Ogre's Politics & Views
December 17, 2005
Tarheel Tavern!
The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!
Oh wait. That's not it. It's the Tarheel Tavern! Hooray, that's even better!
The
Tarheel Tavern is a weekly round up of posts from and about North Carolina. Nearly all participants are blogging from within North Carolina, but anyone who blogs
about North Carolina can play, too.
If you missed this week's submission, be sure to submit, play, and read
Pratie's Place next week -- where you'll find the Tavern. And if you missed last week, the Tavern was at
Anonymoses.
They're just good reading each and every week, so be sure and check them out -- it's not one narrow topic, you find posts about all sorts of different things in there -- as you're about to see:
Posted by: Ogre at
09:45 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Great job, Ogre...thanks for carrying the ball for us this week.
Posted by: Ron Hudson at December 18, 2005 07:40 PM (OGDcP)
2
Thanks for hosting, Ogre! I'm looking forward to perusing these this afternoon. Sorry I didn't submit anything, but there was a misunderstanding and the post I meant for this week got posted in the last Tavern by mistake!
Posted by: Laurie at December 19, 2005 04:11 PM (oDwDw)
3
Thanks for putting this together this week!
Posted by: MLight at December 19, 2005 08:42 PM (IqPsv)
4
I'm absolutely honored to host!
Posted by: Ogre at December 22, 2005 02:34 AM (dPyQ0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Evil Corporations and Trees
I thought all corporations were evil. I know I've read in various newspaper outlets and through education journals and websites that corporations are what's wrong with this country. I'm sure I've read environmental sites that describe corporations as the worst thing created on this earth since time began.
We're told that it's ok to regulate corporations because only with severe regulation can we control them and their evilness. We are told that we should sue corporations because they have lots of money, all of it ill-begotten.
And we're told most of all that corporations don't ever care about the environment at all. If we don't control corporations, they will strip the planet bare of everything but solid rock, so sayeth the environmentalists.
I find it very interesting the letter I got this week from Coca-Cola Corporation:
As a shareowner in The Coca-Cola Company, you currently receive your shareowner materials in the mail. Now, you can elect to receive your annual report on Form 10K and proxy electronically... As a thank you for helping the environment, The Coca-Cola Company will plant a tree on your behalf through America Forests, a leading U.S. conservation organization.
There's those evil corporations at it again, trying to reduce tree destructions by cutting down on use of paper, AND planting trees. Yup, end of the world these corporations are...
Posted by: Ogre at
05:01 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Corporations (private enterprizes) are the greatest threat to socialists. If the masses believe they are capable of achieving personal success without the guidance of the "enlightened leftist overseers", then what purpose does the left have for existence?
Posted by: Hank at December 17, 2005 06:02 PM (HFUZy)
2
Successful corporations are the result of enormous risks taken by some people, which then pay off, rewarding them with great wealth. Socialists can't fathom a system where someone can be rewarded for successful decisions and actions made in the past. In fact, they don't even believe in giving people what the actually earn.
Posted by: Scriptor at December 17, 2005 06:11 PM (SGJX+)
3
Well put, Hank AND Scriptor -- you're both RIGHT on.
Posted by: Ogre at December 17, 2005 07:24 PM (vp57A)
4
I always wonder why left leaning people can not understand that I am a right wing environmentalist. It just blows their mind and why should it? I can not think of a better example of environmental derogation than China or the Soviet Union and they were communist. The answer to saving the environment is responsibility and accountability, not government control of the economy.
Posted by: Mindflame at December 21, 2005 05:29 PM (kJZEb)
5
The answer is NEVER government.
Posted by: Ogre at December 22, 2005 03:08 AM (dPyQ0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Senator McCain + Terrorists
Senator-who-would-be-president McCain has announced his view of terrorists. Please remember this when he is asking you for your vote in 2008:
"We have no grief for them."
I think he just made someone's Ramadan card list.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:09 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Gah. McPain's getting to be one of those people who makes my brain explode.
Posted by: Laura at December 17, 2005 03:23 PM (App7R)
2
It looks to me like he's doing this to garner some liberal votes, and that places him in the same camp as them -- politics before country.
When he said, no matter how bad or evil they are, that did it for me.
No vote from this guy, McCain, not even for dog catcher, ever.
Posted by: Seth at December 17, 2005 04:49 PM (1oHTa)
3
Me and the Ogre think alike...probably more often than not.
I think McCain probably has some pretty good reasons for being opposed to torture, but I truly believe that there's quite a bit of distance between what he endured at the hands of his captors in the Hanoi Hilton compared to what we're dishing out at Gitmo and around the world.
Nothing at all wrong with a good "mind screw" if that will get the info out of these animals. Permanent injury and disfigurement just drops us to their level in the sewer. I would make some exceptions for exceptionally high value scum though.
Nothing wrong with a secret prison...do you really want to tell the bad guys where we're keeping their buddies? Not that I'm afraid of escape plans...but rather murder plots to ensure that dead men tell no tales.
Hang in there...and see you on the high ground!
MajorDad1984
Posted by: MajorDad1984 at December 17, 2005 05:20 PM (tdEnf)
4
McCain is 100% in campaign mode. He's going for the moderate vote now, hoping to get his party's nomination later. How he'll beat Clinton for the party's nomination, I don't know.
Posted by: Ogre at December 17, 2005 05:54 PM (vp57A)
5
As a pro-war libertarian Ogre should be McCain’s base. If he is done with McCain than McCain does not a have a chance. It is a shame because Clinton would do worse running against a “maverick” like McCain than she will against mainstream conservative.
Posted by: Mindflame at December 17, 2005 06:19 PM (kJZEb)
6
McCain is pro-war? And Libertarian? I'd call him a moderate liberal at best...but I suppose there's some Libertarian in him.
But yeah, I'd write-in Mickey Mouse before I voted for McCain...even if Hillary were his opponent.
Posted by: Ogre at December 17, 2005 07:25 PM (vp57A)
7
Well, I'm not grieving over any terrorists, either. They should all be . . .
Ohhhh - that's what he means.
Posted by: The Small Town Hick at December 19, 2005 12:12 AM (ZINSp)
8
McCain is a wishy washy wimp. I respect him for what he has been through, but...he puts politics before American security. Plain and simple. He plays both sides against the other. He's a typical poitician I guess.
Posted by: Raven at December 20, 2005 01:45 AM (XWFXC)
9
Bingo, Raven. Right on the nose.
Posted by: Ogre at December 22, 2005 02:39 AM (dPyQ0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 16, 2005
Intellectual Quiz
I see that Smokey's already taken this quiz (he is an introspective individual). I saw that Tammi is a political intellectual, and Bou (and by transference, VW) is a scientific individual. Knowing those were two possible answers, I wasn't sure what I'd get. As I'm sure you were all wondering, too, here you go:
You're a scientific intellectual.
What Sort of Intellectual Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Posted by: Ogre at
07:02 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I am an Iranian redneck, that was a setup.
Posted by: Tomslick at December 16, 2005 08:04 PM (xNjHI)
2
Yes. Yes it was.
