Ogre's Politics & Views
January 20, 2006
Three Sheets to the Wind
No, I'm not -- at least not right now. But I'm sure a large number of you have heard this saying and weren't really sure where it came from. Well, since you don't have enough useless knowledge stored in your head, I provide you with some more.
Among nautical folks, a "sheet" refers to the rope used to secure a ship's sail. On the square-rigged ships of yore, three sheets were needed to tie up the sails. So, if all three of the ship's sheets were loose in the wind, the sail would flop about and the ship would go off course -- rather like a drunken sailor staggering around on shore.
And sailors in the early 1800s actually had an entire rating system for drunks -- from 1 sheet to 4 sheets. At 4, you were unconscious.
Just thought you needed to know.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:02 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Now, that is some useless knowledge I'll be able to use back in a bar to get a few drinks... wait... that's not useless knowledge!
Posted by: Mr. Matt at January 20, 2006 06:06 PM (ru0sP)
2
You can go with the, "Let me show you how this scale works..."
Posted by: Ogre at January 20, 2006 08:06 PM (/k+l4)
3
I love learning about stuff like this. Thanks for sharing!
Posted by: Patty-Jo at January 21, 2006 06:07 PM (0h1D1)
4
Been there, done that, reminds me of a night in New Orleans long ago. And a night in El Paso,...
Posted by: joe-6-pack at January 25, 2006 05:42 AM (3OJmo)
5
If you fell overboard, would that be a 5?
Posted by: joe-6-pack at January 25, 2006 05:44 AM (3OJmo)
6
I think they'd just stop counting...in fact, if you fell overboard, they might not even notice because everyone else was already at a 4...
Posted by: Ogre at January 25, 2006 10:51 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Too Much Money for government?
Remember the North Carolina budget that was "cut to the bone?" When asked for more money for roads that are beyond repair and silly little things like prosecutors and courts to maintain law and order, the state just didn't have any money? Apparently, that's all changed.
You see, State Rep. Michael Wray has a pile of cash from the government that he
couldn't find anything to spend it on:
Last summer, when Wray was looking for a recipient for the $5,000, he called President Bill Edwards at the Henderson-Vance Chamber of Commerce and asked about a nonprofit organization that might be able to use the funds.
Hey, morons in the General ASSembly -- your job is not to spend as much money as you can! How about NOT stealing gas taxes to give away to "nonprofit organizations?" If you've got $5,000.00 and can't find anything to do with it, how about spending it on GOVERNMENT things? Like courts? How about some damn roads?
Oh, and the "Henderson-Vance Downtown Development Commission" is NOT a charitable cause, non-profit or not. Forced taking at gunpoint of money to give to someone else is NOT charity. If it were, I could start robbing everyone on the street to obtain money for myself. That's what government does.
Crap like this can really make you want to be an anarchist.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:08 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Governor Robin Hood Easley
Governor Robin Hood Easley save the day! Of course, he saves the day at the expense of working, productive people, but that's the way the Democrats in North Carolina work.
In this case, Governor Easley raised the utility, gas, natural gas, and heating oil taxes on everyone in the state in the middle of the winter. Many legislators complained, but he absolutely refused to give back any of the tax increase, because he wanted the money -- because in his mind, we're too stupid to know how to spend our own money.
He's now revealed the correct way for our money to be spent. Ready for this? On heating oil!
Easley's just taken $4 million from working people, by increasing taxes on their heating oil and natural gas, and is giving it to the preferred class of people -- whoever doesn't work! What a deal!
Can anyone explain to me how, in any sane view of the world, that this is acceptable behavior? Oh, right -- the socialist viewpoint. Sorry, forgot. Thank you, North Carolina Democrats.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:07 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's just a matter of time before I quit my job and start sponging off of the state. I'd obviously have more money doing so. Especially if they keep making me pay for others that are doing the same.
Posted by: Contagion at January 20, 2006 01:47 PM (Q5WxB)
2
And if you want even more money, divorce your wife and let her claim welfare benefits for the family.
Posted by: Ogre at January 20, 2006 02:13 PM (/k+l4)
3
What gauls me is that people who work full-time jobs can't get heating oil at all because they can't afford it while some welfare rat gets it free. I too am about to just say screw it and milk the system.
Posted by: oddybobo at January 20, 2006 03:37 PM (6Gm0j)
4
I've told you before -- the dark side can be VERY tempting!
Posted by: Ogre at January 20, 2006 03:56 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 19, 2006
Suit against the ACLU?
The ACLU's primary purpose to exist is to take money from government. It's secondary purpose is to spread communism. So it sure would be nice to see THEM as subject of a lawsuit for once:
Straight from Malkin
Debbie Schlussel, blogger/investigative writer/lawyer, is extending an invitation to citizens interested in intervening in the ACLU's NSA lawsuit. She practices in Eastern Michigan, where the suit was filed.
Posted by: Ogre at
09:57 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"The ACLU's primary purpose to exist is to take money from government. It's secondary purpose is to spread communism."
Who are you, Michael Moore? That's the sort of bombastic slander that just makes you look foolish.
