn't have afforded to send me to a less expensive college, and I didn't relish the idea of working in a burger joint for the next 10 years. So I stayed in. I stayed in for 8 1/2 years.

Okay, that's enough of that for now. Maybe I'll continue this saga some time in the future, or maybe not. This is supposed to be a daily journal, but sometimes I may regress to my past and talk about some of the "good times" I had in the military. Those 8 1/2 years will provide a lot of fodder too. If nothing else, this can be a record that all the kids I never have can read when they grow up (which they won't 'cause I'll never have them.) Keep coming back; you won't want to miss a minute of this! (Hehe)

2002-02-18T07:40:00.000-05:00

Virginia Military Institute (VMI) is in the news again. Some six years ago (give or take) the traditionally all-male school was forced to admit women (I think it was the U.S. Supreme Court who made the final decision, but it may have just been the Virginia Supreme Court), a decision that I had mixed feelings about. What finally clinched it for me was the realization that it is a state-sponsored school, and therefore had no right to discriminate against anyone (keep this in mind for later). The only thing that pissed me off was that some of the first female cadets, who made such a big deal out of wanting to attend VMI because of the traditions it held, were dead-set against against participating in some of the biggest VMI traditions. They didn't want their head shaved, they didn't want to be treated the way the male plebes were treated (yelled at, etc.), and they didn't want to be in the rat line or go through the breakout (read about these fine events at the VMI website.) Hey, I wouldn't want to do that crap either, but I damned sure wouldn't fight to be admitted then cry about having to do what being admitted entails.

Recently two new things have brought some unwanted (I think) attention on the school. First, they made a rule that any cadet who becomes pregnant (female) or who causes a pregnancy (male) will be expelled from the school. For some reason, this is causing a big stink and I just don't get it. A cadet who is now facing the prospects of parenthood is not going to be able to perform at the high standards that VMI sets. This is especially true for a pregnant cadet, who at some point or another is going to be unable to physically perform their duties. The school administrators know that this is true because they've seen it happen. Now, of course, all kinds of "fairness" groups are complaining that this is blatant sexism, which is absolutely absurd. What is sexist about expecting cadets to meet the standards set by the school? Again, I wouldn't go to a school like VMI, because I had enough of that kind of garbage in the Army, but these are people who presumably ask to be admitted. Once they get there, they want to divide their energy between the demanding curriculum of the school and the grueling task of being a parent? Christ on a crutch!

The next bit that's getting them in the spotlight is a recent Federal judge's ruling that the dinner time prayer ceremony, held since the 1950's, is unconstitutional and amounts to "state-sponsored religious exercise." Now, even though I'm an atheist I support anybody's right to pray at any time as long as it's not disruptive to others and doesn't attempt to force others to participate. Christians can't seem to get around that "not forcing others to participate" thing, though. They seem to think it's their god-given right (pun intended) to force others to believe in their myths, and it's just tough luck if you don't agree.

U.S. District Judge Norman Moon found that the prayer ceremony failed to pass constitutional muster under the landmark Lemon vs. Kurtzman Supreme Court ruling. This ruling says that state-sponsored prayer must 1) be secular in purpose, 2) neither advance nor inhibit religion and 3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion, and Moon pointed out that the ceremony failed all three tests. For instance, VMI administrators claimed that their prayer is nondenominational and that the cadets are not required to participate. But cadets who have tried sitting quietly and not participating have been cursed at, have food thrown at them, threatened and maligned. If they chose to not go into the dining hall until after the prayer, they're labeled as not being team players and accused of hurting the unit's cohesion. Not surprisingly, this is being done by those who claim to be Christians.

