I see that the charming Anna Nicole and her "confidante" (or lawyer) have tied the knot. And the joker that was previously named as the father of her child is still claiming paternity, even after Howie Stern took the glory. Someone in the great inter-sphere pointed out the other day that apparently in the Bahamas, if a man admits paternity after a child is born, he's assumed to be the father. Convenient, huh? So now the other joker is out in the cold regardless of the truth. Howie gets the credit, the girl, and the baby. Oh, and whatever money she ever gets from her last husband.
Wonder if that little law had anything to do with the move to the beautiful tropics? My guess would be that Howie isn't actually the father. He just found out about the law, and once he and Anna started he-ing and she-ing, they decided to move there. Just to get the real dad out of the legal picture.
What a sleazeball.
Later.
Friday, September 29, 2006
A question about global warming
I don't believe in global warming. Rather, I don't believe that it's our fault. Are temperatures rising? Possibly. Is it just nature doing it's thing? Probably.
There is one big question that I've always had about the whole thing. Temperatures, we're told, are increasing, and (if I recall the factoids correctly) 20 of the 30 warmest years on record are in the past 30 or so years. Probably my facts are not precisely correct, but since the facts used by the Al Gores of the world are in the same boat, screw it. Unlike their arguments, it's not relevant to what I am saying.
So here's the thing. If temperatures now are so much warmer than ever before in recorded history, then riddle me this, Batman: Why isn't there agriculture on Greenland? The Vikings had it. No, they weren't growing rice, tobacco, corn or any of that. But they were able to grow hay and possibly some other basic crops. That's one of the things that allowed their settlement to survive. Now, as far as I can tell, there's nothing growing there. Even with our advanced agricultural knowledge.
Doesn't that seem a little backwards? Shouldn't we be growing things that they couldn't? But if the whole place is covered in ice, then having threshers, tractors, and all that won't matter. Even winter wheat doesn't grow in a foot of ice.
So that right there should shoot the whole global warming thing in the knee, right? If it can be "proven" that temperatures in Greenland were warmer in say, 1000 A.D. than in 2000, then clearly global temperatures aren't the fault of George Bush. NOr, and I hope any Loonies are sitting down for this one, Reagan.
Well, we have records from the Vikings telling us that they had agriculture on Greenland. That would seem to clinch it. They weren't Loonies, wtih something to prove. They were just keeping records of things like births, deaths, and crops. Useful things.
Case closed? It would seem that this presents a hell of an obstacle at least. My guess is that this is why our Loony friends never discuss Greenland and the Vikings. Try it some time. You can hear the proverbial crickets chirping if you ask about it.
Here's another little point. The Vikings (I guess I should say "Scandinavians", in the interest of semantics) were pretty literal people, when it came to names. Norway would seem to be an abbreviation of "North Way". Finland translates as "Land of the Finns". (Guess who lives there? Why Finns!). Russia originally was "Russ-land". Guess who lives there? The "Russ" or.... Russians. Wow. Clever, huh? Care to take a stab at what they found in Iceland? What did Leif Eriksson name the place he discovered in North America? "Vinland". Rumor says it had to do with all the grape vines he found. No focus groups testing to see what name presented a better image to sailors or settlers. Nope, he called it as he saw it. And by the way, Greenland was discovered by Leif's father. Care to guess what Dad's name was? (Clue above). And the old boy was called Erik the Red. Hmmmm. Suppose he had black hair?
So here's the point: if they named things as they saw them, then why call an oversized iceberg "Greenland"? Was it the old "bait and switch"? Were they trying to get folks to move there rather than the yet-undiscovered Vinland? No, I think they called it that because... well, the land was kinda greenish when Erik spotted it. Like maybe covered in, oh I don't know, plants or something.
Try this fun little trick on your Loony friends. Ask how the Vikings had agriculture on Greenland when, even after 50 years of global warming, we still can't grow anything there. And ask why they called it "Greenland" rather than Snowland". Bet the answer leaves a little something to be desired.
Later.
There is one big question that I've always had about the whole thing. Temperatures, we're told, are increasing, and (if I recall the factoids correctly) 20 of the 30 warmest years on record are in the past 30 or so years. Probably my facts are not precisely correct, but since the facts used by the Al Gores of the world are in the same boat, screw it. Unlike their arguments, it's not relevant to what I am saying.