Posted by: Adam at January 20, 2006 12:10 AM (kdFEm)
2
They exist to spread communism? Wow. Interesting. Or are you referring to the fact that one of the founders was a member of the communist party decades ago? If so, does that mean southern conservatives exist to promote segregation, since they did in the past?
Or is the communism comment just the usual "all lefties are communists" rhetoric?
And is the ACLU acting as "communist" while its currently defending Rush Limbaugh from having to disclose his private medical records to the govt?
Or are they just part-time communists?
Posted by: Stacy at January 20, 2006 12:48 AM (8GAsc)
3
It's Michael Moore when he spreads lies, not the truth.
The ACLU does exist to spread communism, whether you want to believe it or not. They hate freedom and Christianity with a great passion. Every now and then they throw a case out there so they can claim they don't hate them, but that's about it -- sort of like the mass-murderer who kills 20 people but works at a soup kitchen once a year.
Thanks for stopping along!
Posted by: Ogre at January 20, 2006 02:58 AM (+Gl1m)
4
Why is it that conservatives or Republicans are always ranting about the ACLU? It's not like they are that important. Anybody in America knows they are stupid, hold little weight, and just get in the way of business in America. So, why do you give them "airtime" and discuss them so much?
Posted by: Kevin at January 20, 2006 03:43 AM (kJQfu)
5
To spread the word -- there's still an awful lot of people who think that the ACLU actually supports civil rights.
Posted by: Ogre at January 20, 2006 10:31 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
80s Soundtracks
If you're old enough to remember the 80s, you need to go see this site. Then feel free to come back here and comment on which was your favorite. GO!
(H/T to
Kender).
Posted by: Ogre at
08:08 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
My favorite show was Night Court, and my favorite character was Bull, the Baliff. There's nothing crazier than a tall moron slapping himself loudly on the bald skull when he's realized his folly. I relate, unfortunately.
Posted by: Stevin at January 20, 2006 05:00 AM (LfL8N)
2
Oh yeah, that's a classic!
Posted by: Ogre at January 20, 2006 10:32 AM (+Gl1m)
3
Muppet Show.
Although I think that was actually a 70's show.
Posted by: Harvey at January 21, 2006 09:24 PM (ubhj8)
Posted by: Ogre at January 21, 2006 09:29 PM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Mission:Impossible III
Once again, the M:i:III web site has more stuff. This time, it's a new ad for the global scavenger hunt. The hunt begins Feb 2, 2006 and looks to be some neat fun. And heck, there's probably a 1 in a million chance you could win something, too. Well, it looks to be fun, anyway. Check it out!
Posted by: Ogre at
05:06 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Newspaper Editor Liars
The Daily Tar Heel, a paper from the heavily socialist state university system, weighs in and lies about the minimum wage. The editors celebrate the State Treasurer's opinion that the state minimum wage is too low. Then they proceed to lie about it.
more than 100,000 North Carolinians to try to pay the bills on about $893 per month before taxes.
Implied lie. First, if you're only making $893 a month, you're not only not paying taxes, but you're getting tax credits -- or cash -- from the government. And the only bills you have when you're earning that much is how much to spend at the mall -- the vast majority of people earning that are kids living at home.
Moore's increase would bump that number up to almost $1,070, meaning fewer residents would have to rely on public programs to make ends meet.
Wait a minute! Just one sentence ago, they implied that people working for minimum wage get ONLY $893 a month. If they're on public programs, then they're ALREADY getting more than $893 a month now, aren't they? Damn those facts!
Workers would keep the same constant buying power - and businesses aren't forced to deal with sudden minimum wage jumps of almost 20 percent for inflationary adjustment every time legislators remember that it's an issue. Everybody wins.
No, workers do not get the same constant buying power -- those who are working for minimum wage DO NOT REMAIN THERE! People get raises, they get educations, they change jobs -- minimum wage jobs are ENTRY LEVEL YOU SOCIALISTS.
If all minimum wage laws were removed today -- as they should be -- how many jobs do you think will pay less than the current minimum wage? I'd be willing to be almost none -- no one will work for $2 an hour, you idiots!
Damn socialist crap.
Posted by: Ogre at
03:05 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
ogre, you're just heartless. think about the starving children, darn you.
wait, ogres eat children. Never mind.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at January 19, 2006 06:42 PM (vR7Sl)
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 08:45 PM (/k+l4)
3
I totally agree with you. If you are supporting a family, on a minimum wage job, #1) you're a moron... #2)you shouldn't have children.
I'm all for a repeal of minimum wage.
Posted by: James at January 19, 2006 08:54 PM (gqJc1)
4
I thought Ogres were like onions, now it's "ogres eat children"? What about the puppies? Is EEEEVILLLL GLENNNNN left to eat every puppy on earth ALONE!?
BTW - I'm with you here, I have only earned min wage at ONE JOB in my life, and it was my job during high school, meaning (like you said), the only "bills" I had were lunches on school days, and my "liesure" bills (TOYS AND GADGETS!)
Posted by: Smoke Eater at January 19, 2006 09:03 PM (K7uqT)
5
James, I think #2 is a direct cause of #1...
Smokey, don't onions eat children, too?
