Ogre's Politics & Views
July 06, 2005
NC Budget
The North Carolina General Assembly continues to meet behind closed doors, without any public input, nor any public scrutiny, to complete their budget. Of course since the fiscal year ran out, the two bodies were quick to implement a couple tax increases in their continuing resolution to "keep the government running."
But they'll be sure to have no problems here. After all, each month there is an estimated $100 million more than projected, so they are sure to have enough money, right? Well sure, after they raise literally hundreds of taxes and fees. You see, we cannot possibly live without spending $200,000 on the Kid's Voting program. It's for the children, so we MUST do it.
Oh, and even though the next governor won't be sworn in until 2009, in the 2005 budget there's $325,000 for the governor's inauguration. Nope, no way we can live without that spending. This budget is cut to the bone.
And you've heard of the CIAA, right? No? Well you will. It's a PRIVATE college association that apparently cannot promote itself, so the government is giving them half a million dollars for promotions. Yes, so the private organization can promote itself. No wiggle room in this budget at all.
Just a reminder -- if you're voting Democrat in North Carolina, this is what you get. If you're completely happy with 10-20% increases in taxes, fees, and other government incomes, keep voting Democrat, and they will keep spending your money. The NC Democrats are NOT the party of the people -- they are the party of the special interest.
Posted by: Ogre at
06:08 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The Kid's Voting Program? So they can vote on which color to paint the class? Last I checked, they can't vote, so why have a program? If its to teach them about government, bad again, that is what we have social studies in school and history in school for . . . oh wait, I forgot, kids don't actually learn in public school. No, the only thing they get out of school is "good self esteem" . . .
Posted by: Oddybobo at July 06, 2005 08:42 AM (6Gm0j)
2
Actually, the massive increase in spending is so that the kid's ballots can have full color photographs of the politicians on them. No, I'm not kidding...
Posted by: Ogre at July 06, 2005 09:59 AM (/k+l4)
3
I wanted to come up with something witty to say about using crayons to mark the ballot, but my creativity seems to be drained today. Keep those liberals on their toes out there in NC Ogre! Keep up the great work you are doing.
Posted by: Jay at July 06, 2005 10:52 AM (2FcUc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 05, 2005
Personality Test
Found over at Basil's Blog (and he found it at Phin's Blog), one Personality Test. Unlike Basil, I apparently scored rather poorly.
According to the test, I am at Very High or High risk of the following "disorders:"
Schizoid,
Schizotypal, and
Narcissistic. However, reading the info pages about them makes me wonder why they are disorders...
The disorder [schizotypal] is characterized by odd forms of thinking and perceiving, and individuals with this disorder often seek isolation from others.
Yes, what's wrong with that? Everyone else just thinks wrong. I am right. No problem there.
Narcissists: They tend to be choosy about picking friends, since they believe that not just anyone is worthy of being their friend. They are generally uninterested in the feelings of others.
And? Perhaps you're NOT worthy. Maybe that's someone else's problem.
Schizoids genuinely prefer to be alone and do not secretly wish for popularity. They tend to seek jobs that require little social contact. They do not show a need for attention or acceptance. They are perceived by others as humorless and distant and often are termed "loners."
Well, that describes all us computer geeks, doesn't it?
Tell me again why these things are considered "disorders?" They seem pretty normal to me...
Posted by: Ogre at
01:00 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Hi. I just wanted to point out that those were MY results to the Pesonality Disorder test...not basil's.
I would think basil and I would score VERY differently.
Big Sis
Posted by: The Big Sister (who's 5'4") at July 05, 2005 02:36 PM (2mrdW)
2
Ouch! Terribly sorry! You should have posted that in big letters at the top of the post or something so I'd know...oh wait, you tried that...
Posted by: Ogre at July 05, 2005 05:07 PM (qV2zb)
3
A personality disorder should interfere with the person's ability to function in the real world, in a variety of situations. For example, someone with a bit of obsessiveness might function well as an accountant, but someone with OCD personality might spend so much time straightening his desk that he would never get any work done, and would quickly piss off potential girlfriends.
Posted by: owlish at July 05, 2005 05:59 PM (fKZxn)
4
If that's the case, I want to inflict some personality disorders on some people in government to get them to stop functioning in their fantasy-land and GET them functioning in the "real world."

Posted by: Ogre at July 05, 2005 06:03 PM (qV2zb)
5
Believe me, there's a big difference between computer geek lonerdom and schizotypal personality disorder.
Posted by: caltechgirl at July 05, 2005 06:35 PM (vb6N5)
6
I'm no expert -- I'll take your word for it, Caltechgirl!
Posted by: Ogre at July 05, 2005 07:01 PM (qV2zb)
7
I will not post my results on my page because I think I might be certifiable and no need to drive away the few readers who are sticking with me...although it does kind of make me question the stability of my readers...hmmm...
Posted by: Jody at July 06, 2005 10:05 PM (uWBw8)
8
Maybe you should force your readers to take the test and only allow certain scores permission to read your page...but then again, that would just reveal some of your results...
Posted by: Ogre at July 07, 2005 05:22 AM (qV2zb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Courts Determine Spending
For those who still need more evidence that the current state of government is nothing at all like what was intended by the creators of that government, I present the North Carolina Court System.
From the
North Carolina Constitution:
Sec. 23. Revenue bills.
No laws shall be enacted to raise money on the credit of the State, or to pledge the faith of the State directly or indirectly for the payment of any debt, or to impose any tax upon the people of the State, or to allow the counties, cities, or towns to do so, unless the bill for the purpose shall have been read three several times in each house of the General Assembly and passed three several readings, which readings shall have been on three different days, and shall have been agreed to by each house respectively, and unless the yeas and nays on the second and third readings of the bill shall have been entered on the journal.
In other words, the General Assembly is the body of government that is to determine
all rules regarding raising and spending all revenue.
From the
North Carolina Supreme Court:
the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld most of a 2003 opinion by the state Court of Appeals and even expanded the list of civil penalties that should benefit public education, dipping into agencies from the Department of Transportation to the University of North Carolina system.
The justices also ruled that penalties for late payments and underpayments by taxpayers to the Department of Revenue should wind up with the schools. Those penalties alone generate an estimated $50 million to $70 million annually
In other words -- the North Carolina Court system will determine how much money will be spent on education.
So the North Carolina Supreme Court freely ignores the Constitution. And there is no one left to enforce it's provisions. Our Constitutional government is clearly and obviously lost.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:57 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
(OT)
Yay! This new layout RAWKS, Ogre. A great improvement over the horizontal blog design. PLEASE stick with it (two thumbs UP). Blog ON, friend.