At least you didn't come out Dome-lectual...
Posted by: Ogre at December 16, 2005 09:31 PM (vp57A)
3
It says I'm an absent-minded . . . uh, scientific intellectual.
Posted by: Laura at December 16, 2005 11:32 PM (EDlQk)
4
I am a Poetic Intellectual! LA!
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at December 16, 2005 11:39 PM (UsQaU)
5
I'm not sure there's not a correlation there, Laura...
And Peter, did you READ the questions or just guess at your answers?
Posted by: Ogre at December 16, 2005 11:45 PM (vp57A)
6
I'm also a scientific intellectual. Eh... unless they mean scientific in the study of history... their farking wrong.
Posted by: Contagion at December 17, 2005 03:09 AM (e8b4J)
7
RUN FOR THE HILLS! With those results, Ogre is bound to be shopping for a chemistry set, and THAT is more TERRIFYING than anytthing I've faced before!
Posted by: Smokey at December 17, 2005 06:33 AM (K7uqT)
8
What? A quiz that might be wrong? It's just not possible!
I had a chemistry set when I was a kit. It melted.
Posted by: Ogre at December 17, 2005 02:17 PM (vp57A)
9
"I'm not sure there's not a correlation there . . ."
No doubt about it. A distinct correlation. If I recall correctly . . . absent-minded you see. What was the question?
Posted by: Laura at December 17, 2005 02:38 PM (App7R)
10
I'm not sure, but the answer is 42...
Posted by: Ogre at December 17, 2005 03:12 PM (vp57A)
11
Scary results here...same as the Ogre.
Pass me that bunsen burner, my friend.
MajorDad1984
Posted by: MajorDad1984 at December 17, 2005 05:25 PM (tdEnf)
12
Never mind the fire -- I want the chemicals!
Posted by: Ogre at December 17, 2005 05:54 PM (vp57A)
13
Ogre - What flummoxed me was that I chose to note the passing of Sen. Gene McCarthy by writing a poem - a week before I took the test! Yes, I really did read the questions, and now I am frightened by Quizilla, which is apparently doing psychological profiling for the CIA...
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at December 17, 2005 06:00 PM (UsQaU)
14
Poems and politicians? Somehow it just seems like there's something really wrong about that...
Posted by: Ogre at December 17, 2005 07:23 PM (vp57A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Llama meets Cat
There's no word on exactly how many stitches Albert the Llama required after his meeting with Fuffy.
(Add your own caption in the comments).
Posted by: Ogre at
05:05 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Cat: 1983 called. It wants its leg warmers back.
Posted by: Trench at December 16, 2005 05:29 PM (VEZiY)
2
Awwwww!
I'm a "cat person," and my cutesie cat/Christmas post goes up next week. You might get a kick out of it, Ogre.
Caption? Himalayan Meets Andean for Christmas
Posted by: Always On Watch at December 16, 2005 05:34 PM (6krEN)
3
caption
Hey, baby, what's your sign?
Posted by: Laura at December 16, 2005 06:58 PM (EDlQk)
Posted by: Ogre at December 16, 2005 09:28 PM (vp57A)
5
Llama: What you looking at?
Cat: Stupidity
Posted by: REALTeen at December 17, 2005 03:10 AM (ux4aW)
6
I don't think this is not your first llama post. What is it with you and llamas Orge?
Posted by: Mindflame at December 17, 2005 02:31 PM (kJZEb)
7
They're the first line of defense against the Free Dome people.
Have you heard the llama song?
Posted by: Ogre at December 17, 2005 02:37 PM (vp57A)
Posted by: self at December 18, 2005 01:47 PM (tM5yf)
9
Fluffy, with deteriorating eyesight, sadly mistook Albert the llamma for a democratic donkey.
Fluffy, being a staunch conservative, reacted with understandable animal instinct.
Services for Albert will be held at 9AM...
Posted by: jimmyb at December 19, 2005 12:43 AM (mwvez)
10
"GAH! Cold nose!"
Anyway, Mindflame, Ogre heard the llama song once:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php
posted about it, and it's become a running gag here.
Posted by: Harvey at December 19, 2005 03:21 AM (ubhj8)
11
Once? Yeah, right.
At least, unlike Harvey, I don't have it running in the background all the time...
Posted by: Ogre at December 22, 2005 02:40 AM (dPyQ0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Feds DON'T spend money.
Wow. This should be in giant headlines across the entire country. The federal government actually said "No" to spending a gigantic pile of money! I can't believe it. I'm just totally in shock.
The state of North Carolina was waiting for about $400 million so they could build a train in Raleigh (the state was going to pony up about $200 million). The Federal Transit Authority actually denied the funding. That's just unbelievable.
Trains are supposed to be the absolute savior of the world right now. Why, if we could get trains everywhere, there would be no automobiles, no pollution, no congestion, everyone would be on time, and there would be no global warming.
But for some unknown reason, the FTA refused to give Raleigh the huge pile of cash for their train. Oh, but that's not going to stop Raleigh -- they're going to build it anyway, even if it will take longer. Hey, at least those morons are going to use the money from the local people rather than money from everyone else in the country.
I've never understood why the people of Seattle should be forced to pay for a train that runs in Raleigh...and Charlotte's still waiting for large infusions of cash from the FTA...
Posted by: Ogre at
03:06 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Sweet! Surfed by. Liked your blog. Great set up. Good writing.
If you want a really good laugh, read: www.horacefinkle.blogspot.com. People around the world don't get to laugh enough, here's my donation to the cause...
Posted by: Horace at December 16, 2005 04:25 PM (mmsTx)
2
Not specific to N.C., but on-topic enough I think -
I'm a writer (do NOT confuse with "journalist", no sir, and thanks anyway but no thanks); I don't have a cubicle, and I do get out and see the light of day. I talk to real live people, something the mainstream media might want to learn how to do. Fat chance. They don't want to know about real people.
I have this novel idea that information and views should come from the horse's mouth. I've got this notion that an Iraqi's opinion about the war and their future is the most relevant opinion. Silly stuff like that. Likewise, Katrina people.
I had occasion to interview a gentleman from Louisiana a couple of weeks ago. Lifelong Louisianan with lots of family in New Orleans. (Not anymore, they're not going back.)
And lo, he had a lot to say, all of which involved *gasp* common sense. That they've all known it was coming since the '60s, that it was overbuilt beyond all imagination with insanely cheap structures, that the rest of America should NOT BE MADE TO PAY to restore the Katrina area only to have it destroyed again, which it inevitably will be. That the levees should be destroyed, the area let to go to the wetlands they're supposed to be, (natural hurricane protection) and any new building in New Orleans be done well upriver on a very small scale. He said a lot more but that's the part pertinent to this thread.
Posted by: Laura at December 16, 2005 05:11 PM (EDlQk)
3
I wrote multiple emails to Elizabeth Edwards, then to the Housing and Trans Chairman, forget his name, he is from Colorado, explained that all of 5 people would use the damm thing.