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 09:41 PM (+Gl1m)
6
Crap, I wish I was a kid today. Can you imagine being 16 and making that kind of money per hour?
I used to make $3.35 per hour and try to make it though college, on my own. That means no goberment hand outs.
Posted by: Machelle at January 20, 2006 01:47 PM (ZAyoW)
7
No kidding. My first job was even lower because I got paid by the newspaper I delivered -- no hourly rate at all.
And every single job I've had since then has paid more. Funny how that works.
Posted by: Ogre at January 20, 2006 02:15 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Liberal Professors Targeted
No, not through an infrared 10x scope -- by their own alumni at UCLA!
An alumni group is offering students up to $100 per class to supply tapes and notes exposing professors who allegedly express extreme left-wing political views at the University of California, Los Angeles.
How's that for turnabout? And I absolutely LOVE the liberal's reactions to it:
Some of those targeted say it's a witch-hunt reminiscent of Sen. Joseph McCarthy's anti-communism crusade in the 1950s.
Folks, why are these people so scared of having their views heard? These ultra-left wing professors slam Bush and force-feed them socialist propaganda -- but they're afraid of a group that wants to hear what they have to say?
Perhaps it's because they know their views are way out of line with America, and that they can only succeed in spreading them when they have a captive audience that cannot respond to them without being retaliated against (via failing grades).
I hope this spreads -- and the Alumni group doesn't even need to DO anything -- just collect the information that the liberals spew, and post it on the internet for all to see. Then even more people can see the crap that's going on in your government-funded education system.
(H/T to
Raven).
Posted by: Ogre at
01:04 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
From Vox today:
Unlike the fascist feminist movement, I force my views on no one. Only an ideology that is logically and intellectually bankrupt needs to call for the forcible re-education of its critics.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at January 19, 2006 04:34 PM (K+h36)
2
Bingo. Those ideas don't work when there's choice.
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 08:39 PM (/k+l4)
3
See this site for more information about Political News.
Posted by: Roger at January 25, 2006 12:23 PM (2Q7l1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Shooting in Lillington, NC
It seems there was a shooting in Lillington, NC:
Sheriff deputies say at around 4:30 a.m. Tuesday, someone tried to steal a vehicle from a Lillington home on Highway 421 North when the person was confronted by the vehicle's owner and the owner's father-in-law.
Authorities say an altercation ensued with gun shots being fired. The person who allegedly tried to steal the vehicle was shot and killed at the scene.
So what's the problem? Seems just fine to me.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:06 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Good riddance. My car feels safer already.
More guns for law abiders = less criminals?
JP
Posted by: John Pizzo at January 19, 2006 04:43 PM (ovA1+)
2
It works every single time, John!
Thanks for stopping by!
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 08:40 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 18, 2006
New Advertiser
Have you seen So Very Posh? If you haven't, you've missed that link over on the sidebar, right at the top where you are supposed to see it...
It's a blog where
A 20 something television junkie writes about the shows she obsesses over, not to mention the movies and books she consumes.
There's tons and tons of reviews of stuff. Lots of media. Very neat.
And the layout is rather impressive too -- if for no other reason, you really should click on over and look at how that media blog site was set up -- it's very neat. Really. Go now.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:48 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Thanks!
Posted by: Lynda at January 19, 2006 09:20 PM (hqIPe)
2
Oh absolutely! Thanks for advertising!
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 09:41 PM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Oregon Assisted Suicide Law
I feel a need to comment on the assisted suicide decision, despite having not read all the details or all 62 pages of the decision. But hey, isn't that what blogs are all about?
I think a very key distinction needs to be made here, and this is one case where, to me, it appears to be rather clear. Personal opinions and values are different than government-imposed values. For example, I believe very strongly in giving to charity -- and at the same time I think it's horribly, horribly wrong for government to "give" to charity.
There are no contradictions in that position -- people giving to charity is good. It helps the giver and the receiver. It is voluntary. Government "giving" to charity is bad -- the money is taken at gunpoint from one person and a small portion is given to another. Neither the giver or the receiver benefits.
With this case, I think the judges made the right decision. The Controlled Substance Act was about controlling the flow of illegal drugs. For the US Government to attempt to use this act that was designed to arrest cocaine dealers to overturn a law passed by the people of a state is just silly.
States should be able to do what they want in nearly all cases. The only exception is when those laws conflict with the U.S. Constitution -- NOT U.S. Code, but the U.S. Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot kill yourself.
At the same time, I think this is a horrible law.
Now I wonder if the court would take the same view of another federal law that is almost identical -- Roe v. Wade (which has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, by the way, so don't go there).
Posted by: Ogre at
06:08 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Ogie:
"There's nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot kill yourself."
That is not the standard. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution is not to set limits on what people can do. The purpose is to limit government. Of course, that has been turned upside down over the past 100 years.
But there are a lot of things that the Constitution does not say. The Constitution doesn't say you can not eat broccoli. Is that the basis of my right to eat broccoli. No.
The theme of the Constitution is the individual rights of citizens. The Founders enumerated some of the rights in order to make some explicit. But just because a right to either do or not do something is not in the Constitution is not the standard. The overall standard is individual rights.