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at July 05, 2005 01:29 PM (Adprk)
2
ѥѥ ͨ؜¥Ð¥Ã¥° ¼¤°²È˚ݤΥХå°Ñ¥ ¼¤°²
Posted by: sdfsd at February 10, 2011 07:06 AM (vsBvH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 04, 2005
New Layout
Well here it is! The long-awaited (ok, maybe not) new layout and design. What do you think?
If you cannot read anything due to colors and contrast, please let me know right away. It should be very similar in both IE and Firefox, despite a few different tricks in play.
However, it seems that while I was gone, the original Ogre was
stolen, so I had to find a replacement. How's that guy at the top for a replacement?
Also, thank you very much to all who came, read my various ramblings over the past two weeks, and kept at least some life to the blog (especially comments)! I'll be posting more about the vacation over the next week or 5 -- very interesting and quite non-uneventful.
This layout's not quite perfected, I'll be porting over a few other changes, including blogrolls, archive pages and the like over the next couple days. The main page will stay generally like this for now. Let me know what you think in the comments below.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:31 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I love the new design and the ogre, it is a beautifully done site. In some places the fonts could be a little brighter, but that is my taste, they are very readable. Except for the real tiny link a the top of the page, I have no idea what it says.
But those are little things, and I think that it simply awesome, and the content of course is always special. Keep up the good work.
Blessings Always
Gregory Nashif
The Nashif Report
Posted by: Gregory Nashif at July 04, 2005 06:51 PM (hRWw7)
2
Thanks for the very kind comments!
The tiny words at the upper corner (I've upped their size slightly) indicate the site location for those who view the site in a frame.
I wondered about the brightness of the main font -- I really wanted to use some sort of drainpipe, green-goo, sewage background, but there's no color that works with very high contrast. I hoped the black was readable enough, but I'm sure I'll find out if it's not soon!
Posted by: Ogre at July 04, 2005 07:00 PM (lZf6y)
3
Is it just me or is this vertical again? I find it easy to read.
Posted by: VW Bug at July 04, 2005 07:39 PM (zTMeN)
4
Turn your monitor on it's side and you can pretend it's the old way...

Posted by: Ogre at July 04, 2005 07:40 PM (lZf6y)
5
Wow. That's one heck of an underbite you have there! ;-)
I like the new design. Very nice!
New blog showcase goes up within the next 90 min.
Posted by: Boudicca at July 04, 2005 11:49 PM (GiCv7)
Posted by: Oddybobo at July 05, 2005 09:37 AM (6Gm0j)
7
Great design. Strangely disorientating to be vertical again...I feel quite dizzy.
Posted by: Sally at July 05, 2005 09:52 AM (crWt/)
8
Now if I can just get through these 200+ emails that seem to have piled up in my absence...
Posted by: Ogre at July 05, 2005 10:32 AM (/k+l4)
Posted by: Susie at July 05, 2005 12:07 PM (PWYyH)
10
I like it!
And the new Ogre at the top, mmmmmm sexy!
Posted by: Machelle at July 05, 2005 01:15 PM (ZAyoW)
11
Someone kidnapped your guy? Shame Shame .. .like the new look, sure is easier to read .. a little on the dark side, but I can read everything. And then again it could be this stupid monitor here at work :O Oops, work blogging, gotta go!
Posted by: Jo at July 05, 2005 01:28 PM (eY7Ar)
12
Thanks all for the very kind words! Much better response than the last change...
I'm going to stay with this one for at least a month, maybe more. I've got some really neat ideas for the next change, but they're going to be technically complex, so it may take me a couple months to work out. But never fear, it WILL have a high focus on readability (and won't be horizontal...)
Posted by: Ogre at July 05, 2005 01:59 PM (/k+l4)
13
Well, you want honesty, yes? I think the layout is great, just less professional than before. I have an issue with the left sidebar though, it overlaps the link you have for the frames - and it disappears, maybe it's something on my end?
But the contrast is great, and the center "main content" bar sort of resembles the drainpipe image you were talking about wanting...
Posted by: Erin Monahan at July 05, 2005 04:53 PM (0Ea9a)
14
Absolute honesty, yes, thank you Erin!
Less professional? Sure, I can see that. I was going a bit more for fun this time. I think the next one will be pretty darn professional-looking, but it is going to be... different.
The left sidebar disappears? I've not seen that happen in any of my testing. What browser are you using? If it's IE and one of the external links hangs, it may wait for the external link to finish before redrawing the whole side...?
Posted by: Ogre at July 05, 2005 05:17 PM (qV2zb)
Posted by: Sissy at July 05, 2005 06:29 PM (uXS+O)
16
it's there until I try to click on anything, then POOF. I'm sure it's something on my end - maybe my settings or my firewall? I have no idea, I'm not much of a pc specialist. I do use IE... let me play a while, my husband uses Firefox, I'll see how his acts. Probably it's my computer having a blonde moment

Posted by: Erin Monahan at July 05, 2005 11:23 PM (0Ea9a)
17
I like the new design, but...
The green background in the main column doesn't contrast quite enough with the black type.
My suggestion would be to either lighten it up more, or maybe change the font to something larger or bolder.
Posted by: Harvey at July 06, 2005 11:48 AM (ubhj8)
18
I've wondered about that contrast, too, but there's no better color. The background is so...well... "off," that white or yellow blend in even more than black...and bold? Maybe I'll try that for awhile, but I think that looks too "in your face..." I dunno.
Thanks for the feedback!
Posted by: Ogre at July 06, 2005 02:05 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ronald Reagan's 4th
Found via Mrs. Satan(?), What July Fourth Means to Me- By Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: Ogre at
12:22 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
...
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Go
here for the complete document.
I guess what I really wonder is how the colonists really felt that the time. From what they have outlined, they were very oppressed - be we certainly are today. They had trouble with the ruling class not applying laws to themselves - as our legislators do today. They complained about centralized power that overruled their governors -- as the federal government does to states quite often today.
They complained that the King "erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance" -- as the federal government certainly does today. They complained about the King cutting off trade with all parts of the world -- as our federal government does today.
The American Patriots seemed to face an oppressive king that did many things that our federal government does today. But they had the guts and the willingness to give up everything they had, including their lives, to make this land a better place. I wish we had some true American Patriots today.
Posted by: Ogre at
08:00 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I agree with the rest, but how does the government cut off "trade with all parts of the world"? There's some protectionism back and forth, and embargoes of a couple of 'rogue states', but I don't see any total blockades happening now like the Founding Fathers saw back then.
Posted by: hatless in hattiesburg at July 04, 2005 11:23 AM (84Kmn)
2
Indeed, where are today's patriots? Sure aren't from the left side of the aisle... anyway, Happy Birthday USA!!
Posted by: The MaryHunter at July 04, 2005 11:34 AM (zolwV)
3
Total blockades? Well, there's certainly effective blockades with heavy fines and tariffs, but there's also a large number of individual products that various states and countries will not allow to be imported at all.