2002-02-15T12:12:00.000-05:00

My wife and I went to a really expensive resturaunt for dinner last night, which I paid for, of course. I'm not complaining; it was my idea to go there. We had a nice dinner, really good service, and I left there without having gotten mad about something or making a snide remark, so all-in-all I guess you'd have to count it a successful dinner. I did, however, have to keep myself from responding to the lady at an adjacent table who was explaining (loudly) to her dinner companion that the sweeteners in diet drinks have been proven to cause blindness, cancer, plague and dandruff. She just went on and on and on. I kept wanting to politely inform her that there isn't ONE FREAKING SHRED OF EVIDENCE for this ridiculous claim that's been around for years, but I didn't. As we left, my wife thanked me.

Honestly, we probably won't go there again. I mean, it was okay, but for the money we spent there we could have eaten almost twice at Outback or Texas Steak House. And I prefer the food and atmosphere to those places. That probably makes me a hick, I guess. Well, I've been called worse. But really, it's not so much the money (though there's no way I'd pay that much to eat out more than once or twice a year). I just prefer a good grilled steak to the "international cuisine" offered at the resturaunt we went to. I like trying new things, and the meals were tasty (I had the stuffed sea bass, my wife had the stuffed flounder), but not to a degree that I thought justified the additional cost of the meals. Plus, there were two $1.50 charges on the check that the item description was a scrawl that I couldn't read. It was either for the soda I ordered (and had one refill) or it was for the ala carte dessert we both had that was supposed to be included in the meal. I wasn't going to make a stink over $3 on a $70 meal, but it bugged me just in principle.

The chat feature is pretty cool, especially considering it's free. One of the Errancy List members has already joined me for a quick chat today, and I'm hoping it will become more popular with other list members. As well, of course, with people who just happen by here. The beseen.com site offers some pretty neat tools for free. In fact, the counter at the bottom of the page from them.

I went to look for some Waylon Jennings CDs last night. Walmart (I told you I was a hick) was completely out, and a local new-and-used store that I used to love when I was younger is no better than the major chains in the area. Their prices are about the same, and their selection is far worse, in fact. Plus, it's like the only music they recognize is classic and alternative rock. Both are fine genres, but I'd like to see some others mixed in.

More later, maybe. I'm going to lunch.

2002-02-15T08:30:00.000-05:00

Hey, this is cool. See the link above for the chat room? Yes, you can actually chat with me (or anyone else who may be around) if you want. I'll try to be in there during the day, but as I'm at work during the day I may not immediately answer.

When you click on the link, the first thing you'll have to do is create a handle and password (if you haven't already got one.) It's free, and pretty quick and easy. I haven't seen any indication that the beseen.com company is misusing the information. Check it out, it's pretty cool.

2002-02-14T08:41:00.000-05:00

This is the second posting for today. Happy Valentine's Day, and all of that (this is only to those of you who actually read this page now and then. If you don't read this, then I'm not wishing you a happy anything, so there!)

Today is a sad day for me, because I just found out this morning that Waylon Jennings died yesterday (Wed, 2/13/02). That just sucks, if you ask me. I've never been a big fan of country music, especially the crap that they try to pass off these days, but Waylon Jennings (along with Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Hank Williams Sr. and Jr., among others) defined country music. At least to me. "Wanted: the Outlaws" was one of three or four 8-track tapes my step-father played continuously in his beatup old pickup truck. He also played the hell out of some other Waylon tapes, and some of my best memories are of riding in the bed of the truck (boy, you can't get away with that these days) late at night, listening to the music through the open rear window. My mom was in the front, of course, which is why I was in the bed of the truck. I don't remember if they made extended cab pickups then or not, but even if they did, we certainly couldn't have afforded one.

My real father (who died back in the '80s) claimed to know Waylon personally. I don't know if that's true or not (Dad was one hell of a bullshit artist), but when I was 11 or so in mid-to-late '70s, my sister and I ran backstage at a Waylon concert here in Salem, Virginia and actually spoke to Waylon. We asked him if he knew our father Bo Wiley, a disk jockey in (wherever the hell my dad lived then -- he and my mom were divorced when I was 6). Waylon smiled and said something like "Yea, I believe I do", then signed his autograph for us. I don't know how we two kids were able to get away with sneaking back there, but Waylon didn't seem as bothered by it as I know I would have been if I were in his shoes. If he did know my father, that's great. If he didn't, it's still a testament of the kind of man he was that he would refuse the shatter the dreams of two kids who were obviously excited about it. You know, I'd forgotten about this incident until today. I'm actually having to fight back tears, which could be embarrasing because I'm already at work. Man, I loved Waylon!