Posted by: William Teach at December 16, 2005 05:41 PM (cuTsc)
4
Thanks, Horace, I'll be right over -- who can't use a laugh?
And Laura? That's what the VAST majority of people want. If we truly had people that represented us in Congress, or that obeyed the Constitution, there wouldn't be one dime given to Nawlins.
Teach, I wonder if that helped? I'm writing thank you letters now -- with hints that the same process should be involved with the requests for San Antonio's people money to be used to build another train.
Posted by: Ogre at December 16, 2005 09:27 PM (vp57A)
5
Not sure. It kinda went along the lines of, "please do not relax the rules for the TTA Lite rail. No one will ride it. Take a look at the sections of town it goes through, and understand that most of the people in those areas will drive to work. It doesn't follow routes where people will take the bus, and heck, the bus system doesn't even do well, as it is.
I have sent Senator Dole many emails, as I am sure others have, but she doesn't seem to be listening, which is why I am emailing you. Please turn this boondogle down. Thank you for your time."
Something like that.
Posted by: William Teach at December 16, 2005 10:03 PM (cuTsc)
6
It's so hard to tell if writing letters have any effect at all.
Posted by: Ogre at December 16, 2005 10:14 PM (vp57A)
7
The feds. probably turned it down because Amtrak is doing so badly. They had built a number of train lines all over the country but they kept losing money because they were not high traffic and were badly managed.
Here in Florida, we passed a referendum to mandate a monorails connecting our major cities. Then we past a referendum saying that we would not build it. Silliness as usual.
Still, I don't know what I would give for a decent bus system in my county
.
Posted by: Mindflame at December 17, 2005 12:37 AM (kJZEb)
8
Nah, this one has nothing to do with Amtrak -- we'll keep propping that money pit up forever!
Posted by: Ogre at December 17, 2005 12:49 AM (vp57A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tarheel Tavern Here!
Folks, this week the Tarheel Tavern will be HERE at Ogre's place!
Yay and Hooray!
Now I just have to think of a new, neat, and different way to format it...I should have the time, right?
Anyway, the Tarheel Tavern is a weekly carnival that I always read and always link to, and this week I get to host it! It's a carnival of posts from and about North Carolina, but it's for anyone who wants to read it. Usually it's not very political in nature and always has some REALLY good posts in it.
This week, if you're blogging in/from North Carolina and need a topic idea, you can go with "The Pre-Holiday Rush," or "All I want for Christmas." Be sure to get all your posts in to me (see email link over there at the top of the left column) by Saturday.
I just found out that I'll be at a party Saturday evening, so the Tavern will likely be posted either early Saturday night or Sunday morning. Be sure to get your posts in -- I know where you all live!
Posted by: Ogre at
02:01 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'll try and send something, but typepad is fubar at the moment, can only get stuff from the 9th and back until I can republish.
Posted by: William Teach at December 17, 2005 01:04 AM (AkiXU)
2
If'n ya don't send somethin', I'll be stealin' my choice!
Posted by: Ogre at December 17, 2005 01:22 AM (vp57A)
3
My email is giving me issues. This one (http://www.thepiratescove.us/2005/12/the_death_penal.html) isn't so much about NC, about the death penalty, thought it was good. If too depressing, try (http://www.thepiratescove.us/2005/12/12_days_of_chri_4.html) my Bad 12 Days of Christmas, which has an NC Pine Christmas Tree gif
Posted by: William Teach at December 17, 2005 07:31 PM (AkiXU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Lottery Illegal?
Here's one that will make you go, "Hmmmm."
It seems that
a lawsuit has been filed that claims that North Carolina lottery was passed unconstitutionally. Here's the reasons the lawsuit lists:
1. The Lottery Act Unconstitutionally Raises Money on the Credit of the State for the Payment of Lottery Winnings.
2. The Lottery Act Unconstitutionally Pledges the Faith of the State for the Payment of a Debt.
3. The Lottery Act Unconstitutionally Creates an Implicit Tax.
4. The Lottery Act Unconstitutionally Creates an Express Tax on Residents.
5. The Lottery Act Unconstitutionally Creates an Express Tax on Nonresidents Who Receive Income in North Carolina by Winning a Lottery Prize.
6. The Lottery Act Unconstitutionally Draws Money from the State Treasury without an Appropriation Made by Law.
It seems like a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo, but that all sure looks pretty darn logical to me, even if I am biased against the whole idea of a lottery.
The lawsuit asks for an injunction to completely stop the entire process of the lottery. Now wouldn't that be interesting if a judge issued that injunction? I'll be watching...
Posted by: Ogre at
12:09 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The State's lawyers will probably just go into court and repeat "It's for the children, won't anyone think of the children" over and over.
Posted by: William Teach at December 16, 2005 12:45 PM (AkiXU)
2
Oh sure, that will be the shrill call -- but I know at least some of the judges in North Carolina have a little sense about them -- including the State Supreme Court where this will most certainly end up. It could be VERY interesting -- the Supreme Court is also already p.o.ed at the Legislature...
This could be REALLY entertaining if it weren't so serious.
Posted by: Ogre at December 16, 2005 12:58 PM (/k+l4)
3
But, but, but, the children!!!!! Gov Mike loves the children!
Sorry, couldn't find a wav file of that lady from the Simpson's saying that.
Really, you know my opinion, I could take or leave the lottery. But I have no faith in North Carolina's ability to keep it on the up and up.
Posted by: William Teach at December 16, 2005 01:34 PM (AkiXU)
4
Hey, the thing has been a cesspool from the beginning with complete corruption including FBI investigations regarding it. I'm sure the state will clean it up soon...
And I need that wave file if you can find it. I think it would end up in every day's NC Government post...
Posted by: Ogre at December 16, 2005 01:38 PM (/k+l4)
5
Most of the usual wav sites are bereft of Simpson sound bites, something about lawsuits, yada yada yada. It's for the children.
Got some other places to check.
hey, BTW, you know the strip club owners who Black returned the money to? They were my customers years ago when I was starting out.
Posted by: William Teach at December 16, 2005 05:31 PM (cuTsc)
6
So, Teach runs strip clubs in Raleigh...interesting...
Posted by: Ogre at December 16, 2005 09:28 PM (vp57A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
North Carolina Lottery Jobs
The North Carolina State-Sponsored Monopolistic Legalized Gambling program has a web site now. They're also hiring staff -- check the web site for details on open positions. They expect "between 2000 and 3000" applications for "200 to 300" jobs.
While they would "like" to hire NC residents, the director says that it is likely that "most" jobs will go to out-of-state lottery "experts." So much for the jobs it would create.
Anyway, I am SO going to apply to work there. Seriously.
Hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em! There's going to be a whole pile of money flowing through that organization, and since it's government-run, everyone involved will get some. I'll let you know if they answer my applications. Maybe I should use an out of NC address to up my chances...
Posted by: Ogre at
10:01 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
December 15, 2005
The Delta Force
I just watched the movie The Delta Force. The main terrorists in the movie, Abdul and Mustafa, were middle-aged males of arab descent. They targeted Jewish people. The movie was made in 1986. What a damn awesome movie.