Posted by: Ogre at July 04, 2005 04:27 PM (lZf6y)
4
Your blog was the first I saw that quoted, linked, and commented on the Declaration of Independence in honor of Independence Day.
I pray that our central and state governements would restore appreciation for our Creator-endowed rights.
Posted by: Eaglet at July 05, 2005 11:12 PM (XDl3V)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 03, 2005
New Neighbor #21
Time again to introduce a new neighbor. This week I present for your approval:
The Dawn Treader
When I first read that, I kept seeing the Dawn TRADER. It doesn't say trader, it says TREADER. In short, this place is:
A site for discussing any and all issues related to worldview, philosophy, ethics, religion, and culture. The title is taken from C.S. Lewis' classic book in the Chronicles of Narnia.
I have read that book, and I do remember that ship and that voyage quite well. Very nice.
The author is a "Husband, father, writer, teacher, and life long learner" who homeschools his 4 children. He says "My favorite blogs are those that promote good thinking and have thoughtful, edifying content. My goal is to make The Dawn Treader such a blog."
Mr. Dawn Treader, I believe you have been a success.
The blog appears to only have been around since January 2005. It's updated daily and has information on all sorts of different topics. He talks about
golf courses,
Nashville,
church, and
plenty more.
So once again on this Sunday afternoon, I ask you to take some time, head on over, and read some news, information, and talk from my neighbor.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:58 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Keep Caroll, from American Housewife, in your prayers. She is mourning the death of her husband.
Posted by: Jay at July 03, 2005 12:28 PM (BKqRl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 02, 2005
Tipping
So, can anyone tell me how much I'm supposed to tip for other things?
I know the 15% rule, and you waitresses, if you're only getting 10%, it's not the customer, it's YOU. Also, if you work at a place where the 15% is already built-in, you're shafting yourself (at least when I come to visit). AND if you're working at a place where tips are pooled, and you like it, odds are you're a slacker.
But I'm wondering about other things. When I get a haircut and it costs $9, is a $1 tip still appropriate? It sure doesn't seem like much. Same with pizza -- is $1 a pizza correct? It seems that I remember when I delivered Pizza that $1 a pie was good, but that was quite awhile ago. Today I'm giving about $1.50 a pie. Do the delivery people think I'm a cheapskate?
How much do you tip for these and any other misc. services?
Posted by: Ogre at
10:00 AM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Thank you for straightening that out there at the beginning about waitress tips (Yup, I'm a waitress, and damn tired of hearing the slack asses gripe about bad tips). Generally, you're right on, on all counts, except for the geriatric crowd, who will generally tip based on a fixed income rather than on quality of service, but who can blame them?
Anyway, I tip 15% everywhere. Hair salon, Pizza delivery guy, all get 15%, more if the 15% ends up being something pitiful, like on a cup of coffee, or a slice of pie. I don't know if that's customary, or if it's because I'm a waitress, but that's my advice.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at July 02, 2005 12:14 PM (0Ea9a)
2
On pizza...I usually do $5. Take into account more than just the cost of the pizza. Take that the person got it to you in a timely manner, and the outrageous prices of gas these days.
On haircuts...I usually tip $3. I usually get a haircut with my son, so it turns out to be $6 total I am tipping, but usually two different people.
Posted by: Jay at July 02, 2005 12:25 PM (BKqRl)
3
Two pet peeves re: tipping --
1. Tip jars at counter service: what "extra service" am I allegedly to be tipping for?
2. Waitpersons who, upon receiving payment for the meal, ask, "Do you need change back?" Whatever I had planned to tip goes down at that point. It strikes me as a lazy way to demand a tip of a certain amount.
Posted by: Mellie Helen at July 02, 2005 03:32 PM (vGpbw)
4
I have the same pet peeves Mellie...the tip jar does bother me and the waiters shouldn't ask or assume. I can't stand either when the waiter brings back change and hands a five instead of all ones...to me that makes me think he is asking for the five dollar bill. I am more inclined to dig in my wallet for four dollars before giving him the extra dollar...
But having said that, I am a fairly generous tipper. I tip 20% for most services and all restarants except if service is bad...then I will only tip 10 - 15%.
Posted by: jody at July 03, 2005 01:05 AM (FawQf)
5
Mellie~
Most waitresses who do that are under boss's orders to do so - it saves time in the long run if you don't need change because they can do the final closeout of that ticket imediately, rather than having to go back into the computer at the end of the night and do it. It's another case of the restaurant owner trying to shave time off his payroll (as if paying the waitresses another 30 minutes hurts much when we actually only make something like $2.50 an hour)
Tip jars piss me off too - why do I need to tip the guy at Starbucks? It's like asking me to tip the cashier at McDonalds.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at July 03, 2005 01:07 AM (0Ea9a)
6
My husband always adheres to the 15% rule when out eating, unless the waitress sucked the big one, then s/he gets ZIP! Also, we don't tip at buffet restaurants. All the guy/gal did was take my drink out and haul it back out. They didn't have to write anything hard down or make sure the cook made the correct thing. Call me cheap, but I see no reason to tip someone for that.
My hairdresser and nail tech get $3 extra no matter they do for me. I asked my nail tech one day if I was being cheap on the tip and she told me straight out "At least YOU tip" and didn't say anymore and I haven't given anymore. I don't know why I went with $3 .. just that's what I do.
Posted by: Jo at July 03, 2005 07:15 AM (+zmkP)
7
In the UK here, there isn't really any hard and fast rules about how much we should tip (generally we don't). As far as waitresses go, there aren't as many about as there are in the USA. (Maybe I don't go to the right places). With regards to delivered take-outs, I generally do not tip unless it is an exceptional service. Take-outs in this country aren't exactly cheap- a 12" pizza will cost about 9-10 GBP on average (roughly $18 depending on the exchange rate) and getting a few of those rarely leaves extra money for a tip.
My hairdresser does a wonderful job on my hair, provides a great cup of coffee (or three) and I can be at the salon for up to 2 hours at a time (yes I'm a guy, but I like to look good). With highlights, my cut comes to £27 (call that $50) and I always hand over £30 and tell her to keep the change (so that's £3 or roughly $5.50) which I think is fair, especially as a lot of people don't even bother to tip.
My personal rule is only ever tip, and tip accordingly, if the person deserves it, not because it is expected.
Posted by: Damien at July 03, 2005 09:09 AM (dWnRl)
8
Damien, you make me glad to be an American.
Posted by: Erin Monahan at July 03, 2005 10:40 AM (0Ea9a)
9
Waitresses & Waiters: I usually give minimum $5 max $10 (unless the meal or number of people is high).
Pizza: $1 or $2
If the waitsperson is bad - I give nothing.
If the pizza deliverer is driving a car nicer than mine - I give nothing.
