Uncategorized

I was sitting in a restaurant yesterday when I overheard the table next to me talking about the Chile earthquake. One of the women at the table said that it seems like lately there have been a lot more earthquakes than usual. The other responded that it is because the earth is mad that we are creating so much pollution, so it is trying to show its displeasure.

Aside from the obvious stupidity, here is the historical earthquake count for the last two decades, courtesy of the US Geological survey:

or the Eye in the Sky. Rockwell. Alan Parsons Project. Whatever.

They are watching you. So, since even a teen who sends a nude picture of herself to a boyfriend via her cell is considered under the law to be distributing child porn, and the boyfriend in possession of child porn, then someone needs to explain to me how the school officials are not going to jail.

Not only that, but isn’t this a violation of the Third AND Fourth amendment rights of the children and their parents?

The Fed just announced that they are increasing the discount lending rate half again– from .5% to .75%. Here comes phase two of the economic crisis. The US Government last year had a record deficit, increasing the debt by 16% during the last 12 months, despite interest rates dropping 13%, from 3.811 to 3.326 over that same period.

What does this mean? The government paid $383 billion in interest on the debt in 2009. If rates were to rise to pre-recession rates at say 4.188% (the rate for September 2008) interest payments on the debt would rise to over $550 billion. Obama’s projected deficit of $1.5 trillion would balloon to $1.7 trillion, further increasing interest rates and the nation’s debt.

Hello inflation.

From the website FML:

Today, I tried convincing my Valentine-hating boyfriend to send me a card, by explaining how important it is to me. He finally agreed and sent me a card. I opened it up, and it wished me ‘harmony and well-being on Lupercalia’. What is Lupercalia? It’s an ancient Roman festival where men run down the street naked, whipping people with goat skins to encourage fertility. FML

One of the replies:

THE ONLY THING I EVER LEARNED IN LATIN, BUT IT WAS WORTH IT BECAUSE LUPERCALIA IS AWESOME.

I LIED, LATIN REALLY WASN’T WORTH IT. AT ALL. BUT LUPERCALIA IS A WIN. WHICH REMINDS ME OF THE REAL BEST HOLIDAY EVER: GRENDELSMASH.

I have been sitting here for 20 minutes reading these.

Ohhh- or this one:

Today, my boyfriend wanted to have Valentine’s Day sex. He then remembered it was unlimited pancakes at IHOP.

Bestiality? Sex? Nope, just me going for the cheap hits, being the post whore I am.

Tip of the hat goes to the Innocent Bystanders

There was a time when law and medicine were affordable in this country. There was a time when nearly anyone could become a lawyer or a doctor. That was before our colleges changed the system.

Abraham Lincoln was admitted to the State Bar of Illinois in 1837 after spending 3 years reading and studying Blackstone’s book, Commentaries on the Laws of England. Lincoln had a total of 18 months of formal education in his entire life. Now it takes a minimum of 19 years of formal education to become an attorney, 7 of that in a University.

If you want to make something (anything) cheaper, you need to either increase supply or decrease demand. The way to increase the supply of either doctors or lawyers is to make becoming a doctor or lawyer easier without hurting the quality.

Four years of this education is spent getting a Bachelor’s degree. Anyone who has a degree will tell you that the first two years of the four required to earn a Bachelor’s degree is spend studying subjects that have exactly zero to do with being a doctor or lawyer.

The standard excuse is that you become a more well rounded person when you study the unrelated subjects. My response to you is that when I go to the doctor, or hire a layer, I do not care how well rounded you are, I only care whether or not you are a good doctor or lawyer.

Want to know why the number of foreclosures isn’t dropping?

Video Marketing and Mortgage News Designed for Mortgage and Real Estate Sales

Credit conspiracy, indeed.

Remember when I put up this post concerning women using pregnancy to get out of doing what they are supposed to be doing? Here is another example of a woman using her vagina as a reason to escape duty.