Can you imagine someone trying to make a movie like that today?
How about this line from the captain: "Thank God the women are safe."
How far do you think that line would get today?
Oh, and the Americans were the good guys.
They sure don't make them like they used to.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:27 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Ogre, how is the plan to rejoin the service coming along?
Posted by: Jape at December 18, 2005 02:18 AM (jeXxM)
2
Rather slow.
I keep getting the runaround. I think they've decided I'm too old and they're not interested in retraining me.
Posted by: Ogre at December 18, 2005 01:07 PM (vp57A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Redneck Quiz
Since I STILL keep getting hits from Yahoo searches for Redneck Quizzes, and since it's been a few hours since Smokey's taken a quiz, I thought I'd provide him with yet another one:
Congratulations, Your Score is 13 out of 15.
"You are a redneck. Be proud, Stand straight, Stand tall, but stand over there because the wind is blowing the smell of your skoal in my direction.
Posted by: Ogre at
07:05 PM
| Comments (21)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"You scored well this means you are one of 3 things. 1) You are exceptionally bright. 2) You used to be a redneck but have moved out of the south and are in remission. 3) You are a redneck but trying ot hide it."
Posted by: vw bug at December 15, 2005 08:44 PM (SCN6v)
2
OH, thank you Ogre, I must remember to factor in winds when I launch my computer toward the lake one day, any volunteers to video tape this? I feel it's the ONLY WAY to beat this, but for now I'll just enjoy it!
Posted by: Smokey at December 15, 2005 09:46 PM (K7uqT)
3
VW? I think it might be #3...
Nah, with you and Bou, I'm sure you're both #1!
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 09:51 PM (uSCkp)
4
Join us for a campaign to free IRAN!
Check my blog
Posted by: Winston at December 15, 2005 10:03 PM (tM5yf)
5
Indeed. It would be nice if Iran were free, too.
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 10:38 PM (uSCkp)
6
How did this turn out to be an Iranian redneck quiz?
If your family olive tree only has one limb, you're probably an Iranian redneck.
If you introduce your wife and your cousin to Habib in Tehran, and there is only one chick standing there in a burkha, you are probably an Iranian redneck.
Posted by: Tomslick at December 16, 2005 12:35 PM (xNjHI)
7
Oh that's SO not right, Tomslick!
ROFL!
Posted by: Ogre at December 16, 2005 12:37 PM (/k+l4)
8
I got redneck. If my high-brow fellow lawyers only knew.
Posted by: oddybobo at December 16, 2005 03:17 PM (6Gm0j)
9
I got 14 out of 15. I am not sure if it is the Vienna Sausage one or the Bill Dance one that I missed.
Posted by: joe-6-pack at December 16, 2005 07:40 PM (EJNjU)
10
Oddy, you must hide it well during the day.
And yeah, Joe, that Vienna Sausage was a tough one -- I had to open the can I had in my desk to check...
Posted by: Ogre at December 16, 2005 09:21 PM (vp57A)
11
I got 4 out of 15 right, "A monkey is more redneck then I am."
Posted by: Contagion at December 17, 2005 03:03 AM (e8b4J)
12
So we can effectively eliminate the redneck-dome connection...
Posted by: Ogre at December 17, 2005 02:07 PM (vp57A)
13
YAAAA HAAA yall whats up? im billy the kid!!
Posted by: Bill The Kid at January 10, 2006 02:28 PM (1SWu2)
Posted by: Ogre at January 10, 2006 02:31 PM (/k+l4)
15
dude this web site is awsome rednecks rock man totaly!!
Posted by: Kendell at March 02, 2006 12:22 AM (3ucNb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Jim Black's Apology
Jim Black is the "leader" of the North Carolina General Assembly. His official title is Speaker of the House, but he is the power-broker in Raleigh. Whatever Jim Black wants, Jim Black gets. If you cross him, he will punish you. If you do favors for him, he will reward you with cash. All of these are facts.
Last week, Jim Black "
apologized" for
getting caught making "poor decisions" in regards to the absolute cesspool that is the North Carolina lottery.
Jim Black employed an employee of a company that is "in the running" to run the NC state lottery. Although they claim there will be an open bidding process, everyone but the media will be absolutely shocked if anyone other than Scientific Games gets the contract.
You see, an employee of Scientific Games WROTE the lottery bill (while employed by Jim Black). Scientific Games has also given cash to various people who were on the lottery commission, or about to be selected to the lottery commission.
Jim Black is now being investigated by the FBI because two of his employees (political staff) may have violated ethics or lobbying laws. So Jim Black has apologized for
getting caught bad decision-making.
Is he going to resign before the election next year? Some people think he's under pressure to resign quickly so that others may fill his seat before the election season begins. After all, if he's indicted after the filing period, the Republicans are going to have quite a platform to use against Democrats next year...
Posted by: Ogre at
05:14 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
ACLU Hates Prayer
If you don't know that the ACLU hates prayer, you've not been paying them much attention. The ACLU has adopted a very strange interpretation of the Constitution and the Amendments -- but with a very clear and obvious purpose that they will not state nor admit -- because they would be vilified if they did.
In yet
another case, the ACLU is demanding that a government meeting cannot begin with a prayer. In this particular case, the ACLU says, "courts have ruled prayer improper if government bodies offer it to someone revered in a specific denomination."
Yet again this illustrates the real position of the ACLU. They have zero concept of right, wrong, or individual rights. Instead, they rely on the courts -- as they want everyone to do. The ACLU claims that since the courts have ruled something, that they are correct.
What this leaves out is the idea that the courts might actually be WRONG.
But the ACLU and the way it operates, cannot stand for that (unless, of course, the court disagrees with them). The ACLU is designed to use money, threats, and the court system to crush prayer in any way, shape, or form.
The ACLU wants to remove all prayer from individuals who happen to be in government buildings. The ACLU also supports removing ownership of private property. If their goals are reached, all prayer will be banned everywhere -- which is exactly what they want.
If you support the ACLU, you are working to destroy freedom of religion in the United States.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:04 PM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
LOL I just don't understand you, and the thousands of other people just like you. Is your faith so weak that it depends on the acceptance of others? And even worse the approval of the government?
It's okay, whine and throw a fit - isn't that what blogs are for anyway? But I certainly won't be crying about others whos faith is different from mine.
Poor widdle needy christians *pet*
Posted by: Jen at December 15, 2005 07:14 PM (yfJ0w)
2
I'm not sure you really understood that post at all.
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 07:46 PM (/k+l4)
3
She is like all Americans in that she only reads what is interesting to her and ignores the rest.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at December 15, 2005 10:04 PM (5+Jvh)
4
Should a Muslim or a Jewish (insert any other religion of choice) representative in government be forced to hear prayers from the Bible, a Christian religious document. The ACLU is saying that prayer is inappropriate before government meetings because the prayer is specific to one denomination and does not support religious freedom as guaranteed by the Constiution. If christian members of government are unwilling to protect this essential right, then we must look to the courts for affirmation of freedom of religion.