Posted by: Tuck at July 03, 2005 05:34 PM (6Aq8W)
10
Excellent, thanks for all the comments, folks. Guess I'm a little cheap!
Posted by: Ogre at July 04, 2005 04:26 PM (lZf6y)
11
Ogre, I tend to stay near the 15% mark for dining out. I was recently clued in to the fact that the servers at Sonic are paid on the same scale as servers in "sit down" restaurants, and I would like to apologize now for my not tipping to this point. I don't eat there often, but I will tip from now on.
On the hair cut note, I tend to tip $1 if it's just a cut (although it's a "non issue" now that I'm BALD!), but that should go up if you get, say, a shampoo or something as well.
As for the pizza, I try to guage it based on price, if you have a LARGE order (4 or more pies), try to go for 10%, but typically $1 to $3 is the average, and a lot of people pay by check or credit/debit card now, so either the tip is less than $1 or is an "odd" amount (to bring the total to an even dollar figure).
Anyway, just my 2 cents. BTW - HAPPY 4TH MARINE, God Bless and THANK YOU!
Posted by: Smoke Eater at July 05, 2005 01:29 AM (PWgRI)
12
I always overtip. I usually give 15% for bad service, and upwards of 30% for really good service.
As it turns out, I spend that 30% more often than not. If there is any chance that you will be coming back, they will remember that you tipped big last time. I get waitstaff gossip all the time, because that even happens if I don't get the same server.
Posted by: Phelps at July 05, 2005 12:23 PM (KAQTS)
13
15% for BAD service? I can't do that.
If I'm getting thirsty because my beer has been empty for too long, your tip is gone. If you offer me a new beer before the first one is quite gone, you just added an extra 5% -- every time you do that.

Posted by: Ogre at July 05, 2005 12:50 PM (/k+l4)
14
Wow, I feel like a big spender now. I tip $2 at a buffet, $1 for coffee, $5 to everyone besides waiters (hair, nails, pizza), and about 25% on meals. If the meal is less than $10 I tip $5 minimum.
Posted by: Ashley at July 05, 2005 09:04 PM (g7rdQ)
15
You get a $2.99 breakfast and tip $5? Really?
Posted by: Ogre at July 06, 2005 05:10 AM (qV2zb)
16
At a restaurant I'll tip between 15 and 20% depending on the service. Service has to be awful to get below that. At a buffet, between 10 and 15%.
Remember also, even in America what's reasonable service changes drastically in different geographic regions. I have to downgrade my expectations when I go to Boston.
For a 10-14 $ haircut I usually tip 2$, unless the person was annoying.
Posted by: owlish at July 06, 2005 12:15 PM (fKZxn)
17
I was thinking about that very thing on the way to work today, Owlish. I wondered how much the tip for a haircut might vary by geographic location...
Posted by: Ogre at July 06, 2005 02:07 PM (/k+l4)
18
Then again, I guess that's why it's normally considered to be a percentage -- as the values and prices change, so does the tip.
Posted by: Ogre at July 06, 2005 02:08 PM (/k+l4)
19
I tend to think of it as part of their salary, or maybe a consulting fee? A new haircutting place opened up recently, and was charging 5$ a cut. I would still tip 2$, since the barber was putting in the same effort and time.
I'd be much more likely to tip 20% on a 10$ dinner than on a 100$ dinner.
Posted by: owlish at July 06, 2005 10:15 PM (fKZxn)
20
$5 a cut? I need to visit there. I can't find anyone under $9 here. And yes, I am laughing at those who live in big cities and are now drooling at the $9 charge...
Posted by: Ogre at July 07, 2005 05:25 AM (qV2zb)
21
It was a "we're brand new, and looking for customers" price. It quickly went up to more normal prices.
Posted by: owlish at July 08, 2005 12:34 PM (fKZxn)
22
Hehe. I'm not picky. I've been known to volunteer at barber schools...
Posted by: Ogre at July 08, 2005 12:57 PM (/k+l4)
23
I tip 20% for bad service and 30% on up for excellent service. I always figure if I get bad service maybe the waitress/waiter is just having a bad day. I guess I don't encourage the wait staff to work very hard by tipping good on bad service though. Last week I tipped $30 on a $50 bill. Stupid, I know, but he truly was an excellent bartender. I'm by no means rich & sometimes I tell myself to quit tipping so much because it's really adding up. Until reading some of these comments, I thought the majority of people were like me.
Posted by: shelly at July 25, 2005 05:35 PM (T+xUX)
24
I can certainly understand overtipping for excellent service -- I am guilty of this myself. But for poor service? Indeed, you're messing things up!

I'm trying to teach them that they're giving poor service by giving them less money -- if you give them more, they'll never learn!

Posted by: Ogre at July 25, 2005 06:02 PM (L0IGK)
25
I tip the food delivery people atleast 20% and more depending on how far away I live from the establisment. I don't understand why people would only tip a $1 a pie when they wouldn't tip there waitress based on the number of plates of food they ordered. And consider the fact that delivery drivers have to use there own car most of the time, pay for their on gas and maintanence they should receive more than other workers in the service industry.
Posted by: angel at August 26, 2005 12:33 AM (gqjMI)
26
Interesting comparison. $1 a pie does seem too little -- but nowadays there's a delivery fee from many places -- I wonder if the driver gets any of that....
Posted by: Ogre at August 26, 2005 06:05 AM (L0IGK)
27
I would -- unless you know the cost of a haircut is lower than what you've been charged.
For example, if the salon collects $5 a cut and your hairdresser asks you for a check to him for $10, then the profit is already built in. I'm not sure a tip is appropriate there.
However, it's more likely you don't know what the salon charges, so I'd just add a tip anyway.
Posted by: Ogre at September 21, 2005 02:54 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 01, 2005
Panther?
The Carolina Panthers used to have one of these things hanging around, I'm sure of it:

But these days I can't find any evidence of anything but a silly stuffed mascot thing that hugs people. Only 2 months until football season.
Posted by: Ogre at
02:10 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
What a beautiful animal!
As for the Carolina Panthers, I admire Jake Delhomme. What a winner. I watched him start his first pro game in N.O. (live), and I knew right then he was a helluva QB. I couldn't believe Ditka benched him in favor of Billy Joe Hobert 2 weeks later. I knew within minutes Delhomme was a franchise QB. Look for another good year (playoffs) for Carolina this year.
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at July 02, 2005 12:14 AM (Adprk)
2
Playoffs? I'm not holding my breath.
Of course my favorite team is the Dolphins... sigh.
Posted by: Ogre at July 04, 2005 04:25 PM (lZf6y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Programming Note
Ah, a new month, a new design.
What do you mean, nothing's changed?
Ok, you're right.
The new month has arrived, but the blog layout is just the same as it's been all month long. I am truly sorry for those who absolutely cannot stand this layout. However, for those who aren't regular readers, The Ogre is off on vacation. Yes, this post was written weeks ago!