All the best..
Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at January 18, 2006 07:35 PM (jqUF+)
2
I agree with you. I also think it is stupid of conservatives to be upset that SCOTUS will not ban Oregon's physician assisted suicide law when murder is a crime left to the states. In other words, the state decides what murder is and how to punish it. Oregon has decided that assisting suicide is not murder and they aren't going to punish it. Do I disagree? Absolutely, but I am not an Oregonian, so it is none of my business.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at January 18, 2006 08:30 PM (K+h36)
3
That's what I was trying to say, Andy -- that since the Constitution does not prevent you from killing yourself, then it's not a Constitutional violation to do so.
Echo, I haven't seen any conservatives really commenting on this decision at all...
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 10:39 PM (+Gl1m)
4
I am more then willing to extend the law to all Democrats. Oops, that was very insensitive of me.
Realistically, like you said, there is nothing in the Constitution that says you cannot kill yourself. Nor is there anything that states that a State cannot pass a law alowing physician assisted suicide. And the USSC made the right decesion.
Posted by: William Teach at January 19, 2006 12:46 AM (IRsCk)
5
Nice one, Teach.
Yes, it's a really, really bad law, if you ask me, but the state absolutely has the ability to make that law without the interference of the federal government.
Now how is this any different than Roe v. Wade? Oh, right, in Roe v. Wade, the federal government had the same situation, but ruled the other way...
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 12:49 AM (+Gl1m)
6
Well, remember, to the Surrender Monkeys, it is not a living being till it is born. SO it is OK to "make a choice." But it is not OK to execute a a convicted criminal.
Posted by: William Teach at January 19, 2006 01:04 AM (IRsCk)
7
It's also inconsistent with any philosophy on feds vs. states...
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 01:26 AM (+Gl1m)
8
A lot of people have said that there is nothing in the Constitution saying you can't kill yourself.
To play devil's advocate .... There is nothing in the Constitution saying that you can kill yourself either.
Posted by: Machelle at January 19, 2006 01:43 PM (ZAyoW)
9
Ah, but that is NOT the purpose of the Constitution! The Constitution outlined specific rights that cannot be violated -- and that's all. It does not grant rights -- and SO many people today don't get that, including just about everyone on the left...
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 02:06 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Green Ham and Eggs
I'm sure everyone remembers that wonderful classic "Green Eggs and Ham" by the children's book author Dr. Suess, right? Who could forget such classic lines as these:
I do not like them in a box.
I do not like them with a fox.
I do not like them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
Well times, they are a-changin'. Now you can have green HAM and eggs. Everyone together now, say "Thank you" to the nice
Taiwanese scientists and their green pigs. I'm still wondering on the whole glow-in-the-dark aspect. How many of you eat your ham and bacon in the dark?
Posted by: Ogre at
03:05 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I am going this weekend to see "Suessical the Muscial"
Thanks for the preview.
Posted by: Machelle at January 18, 2006 05:48 PM (ZAyoW)
2
I'm sure there's a real reason to do this, not "because we could"
I'm pressed to figure out what it could be
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at January 18, 2006 06:21 PM (vR7Sl)
3
Doesn't everyone's food glow in the dark?!?
Wait... not everyone lives near a nuke plant...
Posted by: That 1 Guy at January 18, 2006 10:28 PM (lfQya)
4
Bring your green ham, Machelle!
And birdwoman -- it was related to tracking parts of the pig's body, similar to other things they inject you with to look for injuries and such. This one was related to DNA.
And T1G, I just today bought some more mint jelly -- nothing like bringing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to work -- that's bright green!
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 10:36 PM (+Gl1m)
5
you do realize that this is actually a CIA operation, where we will drop these pigs throughout Muslim areas. Since they glow in the dark, Muslims will never have a moment of peace, even at night. Will drive them all bonkers.
Posted by: William Teach at January 19, 2006 12:48 AM (IRsCk)
6
Teach? Do you need to go to sensitivity class?
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 12:49 AM (+Gl1m)
7
No, I am already insensitive enough, thank ye
Told a guy over at Julie B's to F off.
Posted by: William Teach at January 19, 2006 01:43 AM (cuTsc)
8
I'm going to make Contagion take you to his next sensitivity class.
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 02:16 AM (+Gl1m)
9
Hey, one of those pigs would be great for a St. Patrick's Day pit barbecue! The pork would go down well with a Guinness or six.
Posted by: Seth at January 19, 2006 02:35 AM (1RIcI)
10
After 6, the pigs aren't the only thing that start to look green...but you will be very hard-pressed to find a good Irish celebration here in Charlotte, unfortunately.
Each year I debate running one -- a GOOD one with actual IRISH music.
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 02:44 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Government Demands
Public colleges, including community colleges, are being asked to educate more students in nursing.
What?
Yes, the government
is demanding that schools educate more nurses. Of course, what is missing is the actual bodies.
This really illustrates how completely and utterly devoid of reality government bureaucrats have become -- they believe they are so powerful that they can simply create whatever they need. Need some nurses? Just buy them -- they've got an unlimited supply of money, right?
Morons.
Hey government -- get the heck out of the way, and there will be PLENTY of nurses!