Posted by: Jonathan Foley at December 15, 2005 10:17 PM (FdFA8)
5
I tried to figure out where Jen was coming from with that comment, but gave up after about four seconds. She's either got some issues requiring professional attention or she is tweaking on methadrine.
On Topic,
The ACLU's goal is communism. Communism and a belief in God don't mix. What gets me is that while they oppose prayer in schools, they don't have anything to say about forced Koran study in schools. I guess it's only unconstitutional if it's Christianity.
Posted by: Seth at December 15, 2005 10:19 PM (1oHTa)
6
I'd say she was government-educated and couldn't read at all, but she did put together a sentence...
And Jonathan, no, that is NOT what the ACLU is saying. The ACLU is saying no individual can say a prayer in a government building. That is their stated purpose and mission. Just because you are an elected official, you do not lose your right to freedom of religion.
The only prohibition in the Constitution LIMITS the governement (and the court's) ability to STOP prayer.
And that's it, Seth. Communism cannot survive as long as there is any belief in God.
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 10:41 PM (uSCkp)
7
Ogre: "Just because you are an elected official, you do not lose your right to freedom of religion."
Nor do those who elected you.
I will defend to the death your right to pray to whomever you please in the church of your choice. Government offices, however, are not churches.
I realize that diversity is a difficult concept for some on the right to understand, but the United States is a diverse nation. We are not all Christians. Those of us who are do not have the right to force our beliefs on those who are not. I've read the Constitution, from beginning to end, many times and have been unable to find that right defined within it.
Posted by: Len at December 15, 2005 11:38 PM (w22pS)
8
Then you are saying that if I am elected to any political office that I have no rights -- that your right to NOT hear a prayer said by me in a government building trumps my right under the first amendment. I strongly disagree, and I am a huge supporter of the Constitution (as it was written, not as it is "interpreted" today).
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 11:57 PM (uSCkp)
9
http://iugwcq.transha.com/cheap-formal-handbags/ cheap formal handbags http://iugwcq.transha.com/wholesale-sequin-purses-and-handbags/ find lauren handbags by ralph lauren http://iugwcq.transha.com/index.htm find lauren handbags by ralph lauren http://iugwcq.transha.com/cheap-formal-handbags/ chateau anne handbag http://iugwcq.transha.com/kathy-van-zeeland-kylie-handbag/ wholesale quited handbags http://iugwcq.transha.com/chloe-silverado-handbag-brown/ wholesale quited handbags http://iugwcq.transha.com/chateau-anne-handbag/ find perlina flap handbag http://iugwcq.transha.com/find-perlina-flap-handbag/ italy authentic handbags supplier http://iugwcq.transha.com/chloe-silverado-handbag-brown/ italy authentic handbags supplier http://iugwcq.transha.com/cheap-formal-handbags/ wholesale sequin purses and handbags http://iugwcq.transha.com/chateau-anne-handbag/ chateau anne handbag
Posted by: find perlina flap handbag at December 25, 2005 03:52 AM (WfjSu)
10
http://gay.fedtar.com/gay-movie-post/ gay lockerroom stories http://gay.fedtar.com/gay-guys/ gay photos http://gay.fedtar.com/gay-male/ gay erotica http://gay.fedtar.com/gay-chat-rooms/ young gay boys http://gay.fedtar.com/gay-marriage/ gay toons http://gay.fedtar.com/gay-ecards/ gay anime http://gay.fedtar.com/gay-boys-in-boxers/ gay rights http://gay.fedtar.com/free-gay-personals/ free gay pictures http://gay.fedtar.com/gay-cowboy-gallery/ free gay mpegs http://gay.fedtar.com/young-boys-gay/ gay gallery http://gay.fedtar.com/gay-teen-boy-free-pics/ gay muscle
Posted by: gay pics at December 26, 2005 11:09 AM (leoVl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A Creation Story
For those who simply cannot stand Christmas and Christians (hello, ACLU), Joe Carter has posted a nice little creation story for the materialist. It starts out like this:
In the beginning was Nothing and Nothing created Everything. When Nothing decided to create Everything, she filled a tiny dot with Time, Chance, and Everything and had it explode. The explosion spread Everything into Everywhere carrying Time and Chance with it to keep it company. The three stretched out together leaving bits of themselves wherever they went. One of those places was the planet Earth.
Posted by: Ogre at
03:06 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
rofl.
Presumably Nothing was an atheist.
Posted by: Laura at December 15, 2005 10:14 PM (6BLTq)
2
No, nothing was nothing. ?
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 10:41 PM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bigot in Raleigh
Amanda Alpert of Raleigh, NC is a bigot. And she's happy to announce that to the world (and, more importantly, the press).
You see, Amanda has asked that a sign be taken down that causes her to be offended and because the message on the sign is "upsetting" to her. She is clearly bigoted because she is intolerant of anyone else's religious view.
The sign? Oh, it says, "Merry Christmas, Jesus is the Reason for the Season."
Where is it? On a privately owned business property (McDonalds).
She called the corporate headquarters of McDonalds and tried to get them to force the local franchise to remove the sign. HQ told her that the owner could do what he wanted -- it was his store. There's no word whether the bigoted Amanda Alpert will be suing for emotional damages.
And my favorite part of this whole story? The part that shows I'm right all the time when I say the market will adjust?
McDonald's managers say the sign has been good for business. They say church groups have stopped by to eat, and some people who usually don't eat food from McDonald's have stopped by because of the sign.
Ahhhhh... Free Market.
Update: I noticed
Teach blogged it and has the picture if you want to see it.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:02 PM
| Comments (31)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
My sister in law lives in Raligh, I'm going to have to ask her about this!
Posted by: Jo at December 15, 2005 12:29 PM (xlos6)
2
I can agree with her on not wanting religion forced on her, but still let the sign stay.
I wish people would grow up and realize that you can't have everything you want! If you don't like it don't go there!
This is like the banning of smoking in bars, let the owners decide not the government.
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at December 15, 2005 12:31 PM (/k+l4)
3
The store is on the corner of Falls of Neuse and Spring Forest Road. Be warned -- I hear that store is pretty crowded these days...
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 12:32 PM (/k+l4)
4
I'm not sure exactly how it is that people feel that seeing something it the same as it being forced upon them. If that's the case, I could just as logically complain about any sign or billboard I see and demand it be taken down.
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 12:56 PM (/k+l4)
5
Amanda Alpert needs to see a shrink.
Because she is really sick.
McDonalds should enjoy the boom and favours of the reason for the season, Jesus Christ.
God loves America.
God bless.
Posted by: Orikinla Osinachi at December 15, 2005 01:30 PM (fAMw8)
6
I do believe in freedom of religion and the seperation of Church and State. However, I don't agree with freedom from religion. I can honestly say I was not upset on my trip when I saw a huge dradel(sp?), the jewish hannukah top thing, in a store. I'm not jewish, but it didn't bother me. It didn't even make me want to not shop there.