So the new layout is ready, but although I could find a way to have posts appear magically while I'm gone, I couldn't find a way to automatically change the layout for the new month. Well, that's not entirely true -- I'm sure I COULD find a way to make that happen, but then I wouldn't be around to watch everyone's reaction -- or to make minor repairs to anything that didn't work just right.
I'll tell you the new layout is named the "drainpipe" layout. It's vertical again, I don't think I'll try this horizontal layout -- it is abnormal and violates many design rules. The new layout IS ready, and it will be in place as soon as I return, in the next few days or so. In fact, one way you'll be able to tell I've returned is that the layout will change. It will probably be July 4th or 5th.
And
Boudicca's been helping me make plans for the blog layout change that should show up in August...
Posted by: Ogre at
10:10 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
But I want to see the new layout nooowwwwwwww!
Must have come from seeing all those Willy Wonka adverts.
Posted by: William Teach at July 03, 2005 04:41 PM (HxpPK)
2
I just saw the original once again, and I'm absolutely terrified of the "remake." You can't top Gene Wilder in that role -- no way.
Posted by: Ogre at July 04, 2005 04:25 PM (lZf6y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 30, 2005
The Second Amendment
Finally, in the last of this 6-part series about the second amendment, I will address the "militia" aspect of the 2nd amendment. I have shown that the second amendment is very clearly an individual right, and a non-changeable right that is to be interpreted for the original intent of those who wrote it. However, some people still question the "militia" portion of the second amendment, claiming that only groups like the National Guard may have arms.
So, in colonial times, what did the word "militia" mean. Let's go to the writings of the people at that time.
Richard Henry Lee, signer of the declaration and author of the second amendment:
The militia shall always include, according to the past and general usage of the States, all men capable of bearing arms.
and
A militia are in fact the people themselves...and are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns.
Tench Coxe, Attorney General of PA, Asst. Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington:
The militia are the people at large.
Samuel Adams:
The militia is composed of free citizens.
George Mason, delegate to the Constitutional Convention:
Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.
STILL not enough for you? How about a look at current US law. The United States Code, title 10, section 311(a) states:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 [and] under 45 years of age.
Folks, citizens of the United States have the absolute individual right to bear arms. No legitimate government body, legislative or judicial can take that away under any circumstances. People cannot even grant them the power to do that! This government was very clearly and obviously set up to declare that right is YOURS and it cannot be removed. Ever. Anyone who says different is simply wrong.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:15 PM
| Comments (25)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bravo!! Excellent, excellent stuff!
I just posted something I'd like for you to see. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Jay at June 30, 2005 10:37 PM (BKqRl)
2
I want to get involved here...but your blog is such a fucking mess...
Posted by: Random Personae at July 01, 2005 01:33 AM (LxR+H)
3
Thanks for stopping by, Random (your link to your blog doesn't work) -- hopefully you'll like this layout better!
Posted by: Ogre at July 04, 2005 04:24 PM (lZf6y)
4
So you are saying that only able bodied men 17 to 45 are allowed to own arms? I think you might have some females that disagree with that. I know I do.
Where your arguement has problems is that you are leaving parts of the constitution out. Like the begining of the second amendment states "a well regulated Militia..." Nothing you speak of states anything about regulation of the Militia, even your quotes from framers. Where is the regulation at?
Also Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution goes further into the duties of the Militia and Congress' regulation of them. Especially "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplinging, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as May be employed in the Service of the United States, REservin to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" They obviously had something in mind when talking about the Militia.
Also nowhere in the Constitution does it give you the right to keep and bear FIREarms. It says Arms. Arms can be anything that is a weapon, including polearms, swords and knives. Which where still common weapons at the time this was written. Do I interpret it to mean that no, but since SCOTUS made the decision that arms are not necessarily FIREarms now you have that to argue.
Now, I am a gun owning American. I support the 2nd Ammendment, so don't think that I'm trying to argue that we should not have them. But I also am waiting for my Congressional training and arming.
Sorry for the long comment.
Posted by: Contagion at July 05, 2005 03:04 PM (Q5WxB)
5
The law clearly states that you CANNOT take the firearms away from the males. I am NOT going to be the one who tries to take them from the females as well...
Regulated, as used in common parlayance of the time (and today):
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
In other words, well-regulated meant able to shoot in this case.
And sure, knives and polearms also fit into this category.
As for the Congressional training, I think you'll have to take that up with your state...

Posted by: Ogre at July 05, 2005 05:15 PM (qV2zb)
6
The law says absolutely nothing about Firearms. That is part of the interpretation process, I agree with it, but it clearly never mentions FIREarms. But that is argueing semantics.
I like how you ommited the common first definition of Regulate: 1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning . Now being a historical re-enactor and amature historian of the French and Indian and Revolutionary war periods I happen to have replica manuals and manuscripts from that time. Just for shit and giggles I looked how they used the term regulate. Definition 1 made the most sense, especially 1A. Plus the other definitions really don't fit in with Artical 1 Section 8 and they way it talks about the Militia.
As for the training, the state can do it, but congress is supposed to pay for it and arm me.
Posted by: Contagion at July 05, 2005 05:44 PM (977gQ)
7
You're not really serious, are you? Are you honestly saying that because the words "well-regulated" appear that suddenly all other data and facts that clearly show this was intended to be an individual right that the government has the ability to pass laws restricting that right that the amendment was designed to protect?
Posted by: Ogre at July 05, 2005 06:02 PM (qV2zb)
8
No, what I'm saying is that you have failed, in my eyes, to support your case that the government does not have the right to limit the type of arms that the American citizens can or can not have. What other Data and Facts have you listed? None. Unfortunately letters and speeches given by the framers of the constitution do not make law. Plus YOU don't really want to go that route. It is a slippery slope that if you use for this arguement you can't shoot down when people bring up the Seperation of Church and state.
Again, I believe in my right to have firearms. I stand by that right. I'm just trying to help you better argue the point because I've argued this with many people that have done a much better job defending it then you have.
And yes, the term well-regulated is there for a reason. There was a specific reason they added that phrase. Again you team that with Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, the orriginaly document. You can't argue the amendments with out knowing the whole document. NO ONE gets to chose which words in the Constitution they get to ignore. If they wanted the american public to have carte blance access to weapons *I* believe they would have worded it, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's it, no more... but they intentionally and specifically put in "A well-regulated Militia..." For what reason would they have done that?
I mean you've already admitted that based on the wording they could limit only able-bodied MEN 17 to 45 to owning weapons.
Posted by: Contagion at July 06, 2005 08:55 AM (Q5WxB)
9
Really? Did you read all six parts of this?