When I was in the military, I was told: “If we wanted you to have a family, we would have issued one to you.”

I hated it at the time, because the saying was used to justify any petty order they wanted to stick on you- including pointless after hours work details (and most peacetime military work is pointless). In this case, though- this is a scheduled wartime deployment, not a pointless training exercise or work detail. Let this become common, and readiness is compromised.

Her 13 month old child was born AFTER she entered military service in 2007, between 26 and 37 months ago. Think of this:

When military women become pregnant, they are transferred to commands that fit certain criteria, such as being close to a medical center. The length of that assignment changed in June 2007, when the DOD extended the postpartum tour from four months after a child’s birth to 12 months. Combined with a nine-month pregnancy, that puts expectant mothers on limited duty for up to 21 months.

Picture this: This young woman joined the military, and finished two months of Boot Camp, followed by 4 months of school. She got her orders, and reported to her first command: She had been in the Army for 6 months, and had not contributed to the mission one bit. She then got pregnant, and sat on limited duty for up to 21 months. Now she has been in the military for 27 months- more than half of her 4 year enlistment is over, and has yet to do anything to earn the money she has been paid, and the taxpayer has paid for her medical care and training.

It finally comes time for her first deployment- (23 to 35 months into her enlistment), and she says she can’t go because she is a single parent.

Hmmm. Good use of taxpayer funds, there.

Here are some stunning pictures of the WTC on 9/11. The photographer snapped them while on duty as a police detective, flying in a police helicopter. He complains that some of his pictures were published without his consent, and also states that he may publish the rest in a book.

I say:

The public owns those pictures, as they were taken while you were on duty, being PAID by the public, in a helicopter paid for by tax dollars. Just what were you doing, taking pictures, when you should have been doing your JOB?

Fine, publish them. However, you should be billed for the helicopter time, the pilot’s time, the fuel, your pay should be returned to the taxpayers, and you should be charged with dereliction of duty. Did anyone die that day, while you were taking 3,000 pictures for your own profit?

In response to yesterday’s post about the Obama administration’s policy of authorizing the assassination of American citizens who are suspected of being a terrorist threat, I get the following email:

This is nothing new. The CIA has always had the “first strike” right to kill. Just as a Police Officer does and you and I do if threatened. It is my understanding though that there is no legal ability in our justice system to take a terrorist off a plane and shoot him in the head. Did you read that post I put up the other day. It is what the Judge said to the shoe bomber after his trial. It puts all this “trial” talk into to perspective. For the record I would prefer if the terrorists would just be killed before trial. It’s cheaper. If we fail to accomplish that then legally our only other option is our justice system. If we can send nazi’s to trial surely we can handle these goat herders.

There are a number of things that are incorrect about the above statement:

1 The CIA (or any other government agency, for that matter) does not have rights. They have powers. LARGE difference.

2 The Obama administration has been bleating on about how terrorists have RIGHTS, and should be allowed access to lawyers, fair trials, etc. Or did they only deserve that when Bush was in charge?

3 Note also that the CIA has never had the authority to operate inside the United States.

4 First kill suspected terrorists, THEN try the survivors in the Justice system because it is CHEAPER? Really?

5 Here is the same question I asked during the Bush administration: just who decides what a terrorist is? The Homeland Security Secretary?

6 There is a very large difference between assassinating a person who you think MAY be a terrorist, and shooting a person because they present an imminent threat to the health and safety of others. The fact that there is time to get the approval of the Justice Department is evidence that there is no imminent threat. Imagine, if you will, a police officer calling the Mayor to get permission to kill a suspected bank robber.

Democrats and Republicans both need to stop all this bickering, and stop being apologists for their parties. This is why I am not in either party- I see no difference between the two- they are both willing to oppress the proles in order to advance their agendas.

Several times in my life, I took an oath to defend my nation against all enemies- foreign AND domestic. I am beginning to wonder if that makes me a potential target for assassination.