Ogre's Politics & Views
August 05, 2005
Puppy Launch
Everyone who's been around a bit in the Blogosphere knows the definition of "instalanch." Now, however, after Evil Glennn's takeover at NASA, we can now expect numerous puppylaunches:
Posted by: Ogre at
08:55 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Posted by: vw bug at August 06, 2005 09:39 AM (+hmVQ)
2
Wow! Is that Evil Glenn's version of Sambuca? I bet that would pack a real punch.
Posted by: Sally at August 06, 2005 01:49 PM (Q5UbG)
3
It sure is creating a lot of smoke...
Posted by: Ogre at August 06, 2005 02:37 PM (L0IGK)
4
ROTFL!
I think it's the look on the dog's face :-)
Posted by: Harvey at August 07, 2005 02:08 AM (ubhj8)
5
It's amazing what you can find when you search the warehouses of Evil Glennn.
Posted by: Ogre at August 07, 2005 09:07 AM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
e-Postal Shooting Match
Well, I've finally gone and done my shooting for the e-Postal Handgun Match #1. The official results? I stink. Next time I'm using a shotgun.
The first round I fired one of my favorites, and a gun I'm normally really good with - a
Makarov 9mm (9x1

. It's small and thin, so I usually use it as my primary carry gun - I can take it pretty much anywhere. My results (20 shots at 10 yards):
(Click to Enlarge)
Yikes. This was my SECOND try. I knew others said it would be hard, but damn. I thought I'd get 10 for sure. My score? 5. The first time I only got 3 of the damn flies. Bleh. Well, at least all 20 shots are in the paper, I suppose.
Next up I tried my
.357 Magnum. Big cannon of a gun with massive recoil. Tons of fun to shoot, of course. I love the "deer stopper" ammo -- .357 magnum overstuffed with powder -- huge flames literally shoot out the sides of the gun about 2 feet on each side. I thought using a larger bullet might up my chances:

Nope. Same thing: 3 flies on the first round, 5 on the second. Again, all rounds in the paper, so if you're charging me, I think I'm still going to hit you, but man this was hard. Fun! But hard!
So anyway, I'm submitting my massive scores to the
match master for official scoring. I can see a last place coming up soon...but if you haven't tried this, go read the rules and give it a shot!
Posted by: Ogre at
04:01 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Very good shooting, especially with the Makarov. There's a lot of scores lower than five.
Keep that Makarov polished up for the next match. I'm not giving out any details yet, but the Makarov is going to be at home in the next one......
Thanks for the entries!!
Posted by: Mr. Completely at August 06, 2005 01:59 AM (Da4Uz)
2
Thanks! When I looked at the target and read about "low scores," I thought that meant at least 8 or 10. I almost played another round to see if I could get all 20 shots in the paper and actually miss every fly...
Posted by: Ogre at August 06, 2005 08:53 AM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Hot Cat
Well, it's Friday afternoon and time for some cat blogging!
It's hot here. So hot that I thought the cat had just passed out while I was walking past. He seemed rather annoyed at the flash:
Posted by: Ogre at
12:01 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I know when Frisky is sick of the camera when he keeps his eyes closed no matter what.
Posted by: Laurence Simon at August 15, 2005 09:52 AM (uBCxH)
2
No, no, he's just RESTING, you see....

Posted by: Ogre at August 15, 2005 10:48 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
John Roberts is Not Qualified
I have mentioned before that the role of the Senate in confirming Supreme Court nominees is to simply determine if they are qualified to be judges. The Democrats continue to want to apply litmus tests to judges, specifically, any judge who does not support Roe v. Wade 100% is absolutely NOT qualified.
However, the actual qualifications for a judge are much simpler than even that. To be qualified, a judge must be capable of upholding the Constitution and must understand that the role of a Supreme Court Judge is to simply interpret the Constitution -- nothing more. Judge John Roberts has proven that he cannot do this.
He has said in response to some cases that the Supreme Court's decisions are "settled" and "have become law." This means that he will never, ever vote to overturn any previous supreme court decision -- he thinks that the Supreme Court MAKES laws. He is wrong.
He also ruled that the federal judiciary can go into a state and overturn laws that do not conflict with the Constitution in any way, shape, or form. If the people of a state make laws that he does not agree with, he believes it is within his power as a federal judge to force the people of the state to change their own laws. He is wrong.
Ann Coulter
says he's another Souter (ultra-left wing judge hostile to freedom and the Constitution), and I think she's right. He is not qualified to be on the United States Supreme Court and President George W. Bush should withdraw his name and present someone who will do the job properly.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:36 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I am not sure I agree entirely. He is not a strict constitutionalist, true. But we just can't know how he will rule. He doesn't even know until faced with the situation.
He may drop out anyway, what with the times digging into the adoptions of his children.
Posted by: Oddybobo at August 05, 2005 11:16 AM (6Gm0j)
2
I'm saying that he has ALREADY ruled this way. He has already said these things. He believes the role of the Supreme Court is to MAKE laws. That is just wrong. He has ALREADY ruled that amendments to state constitutions, passed by the people of that state, can be rather simply overturned by a federal judge who doesn't like them. That is WRONG.
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 11:25 AM (/k+l4)
3
Oh I agree that he has been wrong in his rulings on state's rights. You are correct in pointing out how he has already ruled. But too, he is correct that the rulings by the Supreme Court have become law. That is different than saying the Supreme Court makes laws (if only semantics).