Some people need to grow up.
Posted by: Contagion at December 15, 2005 01:51 PM (Q5WxB)
7
I am really amazed at how many people have this same point of view -- that they somehow have the right to determine what other people can and cannot do based on their own perceptions of reality.
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 01:57 PM (/k+l4)
8
it is all part of the entitlement society we live in today. I am entitled to drown out your beliefs and views because I don't agree with them.
Gotta love private property and free expression!
Posted by: oddybobo at December 15, 2005 02:26 PM (6Gm0j)
9
That's exactly why I love private property (including gun rights).
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 03:08 PM (/k+l4)
10
They discussed this issue at length on the Bill Lemay show (680-WPTF) in Raleigh. I tried to get through, but the lines were slammed. Most people were very supportive of the sign. The only negatives were that it was using Jesus's name to sell food.
Supposedly, the story was picked up by CNN, but, I don't watch the Commie News Network.
I gotta drive that way today, gonna see if I can get some good photos of the sign and the intersection.
Posted by: William Teach at December 15, 2005 03:35 PM (AkiXU)
11
What? No one was offended that would dare do this? No Jewish people calling up, complaining?
Oh, right, you're in Raleigh, not Chapel Hill...
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 03:46 PM (/k+l4)
12
The woman who complained was a Jew.
Shame on her for not being a Christian!
Maybe we conservatives can round up all the Jews who complain and...let's see, maybe concentrate them in one place, like a camp.
Then we can have our state religion!
Posted by: Ronald Reagan at December 15, 2005 06:25 PM (LQJdM)
13
You give those loonies enough rope, they just hang themselves, don't they? Thanks for stopping along, Mr. Reagan.
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 06:29 PM (/k+l4)
14
I seriously doubt that Jesus would have any problem with it. He'd probably stop by and get a Filet o' Fish and a couple of extra rolls.
Loaves and fishes and all that.
Man, people have GOT to start lightening up. This is getting nuts. Everybody's "offended" by everything. My community has for decades put up rows of public menorahs and Christmas trees side by side on the city green, everybody loves it for crying out loud. There's a guy down our street who puts up little signs in his yard all year long quoting Scripture. He always chooses something uplifting, he's not telling us we're all going straight to hell, nobody minds, nobody's getting all upset.
Anybody, ANYBODY running around all "offended" all the time has got far, far too much time on their hands, great galloping gators. Run out and do some community service or get a job or read to little kids, DO something with your mental energies other than being offended. Damnation.
Posted by: Laura at December 15, 2005 10:26 PM (6BLTq)
15
I only wish the courts would actually realize that you do NOT have a right to not be offended...
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 10:43 PM (uSCkp)
16
Wait . . . that means . . . should I be offended by this? Or just confused. I have no right to not be offended? O nooooooooo. Is that covered in the First Offendment? I'd better start running around being offended before I get busted for non-offendedmentness.
Just kidding around with you.
I like the Ninth Amendment, which says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Seems apropos here.
Posted by: Laura at December 15, 2005 11:05 PM (6BLTq)
17
THe first offendment? Classic!
And you obviously misunderstand today's Constitution. Today's "living document" interpretation is that the Constitution GRANTS rights, you see...
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 11:12 PM (uSCkp)
18
Yes, I do have this quaint fondness for, nay, dedication to, the Constitution as actually written and intended, it's true.
On my way downstreet to get a Filet o' Fish at MacDonald's now. There are Christmas trees, little menorahs with lights, and Christmas wreaths there. It's nice.
Posted by: Laura at December 15, 2005 11:58 PM (6BLTq)
19
mMMMmm...greasy McDonalds fish...and freedom...
Posted by: Ogre at December 16, 2005 12:37 AM (uSCkp)
20
Mr Ogre,
At least get your facts straight when reporting the informaiton on your website. I did indeed call Corporate McDonald's and FILED A COMPLAINT.
I never told them to take the sign down. THey also never told me it was the franchise owners sign and they could do what they wanted with it. They simply took down the information and paced it along. Just as if I had an eyeball in my chicken nugget, I would have done the same.
The Franchise owner's assitant called me after receiving that complaint from the Corporate office. The woman was very rude, condescending and never once asked what she could do to help, She asked for my suggestion, which was to CHANGE the sign to one of more DIVERSITY and TOLERANCE, for ALL NON CHRISTIANS, Not just Jews. She adamantly said no, how this was her decision I don't know, she was not the owner. Then I got really pissed b/c of her horrible treatment of me and then I wrote a letter to the owner.
I felt that McDOnald's Is not the appropriate place for this personal type of sentiment. I feel it was a bad decision by a woman who is a business person and leader in the community to be so intolerant of others. A church, fine, a christmas tree lot, great, your home, put up all the tacky blow up Santa crap and lights you want, but what other Public places do you see with this specific type of sentiment?
All I wanted was a little respect and tolerance. I tolerate Christmas being crammed down my throat 4 months out of the year and I respect that Christmas is one of the more holy days of the Christian's year, but in my opinion, McDonald's is not the appropriate place for these words. We need to respect ALL people and ALL Holidays at this time of year. Which would Include Thanksgiving, New Year's, Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanzza, as well.
Posted by: Amanda Alpert at December 18, 2005 08:44 PM (EGq1J)
21
EVERYONE take a deep breath turn off your computers and call you mothers
sheesh!
Posted by: Greg Dyson at December 19, 2005 05:32 PM (dGesX)
22
Then why, Amanda, do you insist on not letting others respect their own faith? By complaining about that sign, you are declaring that your faith is superior to others and that Christians should not be able to show their own faith. That's pretty intolerant of you, if you ask me.
And thanks for stopping by!
(Good idea Greg)
Posted by: Ogre at December 22, 2005 02:38 AM (dPyQ0)
23
Mr. Ogre,
I believe 100% that people should respect their faith; yet at the same time be respectful of others as well. I do not believe I was being disrespectful or intolerant of Christianity. I do not believe my faith is superior to others, I was simply asking that other faiths be recognized. Ms. Martin (the owner) is a Christian woman and I respect that, what I don't respect is her decision to post the sign. THAT shows intolerance and disrepect to others. While her sign shows her faiths and beliefs, I believe that it is not the proper forum, or perhaps a more inclusive type of messsage such as "Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men." Still a Christian quote from the Christmas story ( not the Red Rider BB Gun one, the one about Christ being born : ) ), but one that is inclusive of all people and faiths. And please no comments about "men".
And if Greg Dyson that posted is my brother in law, I will freak out, too weird.
Posted by: Amanda Alpert at December 26, 2005 03:13 PM (VygPn)
24
I just don't see the difference, Amanda, between you saying that they're intolerant for posting the sign, but you're not intolerant for not wanting the sign posted.
Asking other faiths to be recognized is silly -- the sign is only so big. It's not practical to say that all faiths should be recognized.
Saying that the message should be inclusive is just as silly -- I'm sure muslim terrorists would be offended by your suggested "Peace on Earth" sign as well.