So here's the thing. If temperatures now are so much warmer than ever before in recorded history, then riddle me this, Batman: Why isn't there agriculture on Greenland? The Vikings had it. No, they weren't growing rice, tobacco, corn or any of that. But they were able to grow hay and possibly some other basic crops. That's one of the things that allowed their settlement to survive. Now, as far as I can tell, there's nothing growing there. Even with our advanced agricultural knowledge.
Doesn't that seem a little backwards? Shouldn't we be growing things that they couldn't? But if the whole place is covered in ice, then having threshers, tractors, and all that won't matter. Even winter wheat doesn't grow in a foot of ice.
So that right there should shoot the whole global warming thing in the knee, right? If it can be "proven" that temperatures in Greenland were warmer in say, 1000 A.D. than in 2000, then clearly global temperatures aren't the fault of George Bush. NOr, and I hope any Loonies are sitting down for this one, Reagan.
Well, we have records from the Vikings telling us that they had agriculture on Greenland. That would seem to clinch it. They weren't Loonies, wtih something to prove. They were just keeping records of things like births, deaths, and crops. Useful things.
Case closed? It would seem that this presents a hell of an obstacle at least. My guess is that this is why our Loony friends never discuss Greenland and the Vikings. Try it some time. You can hear the proverbial crickets chirping if you ask about it.
Here's another little point. The Vikings (I guess I should say "Scandinavians", in the interest of semantics) were pretty literal people, when it came to names. Norway would seem to be an abbreviation of "North Way". Finland translates as "Land of the Finns". (Guess who lives there? Why Finns!). Russia originally was "Russ-land". Guess who lives there? The "Russ" or.... Russians. Wow. Clever, huh? Care to take a stab at what they found in Iceland? What did Leif Eriksson name the place he discovered in North America? "Vinland". Rumor says it had to do with all the grape vines he found. No focus groups testing to see what name presented a better image to sailors or settlers. Nope, he called it as he saw it. And by the way, Greenland was discovered by Leif's father. Care to guess what Dad's name was? (Clue above). And the old boy was called Erik the Red. Hmmmm. Suppose he had black hair?
So here's the point: if they named things as they saw them, then why call an oversized iceberg "Greenland"? Was it the old "bait and switch"? Were they trying to get folks to move there rather than the yet-undiscovered Vinland? No, I think they called it that because... well, the land was kinda greenish when Erik spotted it. Like maybe covered in, oh I don't know, plants or something.
Try this fun little trick on your Loony friends. Ask how the Vikings had agriculture on Greenland when, even after 50 years of global warming, we still can't grow anything there. And ask why they called it "Greenland" rather than Snowland". Bet the answer leaves a little something to be desired.
Later.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Ethics for Dummies
This morning when I first sat down at the ol' computer, one of the first things I saw was the big news that Howard K. Stern (the lawyer) revealed that he's the father of Anna Nicole Smith's new baby.
Leave aside for the moment that this is huge news, bigger than, like, Pearl Harbor, September 11th, or the fact that Clinton did not have sex with that woman. I don't care all that much. I think that when she's down to her "fighting weight" ANS is fairly hot- at least from the neck down. Also leave aside that she, along with Jenny McCarthy, is a charter member of the "Way hotter when they kept their clothes off and their mouths shut" club. This latest news bugs me.
I'm not a lawyer. Don't have much interest in becoming one either. But I'm thinking that at some point in the 3 years of law school-probably 8:10 a.m. on the first day- the professor mentions something along the lines of "Oh, and by the way. Don't sleep with your clients. It comes across as slightly unethical."
I'm also guessing it comes up again at least one more time before graduation. And maybe even on the licensing test....(I know there's a real term for the test, but damned if I can think of it)?
So at what point did he decide to screw the ethics and the client both? Is this guy even a decent lawyer? I don't know anything about him, but I'm guessing his fame comes from A) Anna Nicole Smith and B) Being named Howard Stern.
(Sorry. I mean Howard K. Stern. Sorry for mixing up slime-balls.)