The Supreme Court, all the courts, make law. Each time they hand down a ruling it becomes precedential to lower courts, or in lay terms - the law. Right or wrong, that is what it is.
Posted by: oddybobo at August 05, 2005 12:12 PM (6Gm0j)
4
Only a lawyer would use that reasoning
If it's wrong, I'm going to say it's wrong, and it will always be wrong, no matter how many people want to say that's the way it is. The Supreme Court DOES NOT make laws. That's what the legislature does. The judges interpret laws and DO NOT make them. I know you know the difference I'm talking about here, but I don't think Robert's does -- that's what bothers me the most.
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 12:59 PM (/k+l4)
5
Did you expect me to use any other reasoning? I can't help it, it's the evil lawyer in me
Don't get me wrong, I wanted a strict constitutionalist there. Me to be exact.

Posted by: Oddybobo at August 05, 2005 01:12 PM (6Gm0j)
6
And I voted for you, too! Twice.
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 02:07 PM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Congress to Investigate ACLU?
Let's hope so.
According to
WorldNet Daily, a group called
Christians for America is calling for Congress to investigate the ACLU's abuse of the American legal system and their widespread use of frivolous lawsuits after the ACLU
sued the state over subway searches.
Good for them.
Look, the random subway searches are crap. They're pretty much worthless. They'd be a whole lot better if they did risk profiling. But they're not unconstitutional. And the ACLU doesn't care. The ACLU supports terrorists because they ARE terrorists.
The ACLU uses threats to get their way, and their way is to support anything anti-American. Yes, Congress, investigate. Use
RICO against them, too.
Posted by: Ogre at
07:36 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Thanks for spreading the news on this.
Posted by: Jay at August 05, 2005 07:57 AM (2FcUc)
2
somebody ought to investigate them. They waste taxpayer money and court time with their suits. It is about time!
Posted by: Oddybobo at August 05, 2005 08:25 AM (6Gm0j)
3
I posted it before I saw your post on it, Jay!
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 08:54 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Sales Tax Holiday
Today begins the annual "Sales Tax Holiday" in North Carolina. Well, it's not really a holiday. And you can only save a little money, but hey, a penny saved is a penny earned, right?
From August 5th to August 7th, consumers pay no sales tax on allegedly school-related items. Clothing, shoes, some other items less than $100, and personal-use computers are all exempt from sales tax. While I'm not sure why we can't get that exemption expanded to 365 days a year, for some, even having the holiday is
a problem.
The people at
Wilson Daily complain that the holiday occurs too early before school starts. They whine that when the legislators moved the school start date to the end of August, they didn't move the tax holiday. This is yet another publication that complains whenever government doesn't get more or spend more. Me, I go clothes shopping this weekend every year -- and it's when I normally buy a new computer, too.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:42 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Can't they just shop earlier?
Posted by: oddybobo at August 05, 2005 09:21 AM (6Gm0j)
2
The biggest complaint: "Parents don't know what the students need for school yet."
I don't even know where to being with that statement. Apparently, in the government's eyes, parents are so stupid they cannot figure out what things a student needs for school. The more I see of people, the more I tend to agree with the government -- people really ARE idiots.
The flip side to the argument is that apparently in today's NC government schools, the schools are SO poor... (How poor are they?)
They're so poor that the schools cannot provide the students with anything, so each school year the teachers provide a list of things that the students need for the upcoming school year. No, I haven't seen one of those lists, but I'm going to try and get my hands on one. Anyone in NC have a sample?
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 10:00 AM (/k+l4)
3
I just got a call from someone whining that we wouldn't sell them a PDA phone tax free. Big time whining. Cell phones aren't covered. Told him to have the NC Dept of Rev call me to tell me that was legal.
Posted by: William Teach at August 05, 2005 12:25 PM (Pzlrt)
4
They change the rules every year! For example, in previous years, you could buy a computer monitor tax-free. This year it's only tax-free if it's purchased WITH a CPU. There's no rhyme or reason for it, you just try and interpret the law anew each year. Sigh.
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 01:00 PM (/k+l4)
5
One thing the People's Republic of Minnesota does right is they exempt clothing and unprepared food from state sales tax. I wish it was everything, but it's more than most states exempt.
That's one reason the Mall of America is so popular. People like that it's not just an attraction in and of itself, but they can buy clothing without paying sales tax.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at August 05, 2005 05:08 PM (K+h36)
6
I think PA does that as well. NH exempts everything. I really like that.
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 05:20 PM (L0IGK)
7
New Jersey exempts clothing and most food stuffs from taxation. I usually buy clothes when I visit the parents.
Posted by: William Teach at August 06, 2005 09:06 AM (Pzlrt)
8
I do the same when I head to NH every year for vacation. It's SUCH an odd feeling:
Me: Hey, this TV is on the shelf for $99.
At checkout I've got $100 cash and am digging around for another $10 and some change:
Cashier: That's $99, please.
Me: Sweeeeeet.
Posted by: Ogre at August 06, 2005 09:20 AM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 04, 2005
ACLU "civil" rights
So what "rights" does the ACLU (Association of Communist Lawyer Urics) actually support while claiming to support civil rights? I read this week that they support the right of people to force other people to slave for them and to provide them with the house they desire. They support individuals being forced at gunpoint to purchase things that other people desire.