Posted by: Ogre at
10:01 AM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
WHAT!? You mean the government ISN'T the solution to all of my problems? I'M SO DISILLUSIONED! WHATEVER WILL I DO?
For any moon-bats out there, that was SARCASM. Man I HATE having to put that disclaimer on there.
Posted by: Smoke Eater at January 18, 2006 08:35 PM (K7uqT)
2
Face Washington each morning, Smokey, and say your prayers.
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 10:40 PM (+Gl1m)
3
The real reason there aren't enough nurses is because we're underpaid for what we do, and treated like dirt.
Let the guv'ment deal with THAT!
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at January 20, 2006 02:52 AM (GYYm5)
4
Um, sorry, that's not the government's job. In North Carolina, the government sees it's job as just telling people what they can and cannot do.
Posted by: Ogre at January 20, 2006 02:59 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 17, 2006
Carnival, carnival!
Two excellent carnivals for your reading pleasure, as always:
The
Tarheel Tavern has been posted at
Scrutiny Hooligans
The
Carnival of Liberty has also been posted at
Below the Beltway.
Excellent reads, both of them!
Posted by: Ogre at
06:06 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Cause and Effect
I'm sure by now you've seen the news of the weird:
A study by an Italian sexologist has found that couples who have a TV set in their bedroom have sex half as often as those who don't.
Of course, when the journalists get ahold of studies like this, they quickly do what the researchers cannot do -- draw a conclusion that confirms a cause and effect relationship:
Thinking of buying a TV for the bedroom? Think again -- it could ruin your sex life.
Now I can't find the study anywhere online, but if the researchers are worth anything, you will not find what the journalists printed in their report. Why? Because there may be absolutely NO relationship between the TV and sex. Heck, the study only reported that HAVING a TV reduced the sex life!
What if they never turned it on?
The reason this cause-effect relationship absolutely cannot be determined is because there are simply too many variables. Perhaps the reason the TV is there is because of the reduced sex life of the couples? Just because two things are found to have a relationship, a cause-effect cannot be concluded.
But I guess that's why the people reporting the story are reporters and not researchers.
Posted by: Ogre at
03:06 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"What if they never turned it on?"
Good point, obviously they weren't turning something on, thanks for making me smile this morning
Posted by: blue at January 17, 2006 03:21 PM (X5r/y)
2
A farmer walks into his bedroom with a sheep under his arm and says, "Darling, this is the pig I have sex with when you have a headache." His wife is lying in bed (WATCHING TV) and replies, "I think you'll find that's a sheep, you idiot." The man says, "I think you'll find I wasn't talking to you."
Sorry in advance Ogre, I just couldn't help it.
Posted by: Tomslick at January 17, 2006 03:37 PM (xNjHI)
3
Ah, more pseudoscience.
Never occurred to these people that OLDER people are going to be more likely to have the tv in the bedroom - they're richer than younger people, and more likely to have rooms big enough... not to say that oldsters don't get busy
I can't remember who said it, but correlation does not mean causality.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at January 17, 2006 04:35 PM (vR7Sl)
4
LOL! You guys are great.
Thanks for stopping by!
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 07:25 PM (/k+l4)
5
Hey, I have a TV in my bedroom and it doesn't effect my sex life, we use it for porn!
Posted by: Contagion at January 17, 2006 10:23 PM (e8b4J)
6
I thought about that, but I just so wasn't going to go there!
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 11:01 PM (+Gl1m)
7
Contagion - I thought you used the video camera for porn? :-)
Posted by: Harvey at January 18, 2006 01:18 AM (ubhj8)
8
Well gee, he's got to see the results of his hard work, doesn't he?
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 01:24 AM (+Gl1m)
9
I suspect the only relationship between not having a TV in the bedroom and having more sex has to do with the personalities and values of people that would not want a TV in the bedroom, and not the actual presence of the TV itself.
Posted by: FIAR at January 18, 2006 02:40 AM (14Lib)
10
ANd that's the part the journalists don't get. It could be that people put TVs in their bedroom because they're not having sex.
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 12:55 PM (/k+l4)
11
People with a TV in the bedroom only have half as much sex (in the bedroom) because the other half of their sex is in the other rooms.
Posted by: Machelle at January 18, 2006 01:39 PM (ZAyoW)
12
Yes, that TV sure can be distracting, can't it?
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 01:57 PM (/k+l4)
13
Contagion stole my line . . . again!
Posted by: oddybobo at January 18, 2006 04:06 PM (6Gm0j)
14
Wow, I'm a little late to this one.
My wife sent me a link to this on Yahoo. I wondered the same thing, since we have a TV in our bedroom. The only time it has been turned on was when we were painting the walls in the bedroom and wanted to have something to listen to.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at January 18, 2006 08:25 PM (K+h36)
15
Oddy, did you say something about being in Contagion's porn movies?
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 10:31 PM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Success measured by Tax Dollars
For those who support as large a government as possible, and those who are strong supporters of socialist ideas, North Carolina Education is #1, as The very socialist Charlotte Observer points out. When speaking about the huge dollars spent by the state and subsidys given away to college students in North Carolina, the Observer says,
That's evidence that tax dollars spent on those resources are good investments. But it's also a mandate to keep state tuition and fees from boiling out of reach of ordinary citizens.