All of which makes me wonder if their move to The Bahamas is everything it's claimed to be. Privacy? For ANS? This woman is only slightly more bashful than Paris Whoreton. I'm not making a big theory of this, but if I were a lawyer (especially one fighting an ex-stripper on behalf of her ex step-son), and I heard even a whisper that the lawyer on the other side was banging his client, you can bet that I'd mention it to someone from the Ethics Board.
So what's the deal now? Will anyone else come to this conclusion? Does anyone out there care? Do I care enough to mention them ever again? Not really.
Unless of course it turns out that I'm right. Then I'll crow at the top of my lungs.
Cuz that's the kinda guy I am.
Later.
Leave aside for the moment that this is huge news, bigger than, like, Pearl Harbor, September 11th, or the fact that Clinton did not have sex with that woman. I don't care all that much. I think that when she's down to her "fighting weight" ANS is fairly hot- at least from the neck down. Also leave aside that she, along with Jenny McCarthy, is a charter member of the "Way hotter when they kept their clothes off and their mouths shut" club. This latest news bugs me.
I'm not a lawyer. Don't have much interest in becoming one either. But I'm thinking that at some point in the 3 years of law school-probably 8:10 a.m. on the first day- the professor mentions something along the lines of "Oh, and by the way. Don't sleep with your clients. It comes across as slightly unethical."
I'm also guessing it comes up again at least one more time before graduation. And maybe even on the licensing test....(I know there's a real term for the test, but damned if I can think of it)?
So at what point did he decide to screw the ethics and the client both? Is this guy even a decent lawyer? I don't know anything about him, but I'm guessing his fame comes from A) Anna Nicole Smith and B) Being named Howard Stern.
(Sorry. I mean Howard K. Stern. Sorry for mixing up slime-balls.)
All of which makes me wonder if their move to The Bahamas is everything it's claimed to be. Privacy? For ANS? This woman is only slightly more bashful than Paris Whoreton. I'm not making a big theory of this, but if I were a lawyer (especially one fighting an ex-stripper on behalf of her ex step-son), and I heard even a whisper that the lawyer on the other side was banging his client, you can bet that I'd mention it to someone from the Ethics Board.
So what's the deal now? Will anyone else come to this conclusion? Does anyone out there care? Do I care enough to mention them ever again? Not really.
Unless of course it turns out that I'm right. Then I'll crow at the top of my lungs.
Cuz that's the kinda guy I am.
Later.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Shame, Shame, Shame
I've just been reading where our old friend, Pete Rose (aka Charlie Hustle- is that a fitting name, or what?) has been at it again. This time, he's hawking autographed balls that say "Sorry I bet on baseball". They're even personalized! How awesome!
Oh, but wait. He apparently only signed 300 of them, and never thought they'd be sold. Yeah right. I suppose he thinks everyone in the world is stupid, except him. What hubris.
So this got me thinking about an old topic. What is the right way to deal with people who are so slimy and contemptible that it staggers the mind? People like, oh say, the Clintons? Those who think, "well some people might think this is wrong, but what do they know? I like it, so I'll just do it. Nobody will care."
I have a theory. One that I came up with years ago, just for the above-mentioned family of crap-balls. There should be an amendment to the Constitution just to allow us to deal with them. And it should say something to the effect of "Given that some people are so slimy and so worthy of contempt from every reasonable human being, it is therefore permitted for ordinary people, when passing them on the street, to bitch-slap them senseless. Further, since the above mentioned punishment is too precise, let it be understood that bitch-slapping is only a suggestion. Kicking them in their deformed little willys is also allowed, and any other form of abuse the average citizen wishes to subject them to."
Just a nice little reminder to these crap-balls that there are some things too despicable for society.
And here's a little thought about it: How many of the Looney Leftists would take this opportunity if it were offered to them? I bet more leftists that conservatives. After all, they favor violence against police, attacking politically incorrect people and speech, and advocate arson against businesses that they think are harmful to the environment.
Not terribly likely, I concede. But a boy can dream, no?
Oh, but wait. He apparently only signed 300 of them, and never thought they'd be sold. Yeah right. I suppose he thinks everyone in the world is stupid, except him. What hubris.