Maxim magazine ran a wonderful article on Willie Nelson a few months ago (I was going to link to the article, or at least to Maxim's website, but as great as the magazine is, the website is horrible!), which rewoke my interest in some country music. I went and bought Red Headed Stranger, which is to my mind one of the best Willie Nelson records ever. Listening to that album reminded me of the Outlaws, which (of course) reminded me of Waylon Jennings. I hope Maxim will do an article on him now. So over the past few months I've been working on finding the great Waylon Jennings songs and albums I remember as a kid. I think my all-time favorite song is "Lonesome, O'nry and Mean" (excepting the duets he did with Willie). Hey, if anyone reading this cares, what is the name of the song that starts out "I'm sick and tired of waking up sick and tired..."? If you know, email me and I'll mention your name here on my next update (unless you tell me not to).

He was only 64, and died from complications from his long-time battle with diabetes. Well, you'll do better reading about it here. I'm no reporter, I just wanted to say how much I think it sucks that he died.

2002-02-14T08:33:00.000-05:00

This is the first of two updates I'll be posting today, assuming I have the time. This one is easy, because it's an article I wrote for the Op Ed section of my newspaper. I don't know if it will see print or not, but at least it will be here.

IT’S TIME TO CHANGE THE NATIONAL MOTTO

During McCarthy’s Communist “witch-hunt” era of the 1950s, a number of wrongs were committed against Americans. In hindsight, it’s almost universally accepted that the whole thing was just a bad idea altogether, yet some of the most egregious of these wrongs are still in evidence today. Indeed, many people proclaim these “wrongs” to be just, right and proper while paying lip-service to the principles of freedom in America.

I’m talking, of course, of the mandatory staining of our national currency, the desecration of the oaths of offices for federal justices and judges, and the ruining of a perfectly good pledge of allegiance. These changes were all precipitated by the ill-considered change of our national motto from “E Pluribus Unum” (from many, one) to the downright incorrectly worded “In God We Trust.” This motto is incorrect because we do not trust in God. Many of us don’t believe in any God at all, much less the barbaric, blood-thirsty God depicted in the Old Testament and worshipped to some degree by Jews, Muslims and Christians.

Once the panicked members of Congress (who rightly feared being labeled “communist sympathizers”) changed the national motto, it became easy to sneak references to God into all manners of our daily life. The argument is, since “In God We Trust” is our national motto, of course it should be on our money. Also, there’s no good reason to not include “God” in our oaths and in our pledge.

Incredibly, the three modern challenges to the constitutionality of the motto have all been rejected by lower federal courts, and the United States Supreme Court has refused to review the rulings. The exclusionary nature of the motto has been deemed nonreligious by the courts, despite the blatant promotion of the theistic lifestyle over the nontheistic (Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, to name a few) and secular lifestyles, which recognize no gods or more than one god. The US Supreme Court has stated that the motto is “consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief” (Allegheny, 492 U.S.). This flies directly in the face of common sense, as evidenced by the national survey conducted by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which shows an overwhelming majority (70%) of Americans believe the motto endorses a belief in God and, therefore, in religion.

The “wall of separation” between church and state envisioned by our forefathers in the First Amendment and expressly referred to by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, has clearly been violated. It is unfortunate that those we entrust to uphold the constitutionality of our laws show such cowardice when it actually comes to doing their jobs.