In
this case, the ACLU wants taxpayers to pay for people who want "to live with friends in a small house or apartment and have my own room," despite that person being unable to purchase or rent the house or apartment on their own.
At issue is the state of IL who is providing healthcare, a place to live, food, clothing, and a myriad of other things for some people who are physically incapable of doing so themselves. Keep in mind, this is the state that is providing these things at NO cost to the patient. And the taxpayers of the state and the rest of the United States ARE PAYING FOR THESE THINGS.
But that's not good enough for the ACLU. The ACLU thinks that these people are entitled to whatever they want. If they want a house, YOU should buy them a house. And if YOU don't pay for that house, you go to jail (taxes).
I was always taught to not look a gift horse in the mouth. If you're getting something for free, you have ZERO right to complain. If you don't like the thing you're getting for FREE, get up off your lazy ass and get something else. Or, if you cannot get up and get something more, TOUGH. I'm sorry that people are physically disabled -- that doesn't grant them ANY right to my labor.
The ACLU is not based on freedom or civil rights. Instead they support communism. That's what this request is -- a redistribution of wealth from those who work to those who do not work. The ACLU reveals their intentions in this lawsuit when they specifically complain that IL is the 10th richest state, but "ranks near the bottom in it's efforts." In other words, in the mind of the ACLU, the more you have, the more that should be taken away from you to make everyone equal -- that IS the purpose of the ACLU, no matter what you might hear from their lying lawyers.
This has been a part of the
Stop the ACLU Blogburst.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:02 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And all this time I thought ACLU meant "Anti Christian Lawyer Association!
But at least they are consistent statists. I just wonder when they have taken everything there is from those who produce who will they turn on next?
Posted by: NOTR at August 04, 2005 07:06 PM (izx0t)
2
Great post Ogre. Rumor floating around that I need to research is ACLU NC fighting Bible in Court room...seems trying to get the Koran in just wasn't enough. I'll try to find out more.
Posted by: Jay at August 04, 2005 08:20 PM (BKqRl)
3
Bravo, let em' have it. I say boycott them..
Posted by: Virtualloop.com at August 05, 2005 12:09 AM (vR+eQ)
4
Once again, very informative. learned more than I thought, that I'd thought I knew. (*,,,*)(b.t.w...you might want to check your mail! (sent something time-sens!)
Posted by: Mensa B at August 05, 2005 05:03 AM (TOHVc)
5
NOTR -- then they will collapse, just like communism has everywhere else it's been tried. I'm afraid we may be alredy too late to stop that vicious cycle.
Jay, I know they're working on putting the holy book of lies (Koran) in courtrooms, but I haven't heard of them trying to get the Bible out. That's not going to go over too well in this state. Maybe they should try it so more people will see their real purpose.
And Virtualloop - boycott? It's going to take a lot more than that to stop these well-entrenched communists that live off the government teat.
Thanks, Mensa B!
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 07:03 AM (/k+l4)
6
Hey now, quit rubbing in I live in the United Illinois Socialist Republic.
Posted by: Contagion at August 05, 2005 09:03 AM (Q5WxB)
7
I'm not so sure The Socialist Republic of Illinois is so United...
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 09:57 AM (/k+l4)
8
Gotta start somewhere Ogre..
Posted by: Virtual loop at September 05, 2005 02:18 PM (vR+eQ)
9
How about ending somewhere?
Posted by: Ogre at September 05, 2005 03:24 PM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Harvey Blows
In case you weren't watching, current news outlets are reporting that Harvey is getting ready to blow the entire island of Bermuda.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:20 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
So the reason he went to Bermuda wasn't to avoid blowing FrankJ.
Posted by: Dr. Phat Tony at August 04, 2005 03:45 PM (fk/lm)
2
Exactly right. He didn't go there to AVOID blowing Frank.
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 03:57 PM (/k+l4)
3
Rumors of my homosexuality are greatly...
... say... is that Tom Cruise?
Posted by: Harvey at August 04, 2005 04:22 PM (ubhj8)
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 04:24 PM (/k+l4)
5
ROFL! VW sent me an email telling me she thought Harvey might be "turning" ;-)
Posted by: Sally at August 04, 2005 04:38 PM (Q5UbG)
6
Seems like he's "turned" all the way around now, doesn't it?
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 04:41 PM (/k+l4)
7
Watch him do a Jeanne and come back and blow Florida. That's going to suck. Heh.
Posted by: Bou at August 04, 2005 06:05 PM (5JHEt)
8
and he's turning and turning and turning . . .
Posted by: Oddybobo at August 04, 2005 06:05 PM (6Gm0j)
9
So, Bou, you think Harvey doesn't blow, but he does suck?
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 06:57 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Detectives Needed
I was speaking with a friend of mine yesterday afternoon, and he had a good idea -- we need some detectives. He suggested we should start the investigation, and he's quite sure that Bud Selig, President George W. Bush, and the U.S. Congress would be very happy (and likely to pay a lot) for us to solve this mystery.
We have GOT to find out who it is that's running around the country injecting people with steroids! I think if we track
Rafael Palmeiro's steps, we can find out where he's been. Is he being injected in public, when someone brushes up against him in a crowd? Perhaps someone is sneaking into his house at night and shooting him up while he sleeps.