So this got me thinking about an old topic. What is the right way to deal with people who are so slimy and contemptible that it staggers the mind? People like, oh say, the Clintons? Those who think, "well some people might think this is wrong, but what do they know? I like it, so I'll just do it. Nobody will care."
I have a theory. One that I came up with years ago, just for the above-mentioned family of crap-balls. There should be an amendment to the Constitution just to allow us to deal with them. And it should say something to the effect of "Given that some people are so slimy and so worthy of contempt from every reasonable human being, it is therefore permitted for ordinary people, when passing them on the street, to bitch-slap them senseless. Further, since the above mentioned punishment is too precise, let it be understood that bitch-slapping is only a suggestion. Kicking them in their deformed little willys is also allowed, and any other form of abuse the average citizen wishes to subject them to."
Just a nice little reminder to these crap-balls that there are some things too despicable for society.
And here's a little thought about it: How many of the Looney Leftists would take this opportunity if it were offered to them? I bet more leftists that conservatives. After all, they favor violence against police, attacking politically incorrect people and speech, and advocate arson against businesses that they think are harmful to the environment.
Not terribly likely, I concede. But a boy can dream, no?
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Gas Pains?
Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that we were cautioned about the imminent climb of gas prices? I remember hearing about the problems with a pipeline in Alaska, and hearing rumors of skyrocketing prices. I made sure to stop and top off my tank, at $3.12 a gallon, in the hopes of saving a few bucks. Within a couple days, the price had gone down a few cents. As of today, it's as low as $2.17 around here, with the average being a few cents more. What the hell happened? Now they talk about it possibly going below 2 bucks. Not complaining, but wow.
The big issue that comes to mind though, is the lack of complaint from the Loony Left. Not necessarily about lower prices (though that could be an issue with these clowns, since low price=higher consumption. Another example of why I hate liberals- but I digress).
Think about it: there's an election in just over 6 weeks, and the Loonies haven't (to my knowledge) said Word One about Bush manipulating prices for the election. I mean, we all know that Bush controls everything, and especially oil prices (after all, he does everything to help his oil baron friends, right?), so why aren't our Loony friends accusing him of this already? Maybe they're just waiting for the election to get closer, so that Bush will have less time to respond- think of the infamous DUI leak in.... crap, I can't recall which of his (stolen) elections that one came up in.
Anyhow, I guess in the next few weeks, if the price of gas keeps dropping, the Loonies will come out, and launch into yet another conspiracy theory of how the Stupidest Man in History is controlling everything, while putting up a front of incompetence and corruption.
And most likely, The Unenlightened People That Don't Understand will then go out and vote for the conservatives again, thus throwing the MSM into fits of rage.
I can't wait!
The big issue that comes to mind though, is the lack of complaint from the Loony Left. Not necessarily about lower prices (though that could be an issue with these clowns, since low price=higher consumption. Another example of why I hate liberals- but I digress).
Think about it: there's an election in just over 6 weeks, and the Loonies haven't (to my knowledge) said Word One about Bush manipulating prices for the election. I mean, we all know that Bush controls everything, and especially oil prices (after all, he does everything to help his oil baron friends, right?), so why aren't our Loony friends accusing him of this already? Maybe they're just waiting for the election to get closer, so that Bush will have less time to respond- think of the infamous DUI leak in.... crap, I can't recall which of his (stolen) elections that one came up in.
Anyhow, I guess in the next few weeks, if the price of gas keeps dropping, the Loonies will come out, and launch into yet another conspiracy theory of how the Stupidest Man in History is controlling everything, while putting up a front of incompetence and corruption.
And most likely, The Unenlightened People That Don't Understand will then go out and vote for the conservatives again, thus throwing the MSM into fits of rage.
I can't wait!
Monday, September 11, 2006
Islam: The ultimate Cult
I just read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer. Fascinating read. A couple thoughts came to my mind as I read. The first is that Islam is, unlike every other "great" religion I know of, a very sensual (or sensuous) system. Christianity, for instance, paints a picture of the Afterlife as being completely spiritual: at most, it promises the chance to hear unending harp music. Buddhism views life after death as being either rebirth or, if you achieve Enlightenment, an end to desire and all earthly struggles.