But that's not enough. Despite the taxpayers providing a majority of the cash to pay for college educations in the state, the Observer wants even more:
But the legislature must also pay a greater share of the university's operating costs.
In other words, the taxpayers should pay for colleges, and a college education should cost nothing to those who get it. Well, that's what socialists and the left believe -- if you work, you should be punished by being forced to pay for other people who do NOT work. That's plain wrong.
And yet, even that's not enough for the Observer! Despite there being no evidence that class size has any effect on education -- and some studies in North Carolina actually show a smaller class size can REDUCE the number of students who get good grades and pass, they still want even MORE money spent on colleges:
In Chapel Hill the student/faculty ratio is 14:1; in Charlotte it's 19:1. The only way to overcome that disadvantage is by improved state funding.
Money is not the answer. It never has been. Government is ill-equipped to run the education system -- they've been doing it for decades, and the system is much worse than it was before.
Government should get completely out of the education business -- from pre-K to colleges. They have absolutely proven that they cannot educate people, so they should stop trying. The free market really does work.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:17 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The only problem I have with private education is that no regulation will exist for the education. This could eventually turn into a case of the more you pay the better the student. This in turn will seperate the lower class from the upper class furthering the divide.
I would like to see at least some regulation, some commonality between the schools. I don't mean government regulation but a national body from the actual schools could regulate them.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at January 17, 2006 01:53 PM (5+Jvh)
2
I don't see a problem with paying more for a better education. That's already the case, whether people want to admit it or not. Harvard University costs more than the local community college.
People need to understand that education is NOT for everyone. Basic reading and writing skills WILL be taught -- people were MUCH more literate before government started running education.
But not everyone needs or wants a college education. But government WANTS everyone to have one -- so they can pay for it and control it.
If there's no government regulation, there will be self-regulation, which is FUN in a free society.
For example, look at the computer industry -- there's no government regulation (for the most part), but there's standards for hardware and software, and there's dozens of accrediting bodies that can certify people in all sorts of ways.
I'd LOVE to see that in education, too!
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 02:04 PM (/k+l4)
3
I agree with that for colleges but not K-12 which is what I was referring to. I don't think K-12 should turn into a spending fest to determine your childs future. Soon it will turn into picking food or education for your children.
The problem with regulations in computers is that the government has or had a say in its creation and still has some say (RIAA and FCC) in decisions and standards.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at January 17, 2006 02:49 PM (5+Jvh)
4
I know government will never get out of education -- there's too many people making money from the nightmare -- but the least we could do is fix it -- let the money for the students follow the student. That's how nearly every other country with government $ works -- and they're all doing better than we are.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 07:22 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 16, 2006
Eating Cake
What's with the saying,
You want to have your cake and eat it, too.
Well of course I do! What's the point of having a cake if you can't eat it? Does anyone know any history on this silly statement?
Posted by: Ogre at
08:34 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What is the origin of the phrase:
: "You can't have your cake and eat it too" ?
From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" by Gregory Y. Titelman:
"You can't have your cake and eat it too -- One can't use something up and still have it to enjoy. This proverb was recorded in the book of proverbs by John Heywood in 1546, and is first attested in the United States in the 1742 'Colonial Records of Georgia' in 'Original Papers, 1735-1752.' The adage is found in varying forms: You can't eat your cake and have it too. You can't have everything and eat it too; Eat your cake and have the crumbs in bed with you, etc. ..."
This should clear up pretty much nothing. That is a weird saying.
Posted by: Tomslick at January 16, 2006 09:31 PM (xNjHI)
2
I prefer to think of it as a "mom-ism", something mothers say to get their kids to shut up. Reason, mom is always right, but if that is true, I'll never get cake again, and I've had cake and eaten it too, but if that's true, then mom is wrong, back to step one, and the kid's head nearly explodes, but mommy dearest gets a few moments of peace.
Also works as a "dad-ism" and HELL YES I will say this to my kids!
Posted by: Smokey at January 16, 2006 10:17 PM (K7uqT)
3
That's interesting, Tomslick, and I guess it explains it.
I guess it makes more sense in reverse -- you can't eat your can and still have it. Weird, though...why would I want to have the cake after I've eaten it?
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 10:45 PM (+Gl1m)
4
Ogie:
Happy New Year! The phrase is not as silly as it seems.
You nailed it here. "Weird, though...why would I want to have the cake after I've eaten it?" Maybe one would want to have it, but of course it can't be done. That is exactly the point.
Here is another example of wanting to eat your cake and have it too: "I want to raise taxes for the prosperity of the country." Why doesn't that work? Because you are looting the people who create prosperity! You want to eat the creators and still have them!
"Eating your cake and having it too" is a serious phrase and a serious problem in our culture.
All the best..
Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at January 16, 2006 11:21 PM (jqUF+)
5
Ogie....More:
Conservatives say they want free markets, wealth, and capitalism; but then invoke the morality of religion: sacrifice, duty, and altruism as their base. They can't have it both ways. Sacrifice, duty, and altruism do not lead to free markets, wealth, and capitalism. They lead to the opposites.