Notwithstanding the victories of the overzealous, religious right in these matters, it is time to right these wrongs. America’s national motto should either be the original “E Pluribus Unum” that our Nation’s founders had the foresight and courage to use, or something else equally secular that can include all Americans. Ever since September 11, most Americans recognize the importance of national unity, of coming together and standing as one. The very principle of “E Pluribus Unum”, now more than ever, should be what we all stand together for. Instead, some 20% of our population is automatically excluded because of the phrase “In God We Trust.” How can the United States possibly claim to stand for the principle that “all men are created equal” while perpetrating the myth that God likes some of us more than others?

2002-02-13T16:57:00.000-05:00

Over the last ten years I've gone from someone who actually wanted children, to being apethetic about the whole thing, to now actively against having kids. I often tell people that I don't like kids, but that's not really the truth. The truth is, I don't like people.

I mean, there are the individuals, family, friends, co-workers, etc, that I like and get along with mostly. And if I'm stuck in an elevator with someone(s), I can generally make light, friendly conversation with them. I don't immediately dislike anyone. It's just that, as a whole, I hate people.

It's one of the reasons that I've decided not to have kids. Well, I guess it's really the only reason, because once you realize that you hate mankind there isn't much need to further justify not having kids, is there? Fortunately, my wife (whom I love, by the way) also doesn't want to have kids, but not because she hates people like I do. I think she's just come to enjoy the life that we now have too much to give it up for a couple of squalling brats.

Does that sound harsh? I suppose it does, especially to people who have kids. But it gets worse, believe me.

Have you ever read anything on torture techniques? Here's the results of a Google Search I ran on "ancient torture techniques". Most of the links are just to dry, boring reports and whatnot, but if you search long enough you'll find the really horrible stuff. I tell you, some of the ways we humans have devised to hurt other humans are just... I don't know. Whether it's in the name of religion, national security, or whatever, it's just barbaric.

Do you know anything about the Holocaust? Yea, mankind at it's best, huh? It's not as if these are just examples of a very few people acting at their very worst. Humans, in general, are capable of doing grievious harm to other humans. It's not the killing that bothers me, it's the pain we inflict on others.

And how about our ability to completely disregard others in our efforts to get more for ourselves? Do you really think the whole Enron scandal is an anomoly? If you do, I have a really nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. This kind of shit happens all the time, and it's done by all kinds of people. And the only time it ever raises a stink is when enough people are effected by it, or if one political party thinks they can score points against another political party.

Mankind stinks, I tell you. I just read an article this morning that, for the first time in a decade, births are outnumbering deaths. That's a damn shame, if you ask me. As far as I'm concerned, the human race should just die out naturally. By that I mean, I don't want some big nuclear or biological catastrophe to wipe us out or anything. I just wish we'd gradually (say, the next decade or so) get to the point where there aren't enough new pregnancies to sustain our species. Eventually the whole race would die out, and leave the Earth to the creatures who deserve it.

2002-02-13T14:36:00.000-05:00

This is the kind of crap that burns me up about Virginia (my home state). These insidious intrusions of the religious right into our lives cause far more harm than good.

Virginia public schools to post 'In God We Trust' signs

Richard Saslaw is quoted in the article as pointing out that the so-called moral decline that the bill's sponser describes "has occured largely in the years since Congress made 'In God We Trust' the national motto in 1956." How can some people show so much common sense and others completely blow it?

Anyway, I'll soon be publishing a lengthy article on the National Motto thing.

2002-02-13T13:10:00.000-05:00

I hope somebody reads this thing every once in a while. Well, besides me that is. How desperate does that sound?

Well, my recovery from back surgery is going along well, according to my doctor. (No, don't bother looking in the archives. I haven't mentioned this before, so you haven't missed anything. If you want to know the details, email me and I'll tell you all about it.) I was concerned because, even after 10 weeks (when he said I would be 95% healed) I'm still having sharp pains that feel an awful lot like the pains I had before the surgery. He said it's normal because I still have two layers of sutures right on that spot that will take another 4 weeks or so to dissolve. As I move, twist, turn, sit, lay, etc, the muscles rub against them, and I gasp and whine and complain like a little girl. (My wife hates this, but she can't really say anything because I put up with it when she had her elbow surgery last year.)