We now have
Jason Giambi who has said he didn't take them, but then told a federal grand jury he did take them. Jason says what's happened to Palmeiro is "an unfortunate thing." Add
Ryan Franklin, the 8th violator of Major League Baseball's steroid policy, and now we're sure there's a conspiracy.
Someone, or some group, possibly connected to the medical field, with access to steroids, is obviously going around, in secret, and injecting these baseball players with steroids. Why? That is the big unknown. We're not sure yet if it's a conspiracy to bring down MLB, or if it's targeted at certain players. Advance copies of NYTimes articles seem to indicate that they blame Bush.
Posted by: Ogre at
09:02 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I too fear for the future of MLB. Whoever is targeting these poor souls is a monster... no, a demon!
Have any of them seen a light in the sky? Just working on a theory...

Posted by: That 1 Guy at August 05, 2005 01:24 AM (Yi65j)
2
We don't know anything about who these monsters are. Investigations have commenced. We've got someone following Rafi 24/7...
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 07:13 AM (/k+l4)
3
I for one think it's Barry Bonds going around injecting others so he doesn't look as bad.
Either that or its the flies in my office.
Posted by: Machelle at August 05, 2005 01:33 PM (ZAyoW)
4
Barry Bonds is doing what to the FILES in your office?

Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 02:08 PM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NC Alcohol Content in Beer
The NC Senate may have (completely accidentally) done something right. Believe me when I say that these events are few and far between -- and the horrible, irresponsible, reckless, idiotic, freedom-hating, bureaucratic, draconic things they do FAR outweigh the few occasional things they do right. But heck, when they do something right, I want to mention it.
In
this case, they have actually passed a proposed law that would at least increase the "cap" on alcohol content on beer in North Carolina. It's still not great, as they should just completely remove the damn "cap," but an increase to 15% from the current 6% is at least a slight improvement.
Of course, there's still those that are opposed to it, and it has to pass one more reading in the Senate (and get past the govn'r) before it will be law. Senator John Kerr (D) thinks that this measure will "expose young people to alcohol that would make them legally drunk with just a small amount." I guess Sen. Kerr would rather you drink a lot to get drunk. Hey Senator, change that moronic law that makes you "legally drunk" after one sip!
Sen Don East (D) thinks it will cause more accidents. He doesn't say how. I'm thinking it will cause more traffic jams at the stores as people enjoy a slight bit of expanded freedom and choice in their beers. In addition, there will quite likely be more breweries that will open up and employ people. Heck, I'm seriously considering a career move there.
To show you how long it's taken and how horrible the current law is, take a peek at
Pop The Cap -- a website that's been running for almost 3 years trying to get the 70-year old 5% law removed. Oh and the reason for that 5% law 70 years ago? Because businesses complained that there were afraid their employees might come in drunk Monday.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:01 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Wow! I've never even heard of a 15% beer! All I've ever seen is the 5 and 6%. Interesting. I don't see why beer should have a limit of alcohol content when there are liquors out there. I mean, drink a rum and coke instead, whats the difference? I mean besides the obvious taste difference...point is you could drink something else that does have higher alchohol content, why not let it be beer?
Posted by: Jay at August 04, 2005 06:49 AM (BKqRl)
2
The difference, at least in North Carolina, is that ALL liquor is 100% regulated and run by the state -- NO ONE can sell liquor except the state.
If this law passes, individuals will be able to sell the increased alcohol content beer. The state sees this as cutting into their racket (of course it really isn't).
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 07:03 AM (/k+l4)
3
Pa is much the same. We have independent beer distributors, but the state runs the liquor racket. Lifting the cap sounds good to me!
mmmm. beer!
Posted by: Oddybobo at August 04, 2005 08:34 AM (6Gm0j)
4
The highest alcohol content I've seen in a beer, that I can remember, is 14.1%. The ban is stupid, and the fact the state has that much control over alcohol is stupid.
Remember, I've argued the constitutional right to get drunk!

Posted by: Contagion at August 04, 2005 08:45 AM (Q5WxB)
5
I only remember one thing about PA's really, really screwy beer laws.
I was there one night on business. I wanted to have a beer or two in the hotel with my pizza. However, I was not permitted, by law, to buy a six-pack of beer from the beer store. They were forced to only sell entire cases.
I'm sure most of you can imagine what I did -- I promptly bought an entire case of beer and packed what remained to take home with me. What a really, really foolish law.
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 08:57 AM (/k+l4)
6
And I do remember, Contagion, and I couldn't find any legal holes in your argument! I thought we learned via prohibition that the state needs to get completely out of all businesses associated with alcohol. Unfortunately, there's way too much money in it for them to get out of the business, especially in places like NC where they literally run the entire hard liquor business.
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 08:58 AM (/k+l4)
7
I've heard of cities getting their own monopoly on the sale of alcohol, but I didn't know there are entire states that do that!
I'll add that to the 73,213,454,423 reasons I already have NOT to ever move to NC.
Posted by: Echo Zoe at August 04, 2005 09:56 AM (K+h36)
8
I know both North Carolina and New Hampshire both have total monopolies. I don't know how many other states do.
I remember New York doesn't because we used to play the alphabet game while driving around New York, and you always looked for the liquor store signs so you could get "Q,R,S, and T" all at the same time.