Here's another one for liberals and conservatives (and libertarians)..."Wishing won't make it so."
Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at January 16, 2006 11:31 PM (jqUF+)
Posted by: oddybobo at January 17, 2006 02:32 PM (6Gm0j)
7
There is nothing altruistic about taking money from people who are richer than you. It is altruistic to give to those who are poorer than you but only if you are not forced to do it.
The argument is that with altruism, religion, sacrifice and duty capitalism can work and people will not have to be forced to do things.
Posted by: Mindflame at January 17, 2006 04:40 PM (SlODe)
8
That's the key, Mindflame. You can have capitalism and altrusim in the same place very easily!
The opposite of capitalism and free markets is not religion, it's government control.
Why can't I sacrifice in a free market? If I'm free, I can -- if I'm not free, I cannot.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 07:29 PM (/k+l4)
9
I think Mindflame hit the nail on the head. In a TRULY free market, the poor won't just be left in the cold, those of us who feel a duty to help will still be here, but not like the govt is today. In stead of just giving them money and HOPING they will find a job and all, we feed them, clothe them, HELP THEM write a resume, HELP THEM learn a new skill, then HELP THEM FIND A JOB so they won't need charity any more.
Kind of goes back to "give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. TEACH a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."
And sorry if quoting this was "out of line" but it seemed to fit.
Posted by: Smokey at January 17, 2006 07:32 PM (K7uqT)
10
No, that's it Smokey -- just because people are free and live in a free society with capitalism doesn't mean they will suddenly and completely reject sacrifice.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 07:37 PM (/k+l4)
11
Being free and living in a free society is the best way I can see to promote sacrifice. Only in a free society do you have things to sacrifice for (besides the universal sacrifice for children, family, etc.). Does anyone remember the Iraqi conscripts waving the white flag ? Surely they weren't willing to sacrifice their lives for their oppressive government.
Posted by: Johnny Uno at January 19, 2006 05:01 PM (ovA1+)
12
Excellent point, Johnny! (Only in a free society do you have things to sacrifice for)
Posted by: Ogre at January 19, 2006 08:40 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Martin Luther King Day
Today is Martin Luther King Day. I know the government is not working today (as if they work any other day), but I, and I'm sure many others in private industry, are. I just want to make a feeble attempt to support the things that Martin Luther King supported.
Unfortunately, there are
so very many different
organizations and people who strongly OPPOSE all that he worked for, and all that he did.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
If you support quotas based on race, you are opposed to Martin Luther King.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
If you support affirmative action based on skin color, you are the opposite of what Martin Luther King desired.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
If you belong to a political organization that determines it's membership based upon race, you are an affront to what Martin Luther King worked for.
I am appalled at how many people and groups use Martin Luther King's name to advance their causes while opposing and working against everything that he stood for.
Some other great quotes from a man who truly worked for justice -- unlike the majority that use his name today:
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany.
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
And in the extended entry, one of my favorite descriptions of laws:
Posted by: Ogre at
07:04 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Guard Our Borders!
The following is a portion of the Guard Our Borders weekly blog burst that helps illustrate some of the various problems that are generated by completely open borders (beyond the obvious terrorism implications):
***
How can the small business that provides physical services to customers compete with illegal laborers that cut corners by using extended family labor? On a radio program a few weeks ago, I heard countless American workers recount how they lost contracts because illegal aliens agreed to do the work for far less and much quicker - and no wonder, because they had their entire family working, including the kids! One man who couldn't find work as a sheetrocker saw his jobs going to a man whose wife and children worked on the site. How are American workers supposed to compete with illegal (but free!) child labor?!
My husband supervises multiple construction subcontractors who ALL use illegal Mexican laborers. He is aggravated beyond belief because his inspectors find fatal flaws in each and every phase of construction - without exception. The sub ends up having to demolish and remove all the faulty construction and replace it, sometimes more than twice! Costs skyrocket and schedule delays cost so much more than budgeted, and it all comes down to this bottom line: the illegal aliens do not have the proper know-how or expertise or capability to do the job right the first time. I cannot fathom how many millions of dollars the subs will have to squander before they reach the conclusion that they'd be better off hiring skilled American laborers who understand their instructions and produce a more professional product than cutting corners by hiring illegals who don't know what they're doing and produce a shoddy product.
Posted by: Ogre at
06:02 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You mention about the free care provided to illegal aliens and Americans paying for it.
In Dearborn hospitals, illegals come over here and have their children (so they are american citizens) and then head back to the middle east, skipping out on the hospital bills.
The hospitals are complaining because they have so many of them in the hosptial at times that the care for the people with insurance goes down.
So not only are we paying for the illegals bills we are receiving less care because of them also.
Not to mention their children are american citizens now. Who knows if that will come back and bite us in the ass in the future.
Posted by: Machelle at January 16, 2006 07:51 PM (ZAyoW)
2
Skipping out on the bills? Most of the time they're not even billed at all!
But yes, that's another aspect -- that paying citizens' care declines due to criminals' health care!