Islam, on the other hand, makes Paradise a completely materialistic place. Unending fountains of water, milk, honey, and wine flow. Now some have pointed out that to a desert-dweller, that is Paradise. Fair enough, I guess. But according to the Koran, if you get there the correct way (i.e. killing infidels), then you also get a harem of virginal women (if Spencer has it correct, you can "opt out" of this part, and get a bunch of handsome young men instead. In the words of a famous Jew, "not that there's anything wrong with that".) This is a concept that's a little tougher to handle. Not very spiritual, but very materialistic. And this is the centerpiece of a religion- "Kill your neighbors and get all the women you want"? Sorry, but while I don't adhere to any religion, I don't buy this tenet.
The other problem is that Mohammed sometimes seems to receive revelations from Allah that are awfully convenient for him. For instance, he might announce in one spot that he received a "thou shalt not" law regarding a certain matter. Fair enough. But then at a later date, he might suddenly inform his followers of a new revelation- one which reinforces the first, but also makes a noticeable exception- for the Prophet himself. And only for the Prophet. Great way to lead your people, huh? This is expressly forbidden by God, except for me. So bring me your daughter so I can take advantage of this new Perk, which was just given to me.
Also, I think it's convenient for Mohammed to start it all off by announcing that there won't be anyone to ever come along and contradict him. Again, I invoke the "That's awfully convenient" clause. Not only does it make him (literally) the Last Word, but it has the other effect of ensuring that Islam will never rise out of it's medieval dogma.
So once upon a time, a new religion was born. A charismatic leader comes out, and builds upon the writings of his predecessors, but adds new twists. These new twists promise his followers earthly riches, and eternal pleasure. But they have to give blind and complete obedience to a leader that is not bound by the same rules, and who they are expected to share their Goods with. All I can say is that Jim Bakker and Jim Jones had the wrong "role model". Christianity was the wrong venue for them. Had they built their churches on an Islamic foundation, they'd likely still be in business. Unless of course they were killed by a peaceful, tolerant Muslim.
Not that there's any chance of that happening, right?
Islam, on the other hand, makes Paradise a completely materialistic place. Unending fountains of water, milk, honey, and wine flow. Now some have pointed out that to a desert-dweller, that is Paradise. Fair enough, I guess. But according to the Koran, if you get there the correct way (i.e. killing infidels), then you also get a harem of virginal women (if Spencer has it correct, you can "opt out" of this part, and get a bunch of handsome young men instead. In the words of a famous Jew, "not that there's anything wrong with that".) This is a concept that's a little tougher to handle. Not very spiritual, but very materialistic. And this is the centerpiece of a religion- "Kill your neighbors and get all the women you want"? Sorry, but while I don't adhere to any religion, I don't buy this tenet.
The other problem is that Mohammed sometimes seems to receive revelations from Allah that are awfully convenient for him. For instance, he might announce in one spot that he received a "thou shalt not" law regarding a certain matter. Fair enough. But then at a later date, he might suddenly inform his followers of a new revelation- one which reinforces the first, but also makes a noticeable exception- for the Prophet himself. And only for the Prophet. Great way to lead your people, huh? This is expressly forbidden by God, except for me. So bring me your daughter so I can take advantage of this new Perk, which was just given to me.
Also, I think it's convenient for Mohammed to start it all off by announcing that there won't be anyone to ever come along and contradict him. Again, I invoke the "That's awfully convenient" clause. Not only does it make him (literally) the Last Word, but it has the other effect of ensuring that Islam will never rise out of it's medieval dogma.
So once upon a time, a new religion was born. A charismatic leader comes out, and builds upon the writings of his predecessors, but adds new twists. These new twists promise his followers earthly riches, and eternal pleasure. But they have to give blind and complete obedience to a leader that is not bound by the same rules, and who they are expected to share their Goods with. All I can say is that Jim Bakker and Jim Jones had the wrong "role model". Christianity was the wrong venue for them. Had they built their churches on an Islamic foundation, they'd likely still be in business. Unless of course they were killed by a peaceful, tolerant Muslim.
Not that there's any chance of that happening, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)