No, the letters of the founders may not make law, but they ARE supposed to be considered. The way laws are supposed to be interpreted is that the intent of the people who actually passed the law is supposed to be paramount. It is only a recent invention that laws are only to be interpreted to only be exactly what is written. To get the intent, one needs to read what was written by those who passed the laws.
As for the well-regulated militia, they wanted to be sure that the people could defend themselves against tyrannical government. Well-regulated, as I have learned, is to be well-trained in the usage of those arms so that people will always be physically capable of making that defense when needed.
Posted by: Ogre at July 06, 2005 01:57 PM (/k+l4)
10
I read all six parts of this, in fact I'm surprised you haven't noticed I'm using some of your own "facts" against you. Go back and read your own quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding the interpretation of the Constitution, "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeeze out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." IE I'm reading this as, "We wrote what we meant. Interpret it based on the politics, emotions and language of the time."
Okay, That's easy enough. Again I re-enact I spend the weekends living in that world and talking history of that time period. I feel I have a farely good grasp on what they where going through both mentally and emotionally at that time.
So tell me, with out ommitting any part of the Constitution exactly what you feel they meant by the second ammendment?
Posted by: Contagion at July 06, 2005 02:28 PM (Q5WxB)
11
They meant indeed, what they said -- that the people should be armed. With the amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," they simply outline part of the purposes -- in order to maintain freedom, people, citizens, need to be armed and capable of using those arms.
Posted by: Ogre at July 06, 2005 03:11 PM (/k+l4)
12
"They simply outline part of the purposes.."
Excellent, I like that. One of the better arguements for why that is there. I agree that is part of why that is there. Even though we brushed past it quickly. Arms, especially at that time, also refered to artillary. I believe that if you couple that with Article 1, section 8 it was put in there to prevent everyday citizens from having "arms" that they felt was outside the scope of civilian use. I will admit that I could be wrong on that, but it makes sense from the readings and historical studies I've done. At the time that the Constitution was written, they couldn't even imagine the type of firepower and weapons that we have today, but they knew that advances where being made in weapons technology, albeit much slower at that time.
I support the right to own firearms, but I don't know anyone that should own a full automatic M-60.
Posted by: Contagion at July 07, 2005 09:00 AM (Q5WxB)
13
I haven't really tried to read the minds of those people, but if you try and imagine their situation -- being harrassed by British troops and laws -- I'm betting that they did want all citizens to have access to ANY sort of weapon of that time. Heck, the worst they had were cannons, and they really weren't all that good.
But certainly, they couldn't imagine things like MAC-10s and Tommy Guns -- I just think that at the time there really weren't ANY arms that were truly outside civilian use. So what if I have a cannon in my yard? How much damage could I really DO with it (as compare to a tactical nuke)?
Posted by: Ogre at July 07, 2005 09:57 AM (/k+l4)
14
Actually the artillary they had back then was pretty nasty. It didn't have the range or punch that our modern artillary does, but it was still pretty damn effective. They could fill them with solid shot that could continue through entire lines of men, or for closer fire use Grape shot which was a lot of 1/2 inch to 2 inch lead balls shoved down the barrel turning them into giant shot guns that would take out whole lines of men. Their mortars could launch exploding rounds over fortifications and terrain exploding over the troops sending sharpnel tearing through them and the buildings. It's pretty nasty stuff.
I own a 1/2 scale portable Mortar. I can shoot a cement filled pop can a 1/2 mile with it. Ever see what a cement filled pop can does to anything it hits? It's not pretty, and those aren't the exploding rounds that were meant to be shot out of the full sized ones.
At this time the regulating body of the Militia has not decided that "primitive" artillary is illegal to own... but they have decided that fully automatic weapons, grenade and rocket launchers and as well as missles are illegal arms.
And I don't want you having a tactical nuke either.
Posted by: Contagion at July 07, 2005 11:51 AM (Q5WxB)
15
Very interesting.
I imagine a lead ball would be good against rows of troops, but I guess that's why guerrilla tactics worked so well against them. I never heard of exploding rounds being used effectively during that time, neat!
I guess I just pictured that artillery of the time, in the hands of a private individual, would be generally useless. I picture a fellow in a standoff with police aiming his cannon at the police car: "I'll shoot, I will!" ... and then the quick scramble as he tries to reload....
And does that mean I have to disassemble my tactical nuke now? The Russians did give me a great deal on it...
Posted by: Ogre at July 07, 2005 01:42 PM (/k+l4)
16
Sometimes one shot is all it takes.
And yes, yes you do have to dismantel the Tactical Nuke.
Posted by: Contagion at July 07, 2005 07:32 PM (977gQ)
17
I do? Damn it. I'll be right back...
Posted by: Ogre at July 07, 2005 07:54 PM (qV2zb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Are YOU Going to Hawaii?
So, are any of you, my good readers, going to Hawaii this year? Anyone on the East Coast headed out that way? Have any of you ever priced a trip to Hawaii? Sure would be nice to go, wouldn't it? How about if you didn't have to pay a dime to go and spend time there, vacationing? You, too, can go, all expenses paid -- just get elected.
This year the (utterly useless)
National Association of Counties, is having it's "annual meeting" in
Honolulu, Hawaii from July 15-19. Are your county officials going? Mecklenburg County has some participants -- the same people who have "cut the budget to the bone," of course.
Now let's see, government is supposed to only do things the people say, and government should only be limited to doing as little as possible. Why in the world would any county "official" need to spend thousands of dollars of money that's NOT THEIRS to vacation in Hawaii? Because they can.
This is the sort of reason that government is too big. This is the type of thing that absolutely is NOT needed. THIS is the type of thing that you will go to jail unless you support it (with tax dollars). What I don't understand is why no one cares.
Maybe I should try it one time. I'll get out one of my guns and walk up to every house in a neighborhood and demand they give me some money to pay for my vacation to Hawaii. Would you be mad if I did that to you? Then why aren't you mad at the elected officials of the county WHO ARE DOING THAT TO YOU RIGHT NOW?
Posted by: Ogre at
05:15 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
June 29, 2005
The Second Amendment
Over the past week, I've been outlining the very clear and obvious right to bear arms that the citizens of the United States own, despite any attempts by courts or legislators of this country. Today, even more quotes from the people who tried to design a system of law and government so that the right would not be taken by the government.
Zechariah Johnston, Revolutionary Soldier, Virginia Legislator, Ratified of the Constitution:
The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. This is a principle which secures religious liberty most firmly.
Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, framer of the second amendment:
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
James Madison:
The advantage of being armed is an advantage which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. In the several Kingdoms of Europe...the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
George Madison, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, "Father of the Bill of Rights:"
Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great-Britain, the British parliament was advised...to disarm the people. That is was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually.
Thomas Paine, Patriot and author:
I am thusfar a Quaker [a pacifist]: I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms and settle matters by negotiation; but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank Heaven He has put it in my power.