Anyway, the doctor said I can start working out again, so that's a good thing (I think). I've been swimming and doing some light weight lifting for the past 4 weeks (give or take), and also using the cross-trainer at the gym. The gym. Sheesh! We've spent so much money on home exercise equipment over the past 3 years, and we actually do use it. But I had to join the gym so that I could swim (doctor's orders), and of course the wife isn't going to let me be a member and she not be, so there you go. $58 a month (and that's with a discount because of where I work) so that I can swim. It's actually for the best, though, because most of the equipment we have at home I can't really start using yet. I need the nautilus equipment for the stability during the exercises that you don't get with free weights and the "ropes-and-pulleys" gear that we own. Still, it just kind of galls me.

By the way, if there are misspellings on this, I apologize but apparently there isn't a spell check on these blogger thingys. It's probably included in the Blogger Pro (it is, I just checked), but that's $50 a year. Actually, right now it's only $35 a year, and sounds like it's worth the money if for no other reason that to help Blogger financially (plus get some cool extras), but they currently only accept Paypal payments. Harrrumph!

2002-02-12T08:14:00.000-05:00

Well, it's a small step, but an all-important first step. Let's hope this kind of action snowballs and Paypal winds up litigated to death!
Excite News

Excerpt:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - PayPal Inc. warned Monday that its popular online payment service is about to be shut down in Louisiana by that state's banking regulators, casting another cloud over the company's widely anticipated initial public offering of stock.

Besides Louisiana, New York also has notified PayPal the company is running an unlicensed banking business. The New York regulators still haven't ordered PayPal to stop doing business there, which accounted for 6.4 percent of the payment volume handled by the company during the first nine months of last year.

If state regulators determine PayPal has been running an illegal banking business, the company could face substantial fines dating back to when the service began with 24 users in October 1999. The service had ballooned to 12.8 million accountholders as of Dec. 31.

2002-02-07T15:47:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking that I'll probably use this site to post other, non-Paypal ramblings and rantings. I'll still keep the anti-Paypal links, and I'll definately post other Paypal horror stories that other people send me (if anyone else ever reads this blog). But I might want to bitch and moan from time to time, and my wife will only let me bitch and moan for so long before telling me to shut up.

Hey, this is cool. I just found out that the Creative Jukebox I ordered got delivered today. This is what actually started my hatred towards Paypal. I won the auction, knowing I would have to sign up for a Paypal account to pay for it if I won and thinking that would be okay. A week and a half later I finally get my credit card approved, and wind up with a sending limit of $154, around $20 short of what I was supposed to pay. The poor girl who held the auction finally just said she would take that and eat the difference. I hope she didn't think I was giving her the run-around so that I could avoid paying or wind up paying less. I think I'll probably send her a check for $20 if the item turns out okay. I mean, fair is fair.

2002-02-06T14:53:00.000-05:00

PayPal gears up for IPO - Tech News - CNET.com

Yea, I know... everybody in the world already knows about this. Still, it will be interesting to see how long it will be before the Paypal bigwigs start absconding with investers' (and clients') money.

2002-02-06T06:03:00.000-05:00

This is the first non-form reply I've received from Paypal (and the message of mine it was responding to.)