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 10:10 AM (/k+l4)
9
I am glad to see that the State of North Carolina is moving toward bills like this instead of increasing taxes.
One step that I would take in South Carolina, if given the oppurtunity, is get rid of the annoying airplane bottle liquer law (no "free pour" is ridiculous).
If you haven't had the luxury to have a drink in South Carolina: you have to pay by the mini-bottle (it's annoying to say the least).
Also, Ogre, Georgia passed this same Bill on beer last year. Great post.
Posted by: Michael R. Churchill at August 05, 2005 08:49 AM (6SS8d)
10
When you look at the reasons behind these laws, they are really silly. I mean, they actually passed this law because businesses thought their employees would come in drunk to work on Monday too much! Talk about an outdated law!
It's like the silly law that requires you to bring your own bottle to some places. What's the point in that?
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 08:56 AM (/k+l4)
11
Washington state also has the state own and run all the liquor stores.
As for the Alcohol % cap, it's not only stupid, but by keeping at a 5% or 6% you're missing out on some really good imports.
I've seen a "beer" that was 18%, but in actuality it was barley wine.
Posted by: Graumagus at August 05, 2005 05:10 PM (G1IXe)
12
Imports AND brand-spanking new microbrews. SBA, can I have a loan, please?
Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 05:21 PM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 03, 2005
The UNternet
So earlier tonight I tried to get on the internet. I turned on my computer and tried to connect. My web browser, instead of being my normal home page (this blog), was a large black space with a green flashing line in the upper left corner. I wondered what in the world it could be. Then there was a clicking noise and I saw the following appear on the screen:
WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME?
I typed the only logical answer, "YES." The screen then typed out:
HOW ABOUT GLOBALTHERMONUCLEAR WAR?
I thought about it moment and then typed, "NO, THANK YOU."
The computer responded:
HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHECKERS?
Since the computer seemed to be responding to me, I tried something a little more advanced and typed:
NO. TAKE ME TO HTTP://WWW.OGRESVIEW.MU.NU
It was then I noticed all the keys appeared in capital letters. I checked the caps lock and noticed it was NOT on. The computer continued:
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT COMMAND. PLEASE ENTER A VALID INSTRUCTION.
The flashing green cursor flashed at me. I tried again:
OPEN A WEB BROWSER
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT COMMAND. PLEASE ENTER A VALID INSTRUCTION.
IEXPLORE.EXE
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT COMMAND. PLEASE ENTER A VALID INSTRUCTION.
I was starting to get annoyed. I went another route:
HELP.
WHAT DO YOU WANT HELP WITH?
THE INTERNET.
PLEASE TYPE YOUR COUNTRY NAME.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
I'M SORRY, THE COUNTRY YOU ENTERED, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IS NOT RECOGNIZED. PLEASE TRY AGAIN.
AMERICA.
SORRY, CURRENTLY AMERICA DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET TO MAKE UP FOR THEIR WARMONGERING AND WHILE THEY ARE PENALIZED FOR USING THE INTERNET TOO MUCH. INSTEAD, KENYA HAS BEEN GIVEN 1 CREDIT FOR YOUR ATTEMPT TO USE THE INTERNET. ONLY AFTER KENYA HAS RECEIVED 1,000,000,000 CREDITS WILL SERVICE BE RESTORED TO AMERICA.
LOGOFF.
Naturally, I did what any internet user would do -- I called my ISP. The phone call went something like this:
ISP: Hello, Stupid Phone Services, How are you being doing today? How may I be directing your call?
ME: I'm having some trouble connecting to the internet...
ISP: (interrupting) You mean the unternet?
ME: No, the internet.
ISP: I'm sorry, we are no longer permitted to allow connections to the internet, via governmental order. All our internet requests are now directed to the UNternet.
ME: Unternet? What's that?
ISP: Well, it's sort of like the internet...except they don't allow Americans to be using it.
ME: What?!?
ISP: I am being saying, it is being the internet, but no Americans are allowed.
ME: So where's the internet?
ISP: I do not know, I am in India.
ME: -----
ISP: Is there anything else that I can be doing for you today?
ME: How do I get access to the Unternet, then?
ISP: You must move from America.
ME: Thank you, come again.
* click *
Then I simply started up my OWN damn Linux machine and connected to the shadow internet that's in place for just such emergencies. So, how was your day?
(This has been an
Alliance Precision Guided Humor Assignment.)
Posted by: Ogre at
09:06 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Connecting to the UNternets these days can be a real pain in the butt. Especially if you are on wireless in a hotel, on the road, and your tech support's first language is "terrorist". They can be OH, so "uncooperative" to say the least ;-)
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at August 03, 2005 09:59 PM (Er9BL)
2
I bet the UNternet really would be like that, except more expensive, especially to Americans.
Posted by: Fitch at August 03, 2005 10:04 PM (Hn838)
3
I've heard terrorists get a discount when using the unternet...
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 05:15 AM (L0IGK)
4
Greatings Professor Ogre.
How about a nice game of Chess?
I love War Games.
Posted by: Contagion at August 04, 2005 08:49 AM (Q5WxB)
5
Contagion, I think your age is showing (since you actually recognized that archaic reference).
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 08:59 AM (/k+l4)
6
IEXPLORE.EXE?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Echo Zoe at August 04, 2005 09:53 AM (K+h36)
7
Ah, another good catch!

Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 09:56 AM (/k+l4)
8
I don't think War Games is that old a reference, right? I just know about it cause I used to think Matthew Broderick was cute. (Save Ferris!)

Posted by: Jody at August 04, 2005 01:52 PM (IEpte)
9
I'm pretty sure that's from the 80s...but that's not old now, is it?
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 02:44 PM (/k+l4)
10
Kenya!?!? What, both of their computers can connect now? Go figure.
I know, I know. Kenya is a highly developed, technologically capable....blah...blah...blah. It was funny.
Posted by: maybeso at August 04, 2005 06:09 PM (f088i)
11
And, yes, I loved the War games reference. So I am an old fart who can remember way back to the Eighties.
Posted by: maybeso at August 04, 2005 06:10 PM (f088i)
12
But it's all relative right? 80's isn't old...plus I was really really young in the 80's... Sooo I guess it depends, if you remember watching the movie as an adult, you might be a bit on the higher side of old...but if you're like me and watched it while a toddler (or something like that), you're not old at all

Posted by: jody at August 04, 2005 11:21 PM (OSJdh)
13
Kenya? Hey, it's not Norway!
Right, Jody, 80's not old...SURE it's not. You just keep repeating that...

Posted by: Ogre at August 05, 2005 06:59 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
More Carnivals
In case you haven't had enough of the carnivals for this week, here's two more that I like that you should go have a read.
First up is the
Carnival of Liberty #5 over at
Owlish Mutterings. A good compilation of articles outlining what freedom REALLY is and where it's going.
Next is the
Carnival of the Clueless, a collection of articles that really point out total absurdity and people who really, really, really don't know what planet they're on. And yes, most of them are politicians.
Oh, and in case you forgot, head on over and read
Humor for Dreaded Wednesday.
Posted by: Ogre at
03:36 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
RFID Implant: Want one?
This week's Christian View Symposium asks about this news story about medical RFID chips.
Each week over at
Cross Blogging, you can find a new question in the Christian Views Symposium category. Once again, you do not have to be a professing Christian or anything else to answer the question! The questions are often thought-provoking and interesting -- feel free to join in each week with your own answers on your own blog or in the comments at Cross Blogging.
The questions, based on the news article linked above:
Would you want this chip implanted in you?
Do the benefits outweigh the privacy concerns?
Posted by: Ogre at
12:00 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm with you. As long as this chip is kept out of the Government's hands and is voluntary, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at August 03, 2005 01:58 PM (Er9BL)
2
It's amazing how fast and how throughly government can really screw things up...
Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 04:31 PM (L0IGK)
3
They are getting better and better at it every day!
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at August 03, 2005 05:17 PM (Er9BL)
4
And yet we, the people, refuse to stop them.
Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 05:25 PM (L0IGK)
5
We'd rather whine about, and/or defend, Karl Rove than deal with the REAL issues. Sad, that.
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at August 03, 2005 10:00 PM (Er9BL)
6
Issues? There's no issues.
I went to a town meeting with my Congressman the other night. When illegal immigration came up, everyone in the room wanted to know what he was going to do. He said that the solution is difficult because everyone can't agree on the right solution.
So instead of doing anything, they're doing nothing. Great.
Posted by: Ogre at August 04, 2005 05:17 AM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Blogger Assassinated
Steven Vincent of In The Red Zone blog was just assassinated in Iraq.
Mr. Vincent had reported in the corruption of the Iraqi police force, and now he's paid the ultimate price for exposing the truth. He was killed by radical Shiite mulsim terrorists. Kat has
more details. How's that "religion of peace" working out for you folks who STILL believe that lie?
Posted by: Ogre at
10:00 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
This is so very, very, terrible. My heartfelt sympathy and comfort goes to the family, and all those who knew this silenced patriot.
Posted by: mensa B at August 03, 2005 01:13 PM (TOHVc)
Posted by: birdwoman at August 03, 2005 02:09 PM (vR7Sl)
3
Very sad, indeed. What a world we live in, huh?
Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 04:31 PM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Higher NC Taxes?
My regular readers already know about the huge tax increases already coming from Raleigh. They're still working out the details, but we are clearly going to see massive tax increases on everything from 25-cent candy to cable television to movies to cigarettes. At the same time, they're forcing other taxes that will show up likely next year.
The current budget proposal removes $15 million of spending from the state level for Medicaid, but still requires the counties to pay that money. In other words, the state is telling the county that they MUST spend this $15 million on Medicaid, but the state is not giving them the money to spend. Therefore the counties are going to have to raise their own taxes to meet the state's requirements.
And to let you know how confused the Democrats in Raleigh are, they actually think they're giving the counties a GIFT in doing this! Senator David Hoyle (D):
We are good to local governments. We give them sales tax. We give them franchise tax. They need to thank us instead of condemn us.
I can't believe he can say that with a straight face. I think
Operation Cleansweep in PA has the right idea:
Operation Clean Sweep is aimed at one simple goal: cleaning house in the Pennsylvania General Assembly by defeating every single incumbent officeholder up for re-election in 2006.
The North Carolina Legislature clearly needs the same thing.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:01 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Have you seen the little piggies in their starch white shirts? Have you seen the little piggies playing in the dirt? Always have clean shirts to play around in.
What they needs a damn good whacking!