Noah Webster, Revolutionary Soldier, Legislator, Author of portions of the Constitution:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed - as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed.
Once again showing that there is no possible way that the authors of the United States Constitution had any hints that the right to bear arms was anything other than an individual right. Anyone who claims that the right to bear arms is limited to the police and militia is utterly clueless to history, or is intentionally attempting to advance their own agenda for whatever reason.
If that's not enough, there's even more coming tomorrow!
Posted by: Ogre at
05:00 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Keep it comin', man. The Truth is hard to dispute!
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at June 30, 2005 12:10 AM (Adprk)
2
The only problem I have with your arguement is that the 2nd amendment specifically states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessay to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That is what the law is based upon. When we get into personal letters and writings we do have the issue that it is not the Constitution. Since the framers of the Constitution specifically put the word Militia in the amendment they must have had a reason to do so.
I don't know if the definition of Militia changed, but it was defined back in the 20th century as any male over the age of 18 and under the age of 45 or any female serving in the national guard or reserves. Personally I feel the Militia is any able bodied adult.
Then again I'm also one of the guys who are waiting, per Artical 1, section 8 of the Constitution and a member of the militia, for my arming and training.
Posted by: Contagion at June 30, 2005 08:52 AM (Q5WxB)
3
That is a REAL problem, Contagion. It indicates a bit of a comprehension challenge. The 2nd Amendment, like the 1st, doesn't "live and breathe". If you want the "righties" to respect our OTHER civil liberties, you must pull your head out of your BUTT and respect the 2nd Amendment. It is what it IS, friend.
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at July 04, 2005 02:36 AM (Adprk)
4
Did I answer all your questions about that one in the next day's post?
Posted by: Ogre at July 04, 2005 04:23 PM (lZf6y)
5
headlines loan companies contribute 30 atest headlines The same shares for rival China fashion both nations with ancient.
Posted by: atest headlines at March 12, 2011 12:31 AM (L2c1T)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Real ID Act
I know that some people have a real problem with the RealID Act. I'm not convinced...yet. Are we at this point yet?

I don't think we are.
This guy outlines a quite long and convincing case for the "right to travel." (Long but very interesting read). I'm not so sure we have that right.
Some of the points about a national ID card are indeed very valid. Of most concern is the idea that if a 19-year old can get fake ID to get beer, do you really think a well-financed terrorist will have any problem with it?
The Real ID Act doesn't create anything that gives the government anything they don't already have. But it also does absolutely zero to prevent terrorism or anything regarding law breakers. It will make getting a real driver's license in North Carolina a little tougher for illegal immigrants, but that's all.
Is it a step down the wrong road? Sure. Is it really harmful? Not really.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:15 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Thanx, Ogre. That was a good read. Lots of good info, but I wonder if the writer had seen this, concerning the RFID chip that will be placed into the national ID cards:
http://news.com.com/Federal+report+warns+of+RFID+misuses/2100-7342_3-5723535.html
I find this alarming.
And THIS, was the absolute best rebuttal I've ever heard to the 'if you have nothing to hide..' argument:
"Still, some Americans think that 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. Were the Founding Fathers criminals trying to protect themselves when they inserted the 4th and 5th amendments into the Bill of Rights? After all, nobody who hasn't done anything wrong needs to worry about being searched or being forced to testify against himself."
Thanks again, and thank you for sharing a great read and a very interesting point of view. Also, thank you for the link. I take it as nothing shy of a great compliment every time YOU do that, because I know when you do; agree or disagree, you are respecting my point of view on the subject.
Blog ON, friend :-)
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at June 30, 2005 12:06 AM (Adprk)
2
Indeed, I've seen things that show how bad RFID can be. The law doesn't specifically state they must use RFID, just some sort of electronic id -- they could use stored fingerprints if they wanted to.
Then biggest thing, at least to me, is that the government already has all this information at the tip of their fingers -- we're not giving them anything they don't have. You wouldn't believe how many times I refuse to give my SSN to people who don't need it (medical, electric bill, etc), who say, "Fine," then quote it back to me 2 minutes later!
Posted by: Ogre at July 04, 2005 04:22 PM (lZf6y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"Land for Tomorrow"
I saw a block of text from this news article and a chill ran up my back:
The coalition -- Land for Tomorrow -- has already succeeded in attracting the support of Republicans and Democrats in the N.C. General Assembly
Any time you see "coalition," and "support of Republicans and Democrats," in the same sentence, be afraid -- and grab what's left of your wallet, because you can bet they're reaching for it.
Reading further in the article, I was correct, as feared. This "visionary" group of "conservationists" want to ask taxpayers to approve "$1 billion in bonds" to "conserve the state's land, water, history and future."
I didn't even want to read the rest of the article as my stomach turned, rather violently, when I tried to interpret that statement. First, because someone wants to steal my money at gunpoint (taxes), they are "visionary." When you see "conservationists," I see "anti-freedom, soviet-style housing proponents." Where you see "bonds," I see "massive tax increases."
So that statement that seems so innocent, when read correctly, becomes:
"A group of terrorists who strongly oppose any freedom of choice and who want to relocate all subjects of North Carolina into small, stacked, soviet-style housing in large urban areas only want to take yet more money from those who actually work for it to purchase things they like but cannot afford because they DON'T work." Scared yet?
Hey idiots, if you want to buy land for conservation, BUY IT YOUR DAMN SELVES! I love conservation. Heck, I'd even support this massive project with my own money -- IF IT WAS VOLUNTARY! Why can't you people understand freedom? Why do these "conservation" groups HATE freedom SO much?
Posted by: Ogre at
05:15 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
As we drove through NC we noticed the beautiful flowers in the medians. I take it you payed for those too. I'm with you on this. Taking your money without your say so...and they don't understand why no one trusts politicians?
Posted by: Jay at June 29, 2005 10:38 AM (2FcUc)
2
You cannot imagine how much we actually paid for all those damn flowers...and the signs to tell people NOT to pick them...and the enforcement of the signs posted that told people not to pick them... WAAAAAAY beyond anything government was ever intended to do.
Posted by: Ogre at July 04, 2005 04:20 PM (lZf6y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 28, 2005
Second Amendment: Why?
Last week I outlined proof that the United States Constitution is NOT a "living document," and that the rights in the Constitution were to be interpreted as they were written, for their original intent, and that those rights are not granted by government, but only there to be protected from government. Today I'd like to continue with a few thoughts of the founders and authors of the documents that created this great country.
Samuel Adams, signer of the Declaration, "Father of the American Revolution:"
The said Constitution should be never construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
Fisher Ames, an author of the second amendment:
The right of bearing arms is declared to be inherent in the people.
Patrick Henry, Governor, Patriot Leader, author of one of my favorite quotes ("Give me Liberty or Give me Death."):
The great object is that every man be armed. Every one who is able may have a gun.