--- "webform@paypal.com" wrote:
> Dear Rob,
>
> Thank you for contacting PayPal.
>
> PayPal is a non face-to-face payment service and we
> must maintain high
> security measures to make our payment service the
> safest it can be. We
> have made some changes to our policies and
> processes, but we have tried to
> implement these changes in a way that causes little
> disruption to our
> members.
>
> Unfortunately, there are websites on the Internet
> that stress a negative
> experience with a particular company. Please keep
> in mind that not all the
> information is complete, or there are more
> circumstances than are actually
> stated.
>
> We can assure you that PayPal is committed to our
> members and we do
> everything possible to make our service secure,
> convenient and
> cost-effective. We make every effort to stop any
> fraudulent activity. We
> have a highly trained and innovative Fraud Team that
> works closely with the
> FBI to bring indictments against fraudsters.
>
> Our security measures, policies and processes enable
> us to continue
> providing the level of service you deserve. We plan
> on implementing new
> and exciting features for our members. We are
> committed to earning your
> trust by offering you the best service possible.
> Thank you for helping to
> make PayPal the most secure trusted online service.
>
> For more information on PayPal, please visit the
> "Company" section of our
> website at:
> https://secure.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/about-outside.
>
> We are continually improving our customer service to
> accommodate members' needs and can be contacted via secure webform at
> www.paypal.com/wf/f=default.
>
> If you have any further questions, please feel free
> to contact us again.
>
> Sincerely,
> Vincent
> PayPal Customer Service
> Original Message Follows:
> -------------------------
>
> I've already canceled my account. I thought my
> problems were bad, but after reading the information
> at www.paypalsucks.com and www.paypalwarning.com I
> realized that I'm one of the lucky ones. You've
> only cost me time and frustration. Some of those other
> poor saps out there have lost real money thanks to
> your ineptness (at best) and possible dishonesty.
>
> You can be assured that I will be joining in with
> the above mentioned sites in getting the word out about
> your "service." I'm already working on my own
> on-line contribution, and will be happy to send you the URL
> when it's completed, if you like.
>
> Rob Miles

So when you reply to that webform@paypal.com address, someone actually may see it. That beats the hell out of using that web form on their site.

This is the reply I sent in response to the above:

--- Robert Miles wrote:
> From what I've read on the sites I've mentioned, as
> well as the auction forums, it appears to me that
> the biggest threat to your clients' security is you.
> Your "customer service" is notoriously bad, and even
> those who are lucky enough to find a toll-free number to
> call (or even a tolled number) apparently get sent
> into a "put-on-hold" hell of one surly representative
> who doesn't know what to do after another. The
> whole setup seems to be for the sole purpose of making it
> as hopeless as possible of ever getting a problem
> resolved.
>
> Freezing peoples' accounts with no explanation other
> than vague allegations of "suspicious activity";
> telling a seller that a buyer has made a charge-back
> when the buyer did no such thing, then holding the
> funds for yourself and refusing to talk with either
> party in order to resolve the dispute; making
> unauthorized charges to checking accounts; these are
> just a few of the common themes that seem to run
> through these threads.
>
> If the person reading this mail is just one of the
> untrained, unmotivated customer service reps, I
> understand that Paypal's confusing, constantly
> changing TOS doesn't help and probably isn't really
> your fault. But one thing is absolutely clear;
> Paypal doesn't have their clients best interest in mind at
> all.
>
> Rob Miles

2002-02-05T16:05:00.000-05:00

The problems I've run into trying to sign up with and use Paypal have pissed me off over the past 2 weeks, but after reading some of the true horror stories you can find at the sites linked on the left I think I've gotten off pretty lucky so far. They've just wasted a lot of my time with a crappy registration process and frustrating credit card approval system. Their customer support appears to be intentionally designed to give users as little hope as possible of ever getting a problem resolved.

From what I've read about other peoples' experiences, I think Paypal is a huge fraud in the making. They're stealing peoples' money by freezing their accounts indefinately for "suspicious activity" that they never clearly identify, then almost completely ignore all attempts to resolve the disputes. They give clients the runaround, sending them on endless hold loops (for those lucky enough to find a phone number to call in the first place), requesting documentation that they then claim to have never received, and on and on. Man, I was just pissed about the inconvenience of trying to use their service to pay for an auction.

Anyway, here is yet another site devoted to exposing the fraud of Paypal and linking to users complaints. There are already better sites for this (see the links on the left), but what the hell; one more can't hurt. Let's put Paypal out of business once and for all, before they wind up screwing everybody.