To suggest there is ANY sign that can be posted that is not offensive to anyone is also silly -- SOMEONE will be offended no matter what is put on the sign, period.
Posted by: Ogre at December 26, 2005 03:21 PM (s2+Ck)
25
Mr. Ogre,
Apparently we need to agree that we disagree, which is fine. I don't expect everyone to share my views on ANYTHING, a lesson very well learned with these events.
The point I was inititally was trying to make, which I thought was a simple one was that, what other public places (malls, restaurants,, stores, etc) do you go at this time of year that their signs don't say Happy Holidays or Season's Greetings. Would you agree that about 99% of them do? Would you agree that this is a more proper and respectful sentiment? So this woman posts her religious beliefs on her sign, and it's okay (according to most) because it is her sign and her beliefs. My belief is that it isn't right and I did what I thought was the right thing to support what I believed in. Call it intolerant or what have you, I was only asking for some respect for others. And I really hope you aren't ignorant enough to think that all Muslims are terroists and don't want "Peace On Earth"
Posted by: Amanda Alpert at December 26, 2005 03:59 PM (VygPn)
26
Yes, we clearly disagree.
"Would you agree that this is a more proper and respectful sentiment?"
No, no I would not, and that's where we disagree. I think that a person who owns property should be able to express their own religious beliefs, and no one should be able to tell them otherwise. It makes no difference to me if that's their own home or a place that they own that they invite other people into (a business).
If you owned the sign and wanted to put on the sign, "Christians Suck," I wouldn't ask you to take it down.
Also note I didn't say all muslims were terrorists -- I simply said that there ARE muslims who ARE terrorists who would be offended by you asking for peace.
Posted by: Ogre at December 26, 2005 04:29 PM (s2+Ck)
27
Noted on the Muslim comment. I misread that, I apologize.
So your basic arguement is that people can do what they want with their personal property, be it home or business. OK. I guess what I don't understand is why a more inclusive sentiment is wrong? Is it wrong because she CAN do what she wants with the sign?(in your Opinion)
There is this "War on Christmas" that is all over the media, how do we address people this time of year, etc. The part that noone can explain to me is how Happy Holidays excludes Christmas or takes the Christ out of Christmas. These are the things I have been accused of. Aren't we better PEOPLE by expressing GENERAL greetings to others?
So while I understand your view on the personal property front, I still am not sure how you feel about the general Happy Holidays statement. Is it or is it not more proper and respectful? Sign and personal property aside.
Perhaps I need to poke around your website a bit more to learn a little more about your views on things.
I do appreciate your respectful banter and opinions. The postings on the TV station website were for the most part absurd and ridiculous (and not b/c people didn't agree with me.) Most were along the lines of Mr. Reagan's from above. I sincerely appreciate your thoughts and opinions, because they are thoughtful and respectful, even though we disagree.
Posted by: Amanda Alpert at December 26, 2005 06:47 PM (VygPn)
28
Sorry for the slow reply, I'd been on vacation for the past week.
At issue here, in my opinion, wasn't the sentiment in question at all -- at issue was one person requesting another person do something with their own property. To me, I view this the same as me coming to your house, walking in, and telling you that your bathroom decorations aren't correct, and that you should change them.
As for the sentiment itself, "Happy Holidays" is fine with me. I originally thought that came from people wishing others "Merry Christmas" and "Happy New Year" at the same time!
I don't see "Happy Holidays" as excluding anyone. However, if someone changes from "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays" because another is offended, then that's wrong. You shouldn't change your ideals and beliefs because someone is "offended" by them.
Posted by: Ogre at December 30, 2005 09:00 PM (s2+Ck)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Charlotte Observer Views
If you read the Charlotte Observer (and I know there's fewer and fewer people who do), you should at least understand the people who are determining what you read, and how they decide to cover news and events. One good way to see that is to view what the editors of the paper decide is important.
The Observer just published their
State of the Environment report -- showing exactly what the editors determine is important. They are illustrating here exactly what their agenda is, and how they will determine what and when to write about in the coming year.
Pay close attention if you want a detailed look into the minds of the people who work at the Charlotte Observer as I outline and detail their "Top 10" issues.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:32 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
December 14, 2005
Mission: Impossible III
They've released the first movie poster for M:i:III. It's pretty cool, I think, but I'm sort of biased towards the show and the movies (because the whole idea is just neat). If you'd like a copy for your desktop (or for whatever other reason), just follow the link below and at the top you'll see a link to the poster.
Posted by: Ogre at
09:05 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I wonder if they will keep Cruise out of alot of the advertising, and tone down his media appearences for the release?
Posted by: William Teach at December 14, 2005 11:25 PM (AkiXU)
2
The fact that you're asking that question implies that you already know the answer. Did you see the movie poster? That should answer your question if there was actually any doubt!
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 12:47 AM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Carnivals Galore!
More carnivals for your weekly reading pleasure, in completely random order:
The
Carnival of True Liberties is designed to help expose the destruction of liberty in the U.S., primarily by the communist ACLU.
The
Carnival of Education has been posted and has lots and lots of entries addressing education in various directions and themes.
This week's
New Blog Showcase Carnival has been posted. This is a good one, as each week there's new entries of new blogs. If you only visit one carnival a week, make it this one, and let people know they're welcome in the blogosphere!
Finally, the
Carnival of Liberty is up. Some of the best reading in the blogosphere can be found there, be sure to check it out!
Posted by: Ogre at
07:01 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Thought Police in England
If you are in England, your thoughts and intentions will be monitored -- if you are deemed to be "homophobic" (whatever the heck that means).
A woman was
investigated because someone claimed she made "homophobic" comments. It was actually deemed a homophobic incident -- which, according to the police, are priority crimes.
And in Cambridge, "It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime."
So if you don't break any laws, but anyone thinks you're homophobic (or racist), you WILL be investigated by the police. If that's not intimidation, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:01 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
All of a sudden I had this thought to go and read about the Salem Witch Trials. I'm not sure why.
I'm sure that Sarah Goode was thrilled to be "one of the parties to be spoken too." Of course, her side didn't fare to well.
It's stories like that that actually scare me. The leftist thought police slowly insinuating their insane agenda's on us.
Posted by: William Teach at December 14, 2005 07:13 PM (cuTsc)
2
And you can be sure that there are a number of people who will read about that and say things like, "That's a good thing because people shouldn't be hateful."
Posted by: Ogre at December 14, 2005 07:26 PM (/k+l4)
3
I'm getting tired of seeing stuff like this. It just pisses me off in ways that isn't good.
BTW. You're lucky they aren't going after domeophobic people. You'd be in trouble.
Posted by: Contagion at December 15, 2005 12:20 AM (e8b4J)
4
I'm not a domophobe, I'm NOT a domophobe!