Patrick Henry, Governor, Patriot Leader:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
Thomas Jefferson:
No citizen shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands.
As can very clearly and obviously be seen here, the founders of this country and the early framers of the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, said that every citizen who desires arms should have them. There is no possible interpretation of any of these great men that would even suggest that government has any right or ability to limit that right to bear arms.
Still not enough? There's more tomorrow!
Posted by: Ogre at
01:15 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's always been enough for ME. VERY clear in the fact that gun ownership was definitely something our Founding Fathers intended we, the People to have the right to own. As you can guess... I disagree with many of my fellow Libs on this one.
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at June 28, 2005 02:23 PM (Adprk)
2
Excellent job on this post! I agree with every single word! I'm back from vacation and ready to roll. I've got a petition for you to sign when you get a chance.
Posted by: Jay at June 28, 2005 08:11 PM (BKqRl)
3
I don't quote Patrick Henry enough. I love that guy!
Posted by: Old Whig at June 29, 2005 02:32 AM (14Fiu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Freedom to Serve Act
A bill has been introduced in the North Carolina House, and you will likely find it rather hard to believe it's even needed. The bill is HB1545, titled "The Freedom To Serve Act." The meat of the text of the bill reads as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any officer of either house of the General Assembly, or any party caucus officer or whip in either house of the General Assembly, to coerce, dictate, or otherwise force a member of either house of the General Assembly to vote for or against any legislative measure in exchange for a promise of funding of projects or promises of other items. Such legislative action is against the public policy of North Carolina because it prevents members from serving their constituents or fulfilling the duties and responsibilities of their office.
Can you even imagine that such a law would be required? The first portion of the bill outlines the need for it:
Whereas, an unhealthy precedence has been set in previous sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly resulting in publicly elected representatives being denied equal access to resources to serve the people of North Carolina; and
This is real. The North Carolina House of Representatives is being run by a thug who determines who does what, when, and where. Jim Black, Democrat, does things like remove access to phones, reassign legislators to smaller rooms, and removes office budgets for those who dare disagree with him.
This act is needed, but the idea that it is needed is much worse. Voting Democrats in North Carolina, this guy is on your side. When you vote Democrat, you are voting for a tyrant who rules the state with an iron fist.
Posted by: Ogre at
05:15 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You said it all there, we have become so corrupt that common sense and honesty has to be made into law.
They need to take this to the highest levels. Lobbyists are the some of the biggest white collar criminals in this country other than Congress itself. It is sickening and should be dealt with harshly.
Posted by: Tomslick at June 28, 2005 08:39 AM (+gGlM)
2
What's even sadder is the fact that this legislation needs to be passed on Capitol Hill, too. I'd like to see the pork-barrell crap outlawed too, while we're at it. Welcome back from your vacation, btw.
Posted by: Gun-Toting Liberal at June 28, 2005 01:10 PM (Adprk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 27, 2005
Carnival, carnival!
It's Monday, and time once again for some excellent carnival of blogs entertainment. If you're not familiar with a blog carnival, it's simply a single topic, idea, or some unifying thing that a number of different people on different blogs post about. Then someone creates a carnival, placing links to all the posts about that topic or idea in one place. So you can read in one place a number of different takes and ideas on one subject.
My two personal favorite weekly carnivals are the
Tarheel Tavern -- a carnival of North Carolina bloggers, this week appearing at
It's a Pixelated Life...; and the
New Blog Showcase Carnival, this week appearing at
One Happy Dog Speaks.
Both are lots of fun and interesting, so head on over and read what's going on there. Meanwhile, I'll continue with my plans, today probably heading towards the coast of Maine...
Posted by: Ogre at
01:15 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Tax or Fee?
If you listen carefully to various politicians (NOT statesmen), you will hear them claim that they haven't raised taxes, only fees. Now I'm all for user fees to obtain money for services, but only if the fee is actually used to support that service. In reality, in North Carolina, nearly all "user fees" go to the general fund where it is spent -- as quickly as possible -- on anything that Jim Black desires.
Some recent "fee" increases (that take $162.7 million from working individuals to the general fund to be redistributed to non-working individuals):
Driver license record copies: up 60%
Automobile driver's license: up 31%
Truckers driver's license: up 26-38%
Automobile title fee (imagine that, a fee to prove you own property): +$35-40.
Registration fee (nothing to do with anything but state income): +$10-15.
In 1976 the entire North Carolina budget was less than $2 billion.
In 2004, the budget was $15.9 billion.
2005: $16.9 billion.
2006 (minimum estimated): $17.5 billion.
2007 (minimum estimated): $18.2 billion.
So, in 20 years, the North Carolina State budget, not including cities and counties, increased by 875%. That's what you get when Democrats are in charge. During that entire time, Democrats were running the General Assembly.
If you're voting Democrat in North Carolina, is this what you really want?
Posted by: Ogre at
05:15 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You are right on Ogre and I bet that wages in the same period have not kept up! I know minimum wage hasn't. ( By the way if a minimum wage is such a good idea lets make it $100000. That way we ca pay $50000 for a loaf of bread.)
Posted by: davidholtz at June 27, 2005 01:24 PM (jR4ef)
2
Same in Va. and the idiot governor now wants to be a Senator or the President. People who vote for him get what they deserve. Another hand in their pocket, and it won't be a sexual advance.
Posted by: scrapiron at June 27, 2005 11:28 PM (ywZa8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 26, 2005
New Neighbor #20
Time again for the lovely weekly Sunday afternoon feature: The New Neighbor. Once again I present to you a blog I've found during the week from the Evangelical Blogroll. I have to admit that many times the appearance of the blog, the first glance, gets me to reading it or turns me off quickly. This week's neighbor made me want it to be good, just because of the appearance of the blog.
Tulip Girl
A clean, fast-loading, elegant blog that follows all the web design rules (except for the lack of llamas) and is easy on the eyes. And yes, there are tulips. Despite being around since December of 0000 -- yes, that's what the Archives show -- but there aren't any actual entries for December of year zero -- TulipGirl has this to say about herself in the "
About Me" section:
TulipGirl is currently what she would like to reveal about herself and what she would rather withhold. This section will contain some real information soon!
I don't know about you, but I'm watching that closely to see what "SOON" means...
The
first real entry appears on January 1, 2004. I guess that was some New Year's Resolution, huh? The site appears to be updated pretty much daily with all sorts of different things. There's posts about
free giveaways,
music,
relationships, and
reading.
So enjoy your day of rest today (and if you have to work today, I hope you reserve another day for a day of rest), and head on over and read a new blog -- introduce yourself to a new person. Relax and have some fun.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:57 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
<< Page 160 >>
Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0975 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0732 seconds, 127 records returned.
Page size 99 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.