Posted by: Jay at August 03, 2005 06:53 AM (BKqRl)
2
If Cleansweep works in PA, I'm going to HAVE to get that going in NC.
Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 07:20 AM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
August 02, 2005
Marijuana Overdose?
Weird stuff. One of these days I'm going to have to get a job at Google, just to see how their search engines work from the inside. I somehow think there must be some serious random number generators at work in there.
It seems I'm now the number ONE hit when you search for "ODing on marijuana."
I'm really not sure how I can add to that.
Posted by: Ogre at
09:40 PM
| Comments (18)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Dude! Sweet! Thats gotta be some party at your house!
Posted by: Jay at August 03, 2005 12:41 AM (BKqRl)
2
Do you get the feeling that your 15 minutes of fame would be somewhat different?
Posted by: Tomslick at August 03, 2005 05:21 AM (xNjHI)
3
Wait, this is my 15 minutes? Damn. Can I have a recount?
Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 05:47 AM (L0IGK)
4
One hit overdose? Must be some killer, uh, stuff. Now that you're famous, just don't bogart. :-)
Posted by: MarkT at August 03, 2005 06:05 AM (l/pMD)
Posted by: vw bug at August 03, 2005 06:37 AM (dkZJv)
6
Dude, I'm not bogarting, it's my turn!
Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 06:55 AM (/k+l4)
7
*Psssst!* wanna buy some . . . "5-0! 5-0!"
Posted by: Oddybobo at August 03, 2005 09:30 AM (6Gm0j)
8
"Five-oh?" I guess I'm really off in my terminology these days. Is that 5 Js for nothing?

Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 10:02 AM (/k+l4)
9
Ha Ha Ha!!!! You must have gotten Google Bombed!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb
Posted by: Echo Zoe at August 03, 2005 12:06 PM (K+h36)
10
HAHAHA! wow, I see high times way below you.(.* o *.)
Posted by: mensa B at August 03, 2005 01:26 PM (TOHVc)
11
Below me? But, but... oh, never mind!

Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 01:41 PM (/k+l4)
12
Do ogres get the munchies a lot, too?
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at August 03, 2005 02:10 PM (vR7Sl)
13
mMMMMmmm...munchies...

Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 04:32 PM (L0IGK)
14
*brings large bag of Oreos to share*
Pass it this way, dude...
Posted by: Harvey at August 03, 2005 05:01 PM (ubhj8)
15
Oreos...dude, sweeeeeet!
Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 05:08 PM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Democrat Good Idea
It's not often that I can post a headline like that. As far as I've seen, this is the first elected politician that has finally said, "Enough!" Dov Hikind, from Brooklyn, finally agrees that it doesn't make any sense to search 95-year old grandmothers for bombs!
Mr. Hikind has proposed a law
to allow profiling! Good job! He actually said what everyone knows, but no one will publicly say:
There is a terrorist profile for a potential suicide bomber, and it's not the 75-year-old grandmother.
Every case of recent terrorism has been committed by individuals [from a] Middle Eastern country.
This is a Democrat that I might actually be able to vote for! Not surprisingly, four other Democrats who are challenging him for his seat all oppose searching potential criminals and instead want to continue searching great-grandma. In other non-earth shattering news, the NY communist party, aka ACLU, also supports allowing terrorists free rein while searching grandma.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:01 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
CAFTA - Homespun Symposium
This week is the 30th question from the Homespun Bloggers! This week they're asking about the CAFTA:
Today, President Bush is expected to sign the Central American Free Trade Agreement. How do you feel about it and why?
Today on the Rush Limbaugh Show, Dr. Walter Williams entertained a number of callers that were dead set against it...how about you?
The post was posted last Friday, so that's where the "today" references come from.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:05 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I am still stuck in a conundrum about CAFTA, because it will ultimately decimate the industry that thrives within the community of District 25, but it would tremendously help in Charleston, SC (on the opposite side of the state). I trust that you are dead on that we should lower taxes to spark trade. I am leaning towards allowing each state to make the decision to implement CAFTA. I can't say I would vote for this legislation in South Carolina, especially following the light that you turned on for me Ogre. Thanks.
Posted by: Michael R. Churchill at August 03, 2005 05:26 AM (eqaaP)
2
I was talking to my Congressman last night, and he brought up another good point about this one -- it opens the massive US economy to a market about the size of Greenwich, CT. How is that really going to help us?
Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 05:48 AM (L0IGK)
3
Ron Paul is always an excellent source of intelligent commentary, especially when it comes to the giving away of U.S. sovereignty to unelected extra-national bodies. That's the biggest thing to fear from CAFTA, btw - not anything about free vs. non-free trade or industry subsidies or anything else, but that CAFTA gives the authority to regulate U.S. businesses to extra-national bodies like the UN and the WTO. Of course I can't find the article I read before the vote that quoted the relevant sections of CAFTA that explicitly gave away that authority, but I'll keep an eye out for it and post back if I find it.
Posted by: JT at August 03, 2005 05:03 PM (iXWYc)
4
Excellent point, JT, and that's a good enough reason for me to oppose it.
Posted by: Ogre at August 03, 2005 05:10 PM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Health Care Choice Act
Folks, the Health Care industry needs help. We need to find a way to lower health care costs. As usual, the primary reason health care is so expensive is government. Government regulation forces insurers to cover things that people do not want or need, and therefore everyone pays more. For example, depending upon which state you live in, you might be forced to get insurance coverage for AIDS, mental health, and aromatherapy, even if you don't want it. That's wrong.