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 08:51 PM (+Gl1m)
3
It's called unrestricted Capitalism, boys, and if you don't like it, go live in commie-land!
What? Too harsh? Too stupid?
Well then, stop repeating similar things in public.
And while you're at it, just remember next time you want to defend WalMart that they are using similar underpaid foreigners to suck American dollars out of the country in exchange for cheap goods.
Boy! It had to be dragged into your neighborhood before you could see it, didn't it? You just couldn't see how much damage these people were doing until it was pushed into your face!
Oh, well. Next problem . . .
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at January 17, 2006 12:40 AM (ZINSp)
4
Um, what? How is government forcing people at gunpoint to pay for services from others even remotely related to capitalism?
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 12:44 AM (+Gl1m)
5
Oh, I'm sorry - I thought this post was about American businessmen hiring whomever they chose, be it American workers or cheap illegal immigrants.
I didn't see the part about the taxman coming to your door, sack in one hand and sawed-off in the other.
Same difference, anyway - this post is about the employers who, given a choice between hiring American workers, paying them what they're worth, and having their salaries pay for their food, meds, and kids, and hiring illegal immigrants, paying them peanuts, and having YOU pick up the medicare tab, . . .
choose to get rich on your back.
Guv'ment doesn't come into the matter, except as the (willing) tool of the construction corps.
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at January 18, 2006 05:48 AM (RmWaw)
6
May I mambo dogface to the banana patch?
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 12:57 PM (/k+l4)
7
Small Town Hick, funny you should mention it. In the first half of the original GTB article I very heatedly deal with the whole Wal-Mart angle. It's a very unpopular position among conservatives, but Wal-Mart does NOT practice true free trade and has shifted 80% of its business OUT of America. Americans don't care because we've become amiable, uncomplaining consumers of cheap shit that never works, instead of proud producers of the highest quality goods (with the exception of weaponry tech). Anyways, there's more, and I've taken a lot of heat on that whole Wal-Mart thing, but I'm nothing if not consistent in my views: http://euphoria.jarkolicious.com/journal/2006/01/16/1573/.
C'mon over and throw some flame around, if you'd like. It looks like it may be a slow day...
Posted by: Redhead Infidel at January 18, 2006 01:46 PM (BqNFt)
8
Yes, I left that part out because I currently had another post that was reliving the whole "WalMart is the most evil thing in existence today" at the same time. So I was hoping this one would focus on the criminal aliens rather than just WalMart is evil.
Posted by: Ogre at January 18, 2006 01:59 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
How bad do you want Freedom?
The Free State Project is
an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.
I often view this project as the last great hope for freedom and liberty in this country as I observe all the destructions of freedom in states and the federal government today.
This is not a Republican project. It is not an anti-Democrat project. It's not even a Libertarian project. It's about freedom, plain and simple. And it's working.
A number of people associated with this project have already move to NH. Some have run for and won seats in elected offices. Others are chairs of Democrat and Republican caucuses. Over 100 people have already moved, and they're already having an effect. Imagine what would happen if 1,000 moved.
The current drive is to get 1,000 people to commit to moving in the next 2 years. It's called
The First 1000. I think it's a great idea. Go read about the project and make the decision.
The biggest argument I've heard against it is that New Hampshire is cold. That's where the title of this post came from. How much do you really want freedom?
The truth is, I was not sure I would be able to make it to NH by 2008. However, after learning about all of the great stuff that is going on in NH, I am not sure if I can make it if I am not in NH by 2008
-- Keith
Posted by: Ogre at
03:05 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
That leads to the obvious question: Why are you still in Charlotte?
Posted by: Justin Thibault at January 16, 2006 04:55 PM (FWvKf)
2
I've signed up to move. I've got a realtor and am working on land. The job is the tricky part, but I've had a couple interviews in the state already.
Posted by: Ogre at January 16, 2006 05:13 PM (/k+l4)
3
The plan may have one fatal flaw -
New Hampshire is a place someone else may want.
God help the free man sitting on land someone else wants. Someone else with guns.
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at January 16, 2006 11:49 PM (ZINSp)
4
What? Who else? The socialists in the US? Don't worry, everyone there is armed.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 12:38 AM (+Gl1m)
5
I do hope everyone has read--memorized, in fact--Sir Thomas More's Utopia.
Posted by: Harrison at January 17, 2006 01:17 AM (EjqGT)
6
Don't laugh too hard at those socialists, Ogre.
Two of the biggest socialist movements of the last century - Russia's Soviet socialists and Germany's National Socialists - were noted for their use of weapons against their neighbors.
Keep your powder dry, man.
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at January 17, 2006 03:58 AM (ZINSp)
7
Oh yes, that's understood. But don't forget New Hampshire's state motto:
Live Free or Die.
Posted by: Ogre at January 17, 2006 10:58 AM (+Gl1m)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 118 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0743 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0583 seconds, 128 records returned.
Page size 83 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
Well times, they are a-changin'. Now you can have green HAM and eggs. Everyone together now, say "Thank you" to the nice Taiwanese scientists and their green pigs. I'm still wondering on the whole glow-in-the-dark aspect. How many of you eat your ham and bacon in the dark?