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 12:47 AM (uSCkp)
5
Ogre - My county has just lost its collective mind, and has created a Human Rights Commission a.k.a. Thought Star Chamber - here's the link:
http://www.barnstablepatriot.com/human_rights_commission_appointed_news_12_8251.html
NONE of the County Commissioners were against this - one thought that there weren't ENOUGH protected classes represented, and abstained for that reason! Mind you, this is in addition to SEVEN seperate anti-discrimination agencies run by the State - one for the hard of hearing, one for the blind, one for racism, one for....it just goes on and on. Now, we will have a COUNTY level agency as well, to make certain that nobody's feelings are ever hurt at any time for any reason - all at $40,000/year for the protectors....
Posted by: Peter Porcupine at December 18, 2005 03:08 AM (UsQaU)
6
"new commission, charged with raising awareness about discrimination and prevention"
Oh yeah, we need that. How can we live one more minute without that? That seriously sucks. A lot. Nope, no freedom of speech for you.
Posted by: Ogre at December 18, 2005 01:09 PM (vp57A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Are a total mess and a nightmare. But if you live anywhere near here, you'd know that. Of course, if you live elsewhere and support a strong socialist idea of an education system, then you worship and adore the Charlotte-Mecklenburg System (CMS).
A year ago, a LARGE number of parents tried to secede from the school district. They wanted to break the gigantic, massively unresponsive school system up into smaller, more manageable districts. Of course, since the North Carolina General Assembly is Democrat, there was NO way they would succeed because it would require government to shrink.
So instead, in a miserably feeble attempt to appease these parents, the Democrat-controlled school board set up a "task force" to "study" the problem.
The results of the "task force" are in. And yes, once again, I could have saved the state millions of dollars on the task force -- because the results were known before the task force even met for the first time.
Posted by: Ogre at
03:03 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Ogre why are you so against public education? Despite its unavoidable problems, public schools and state universities are a clear social benefit. Even from an economic point of view, public education must be considered a positive externality. That is it is good for the free market in the long term.
Posted by: Brian at December 14, 2005 06:36 PM (qe/Un)
2
Primarily because the current system of government education has absolutely nothing to do with educating anyone. The sole purpose of those in the administration of school systems is to protect themselves and obtain more money.
State Universities are even worse.
We now have a system that forces students to learn. Why? Because the school system gets more money the more students they have enrolled. It doesn't matter if they actually educate the students, they just have to be enrolled.
I know it's not a popular view right now, but it is true that school is NOT for everyone. What's good for the free market is to allow the free markets to compete and run schools and educate those who want to be educated!
Posted by: Ogre at December 14, 2005 07:03 PM (/k+l4)
3
If you honestly believe that neither students nor society as a whole gains from public education then we are in basic disagreement. I agree school is not for everyone but you must concede that generally people today are better off with an education. We force students to stay in school because they are not mature enough to make that decision. They can drop out at 16 if they so choose. When I was 10 years old and somebody asked me if i wanted to sit in school all day or go play basketball i would have no doubt chosen to go have fun. However, that would have been the absolute wrong choice and i am glad i wasnt in a position to make it. I went to public school for 12 years and spent 1 year at a state college and I know for sure that I am better off and when I graduate society will be better off as well. The willing and able to pay analogy is incorrect. Everybody wants to be educated on some level but not everybody can afford it. Why should only the rich be taught? Education is not in the same category as cars or boats or other luxuries that people buy based on their willingness to pay.
Posted by: Brian at December 14, 2005 08:54 PM (qe/Un)
4
Up here in New Jersey we have over 600 different school districts. Every town has one (sometimes two if the secondary schools are regional and the elementary are not). The cost of education funded by local property taxes has grown such that regionalization and the loss of local input is seriously being considered. Proponents envision the consolidation of services as a savings but forget the layers of beaurocracy that would insulate the local parent from the leadership of the schools.
Posted by: joated at December 14, 2005 11:15 PM (M7kiy)
5
Brian -- I never said education of the public was a bad thing -- but the current system of monopolistic government education masquerading as "public" education is total crap.
It has absolutely nothing to do with rich vs. poor. In Charlotte, the "poor" get upwards of $10,000 per student spent on "public" education. Those that are better off get LESS spent on them.
I reiterate -- the current system has quite literally NOTHING to do with educating students and zero interest in any sort of education of anyone. The current system in place is ONLY interested in cash money.
And Joated, I hope you stay away from consolidation. ANY sort of government consolidation is a very, very bad thing. It takes control away from the people and gives more and more control, power, and money to government -- which is always a bad thing.
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 12:51 AM (uSCkp)
6
Ogre, when is the last time you were in school? I was educated, my brothers were educated, my friends were educated. If public education is such a damn cash cow than why did i have 30 kids in my classes in high school and why is my dorm room falling apart around me. Who is pocketing all of this money? As far as rich v poor, you must agree that if all education was private than the lower class would have a very hard time affording school.
Posted by: Brian at December 15, 2005 01:16 AM (qe/Un)
7
The state of our public education system in Palm Beach County is faltering every day. It truly is scary. I always swore I would keep my kids in public schools, as I went to them, yet my kids are in private. I always swore my kids would go to public high school... yet last month, I was so appalled by things I'm seeing in our newspaper about our school district, that I am for the first time considering private high school as well.
It pisses me off.
And our school district is something like the 5th largest in the nation. It is so big, and unable to think outside the box, that when Wilma hit, the schools north of Southern Blvd (Iknow you know the area) were fine, but those south were seriously damaged, So... ALL the schools in PBC stayed CLOSED until those south of Southern could open. 2 weeks of education EVERYONE lost because our district is so big.
It's a sad state of affairs down here too.
Posted by: Bou at December 15, 2005 03:58 AM (iHxT3)
8
Where is the money, Brian? CMS is on a "search" for a new superintendent. His salary will be at LEAST $350,000.00. And that's not counting benefits, automatic retirement, cash accounts, company car, etc. The money is wasted by the administration.
In Charlotte, they also waste billions on buildings. Instead of making one blueprint and just building every school that way, they spend literally millions for every new school on architects to make the school unique. Doing so also makes the buildings massively expensive.
And no, if all education was privately-RUN, then the rich and poor alike could afford it. Tax credits would allow everyone the exact same opportunity.
For some reason the nationwide trend recently was to join all school districts in larger districts. Everywhere it's happened (Palm Beach, Charlotte) it's made a mess of the schools. I wonder why they think smaller classrooms are good (there's zero evidence it is), but smaller districts are not (with much evidence they are).
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 10:15 AM (uSCkp)
9
I don't get this 'smaller classroom' push either. It's a nice to have, but I went to school with 28 kids in a class.
My kids go to a small Catholic school that has between 26-30 kids in a class. I wish it were smaller as it is A LOT of work for the teachers in the lower grades (the difference between 24 1st graders and 28 is a lot), BUT that said the class is very organized and poor behavior cannot be tolerated. My kids are doing fine there, overall.
Posted by: Bou at December 15, 2005 12:44 PM (iHxT3)
10
The smaller classroom myth (sounds like a book title, maybe I should write that) is just a way to get more money. There's zero evidence that having a smaller class size increases learning, especially from 40 students to 30 students.
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 12:57 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 124 >>
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.3519 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3407 seconds, 163 records returned.
Page size 103 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.