HR 2355 can change all that! This bill, which is strong opposed by special interests in the health care industry (who only want your money), would simply allow you to choose any health care you wanted, instead of what your state required. It absolutely doesn't interfere with state's rights, because it actually has to do with interstate commerce.
This bill would allow you to buy insurance coverage from an insurer in any state. Currently you can only buy insurance from companies that your state approves -- and your state may have literally hundreds of mandates, or requirements, that insurers must meet to sell insurance in your state.
For example, I don't want full health care coverage. I don't want every possible coverage for anything that could ever happen to me. Instead, I just want catastrophic coverage -- if I'm in a serious accident and hospitalized, I want that covered, but that's all. I don't want AIDS, aromatherapy, alcoholism, mental health, Viagra, and smoking cessation coverage -- but I cannot do that because the state will not let me. That's wrong.
Contact your legislators on this one. The bill has 68 cosponsors and it recently passed out of committee, but on a party-line vote. The special interests are really opposed to this one because it WILL make things cheaper for everyone and WILL take money out of their pockets -- please get out there and support this bill, we all need it.
Update: The above link isn't working. To see the bill text, go to
Thomas.loc.gov and enter HR2355 in the search box -- it will take you to the bill.
Posted by: Ogre at
09:01 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Your bill link is no longer valid.
I would be interested in reading that bill.
Posted by: Machelle at August 02, 2005 01:05 PM (ZAyoW)
Posted by: Ogre at August 02, 2005 01:25 PM (/k+l4)
3
I'm writing a paper on this policy but I'm still on the fence about whether or not I support it... it would be great to have less government involved but don't you think it may also encourage a "race to the bottom" for states to offer minimal coverage at the cheapest price??
Posted by: Yessi at November 01, 2005 08:11 PM (QcY+l)
4
Not at all!
If government gets out of the way, do you think that no insurance company will cover anything? If states offer minimal coverage for a low price, why is that a bad thing? I'd LOVE it! I cannot afford any insurance now because the companies are forced to cover crap *I* do not want. If they only provide me with insurance for things I want, that will be minimal coverage.
For example -- I want catostrophic insurance. In other words, I don't want anything covered except me going to the hospital as an inpatient for a serious injury, accident, or illness. I am at a pretty low risk for that category.
However, I cannot buy that insurance. Instead, I am FORCED to cover myself for AIDS, massage therapy, alcoholism, narcotics treatment, depression, and on and on and on! I don't want those coverages, why should I have to pay for them?
Will insurance companies perhaps start to not cover some things (like massage therapy)? Yes -- and that's the point. If there's NO market for something, why is the government forcing insurers to cover it? To FORCE me to bear the cost for treatments that are not financially feasible.
Posted by: Ogre at November 01, 2005 08:50 PM (7PCNv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Holy Quran and Lies
Some people either just won't get it, or they refuse to get it. The ACLU is suing the state of North Carolina to get the Bible removed from the courtroom. They are doing it in the name of the religion of terrorists, Islam. And they've got their supporters, like The Wilmington Star.
The editors at the Wilmington Star actually believe that if they force every courtroom in the state to have a Quaran in it that terrorists will tell the truth in court, as long as they're allowed to swear on their own book. The editors at the Wilmington Star either don't like reality, like most on the left, or they absolutely refuse to see it.
Islamic terrorists will never tell the truth. They do not believe our form of government. They only want us dead. The editors also refuse to admit that Islam includes "Al-Takeyya":
The Islamic principle of lying for the sake of Allah. Falsehoods told to prevent denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned by the Qur'an, including lying under penalty of perjury in testimony before the United States Congress, lying or making distorted statements to the media such as claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, and deceiving fellow Muslims when the one lying has deemed them to be apostates.*
Wilmington Star Editors: ISLAMIC TERRORISTS DON'T CARE! They are directed to lie to you, and they are supported by CAIR and the ACLU. Putting the Quaran in a courtroom will only hurt this country. It's wrong, and you are wrong.
* From The Islam Commentaries, H/T to Cao's Blog.
Posted by: Ogre at
04:52 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Al-Takeyya huh? Awesome post Ogre.
Posted by: Jay at August 02, 2005 08:05 AM (2FcUc)
2
Don't forget that word -- you won't find it in the FMSM (Formerly Mainstream Media) -- but you'll find it in every mosque on the planet.
Posted by: Ogre at August 02, 2005 08:57 AM (/k+l4)
3
Jim Rohn's management series talks about one of the things that folks have to understand if they are to move forward; one of them is his statement, "liars are going to lie", and then he goes on to explain, "don't ask why, I wouldn't sign up for that course if I were you."
Posted by: TF Stern at August 02, 2005 11:32 AM (dz3wA)
4
I just wish more people could understand that terrorists ARE going to be dishonest, no matter what!
Posted by: Ogre at August 02, 2005 01:23 PM (/k+l4)
5
Right on! Their goal to conquer the world for Allah supercedes any morals they might claim to have.
Posted by: Jeff at August 02, 2005 02:02 PM (8Wes/)
Posted by: Ogre at August 02, 2005 04:06 PM (L0IGK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 154 >>
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.2351 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2225 seconds, 139 records returned.
Page size 83 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.